Final Project Reflection

For my Final Project, I basically combined two essays into one massive anti-Birketts rant. I took excerpts from one of the first essays we wrote, along with some basic arguments that we talked about in the very beginning of the semester which I had forgotten about by now. I put these excepts into Project 4, our most recent submission. Also – I made a conscious effort to take into account the comments that you made along with my grade from that project. You hinted that I sort of lost a counter argument, so I tried to add one in as best as I could, while also adding in a few more specific quotes, as my last paper actually lacked them all together which was definitely a costly mistake.

Original Essay

The Webster Dictionary vaguely defines the word, “literature” as, “writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features.” In a more targeted, and by my taste, close-minded definition, Birketts would most likely offer a definition entailing words on a page, or some sort of venue akin to papyrus, bound together into a single book. According to Birketts, one should view these words alone, so as to fully intake the glory that is the act of reading; and so as to not interact with another living sou. If one were to point Birketts to an article on a website for example, he would by no means classify those words as legitimate forms of literature, but frankly, he would be making a terrible mistake in doing so. Specifically, the essay, “Is Google Making us Stupid?” is innately a piece of literature, both by Webster’s definition in that it offers ideas of interest, and also by my own standards.

Although Birketts would disagree with me here, the act of reading was never intended to be done privately. Take hieroglyphics for example, one of the earliest forms of writing possible –  these symbols conveyed messages which were meant to aid communication when it was not able to be verbally spoken. This example offers some of the earliest proof that reading and writing were, from their point of creation, intended to be a social event. This is the exact point of my initial argument of why this online article is absolutely, 100% legitimate.

This article was written by a journalist, who’s job is to convey the news, touch on topics in current events, and basically convey information to the general public. This article, does just that — it provides people with information to be shared with people. It is here where Birketts may run into some problems with his own argument. Does the fact that this article was written with the intent to be read, shared, and discussed among the masses make it illegitimate? Because he would probably say yes to this, the same thing can then be said about books; aren’t they intended to be read, shared and discussed among numerous people? The answer is a resounding yes – making Birketts’ first argument disappointingly hollow.

Birketts also finds a quarrel with the general location of said text. The fact that these words are located on an electronic screen suddenly sends his vantage point into a tail spin of chaos. To Birketts, as soon as words appear on a screen – something he vehemently condemns throughout his book – they become drastically different, and can by no means be considered as pieces of literature anymore. Again, I find him hugely at fault here, and unreasonably close minded. If anything, the fact that they are on a screen, and on the World Wide Web, make them almost twice as legitimate as they would be if they were located in a book. Allow me to break this down into my sometimes hard to follow logic:

By my standards, reading is indeed something which should be thought provoking and should stir emotions. Because of standards like that, it should also be something which becomes social as people share their ideas, their reactions and their feelings about whatever it is that they have just read. An article about a controversial topic to begin with will be thought provoking by nature, but when it is displayed on an  online venue, it is offered up as a topic of discussion to whomever my stumble across those words. From there, they can then join their fellow readers in discussion and post a comment on the article, or if they’re feeling really ambitious that day, they can blog about it by means of some other online site. This chain of events – reading something, mentally marinating over it and digesting it, and then turning around and joining discussion on it, is what reading to me is all about. That is exactly what the author is generally trying to accomplish. He or she is intending to start conversation with their words. That’s how they know that they have done a good job in their work.

Also, because an online article such as this one has things like hyperlinks embedded within the text, it offers dozens of different avenues to continue reading as the reader may choose to “keep clicking through.” Birketts would argue that this is a form of “vertical reading” in the sense that all of the words on the page are not being fully appreciated or read for that matter, therefore the work is relatively illegitimate. To him, books are superior because they do not offer avenues for such audacious crimes to be committed, as the reader must continue on horizontally instead of bouncing from page to page and topic to topic. In my mind, Birketts’ condemnation of “vertical reading” is asinine.

If anything, it is better to be able to read “vertically” because you can cover a huge range of topics, and learn dozens of new things about all sorts of areas, rather than being constricted to simply the words on the pages of a book. The ability to “click through” pages makes an online article such as this one not only more interesting, but more thought provoking and more educational (if used properly) because the reader can view so many different pages within such a short amount of time and with minimal effort.

Overall, a web based article is without a doubt a proper, and legitimate form of literature. It fits Webster’s definition, and the standards which I laid out based on my views. It is thought provoking, can involve numerous people to partake in, and can provide insight on numerous different topics. So what if Birketts gets cold feet as soon as words that could just as easily be printed in a news paper appear on a screen instead? The bottom line is that this article possesses every quality necessary to facilitate it into the realm of legitimate literature.

Campbell McNicol

English 101 – Assignment 4

Not a cousin of the papyrus leaf?

A crisis for Birketts, but fine by me.

The Webster Dictionary vaguely defines the word, “literature” as, “writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features.” In a more targeted, and by my taste, close-minded definition, Birketts would most likely offer a definition entailing words on a page, or some sort of venue akin to papyrus, bound together into a single book. According to Birketts, literature is not only an endangered commodity, but is also something which should be enjoyed entirely in private. According to him, one should view these words alone, so as to fully intake the glory that is the act of reading; and so as to not interact with another living soul. If one were to point Birketts to an article on a website for example, he would by no means classify those words as legitimate forms of literature, but frankly, he would be making a terrible mistake in doing so. Specifically, the essay, “Is Google Making us Stupid?” is innately a piece of literature, both by Webster’s definition in that it offers ideas of interest, and also by my own standards and by the standards of the Webster Dictionary.

Throughout this essay, I will break down Birketts’ entire argument towards literature, and undermine his reasoning that reading is a private activity. In place of his close minded and weak arguments, I will replace them with my own points of view and an overall better sense of what it means to actively read something according to someone from today’s generation. I bring up this point because I find it to be one of the most blatant weak points in Birketts’ definition of writing and of literature. When it comes down to it, the world, and the words within it, and the venues which they are displayed on have changed and evolved – something which Birketts has failed to do.

Although Birketts would disagree with me here, the act of reading was never intended to be done privately. Take hieroglyphics for example, one of the earliest forms of writing possible –  these symbols conveyed messages which were meant to aid communication when it was not able to be verbally spoken. This example offers some of the earliest proof that reading and writing were, from their point of creation, intended to be a social event. The idea of a social approach to reading can even be found today within academia, as was not so much the case when Birketts was going through school. Throughout my education, English classes were almost entirely conversational, in which students were encouraged to speak up, brainstorm together and to bounce ideas off of one another.  Several months ago, I begged a friend of mine to read One flew  over the Cuckoo’s Nest about a week after I had in a last – ditch effort to figure out what on earth was going on with Kesey’s constant reference to the “fog” among other vague statements which seemed to fly over my head. Luckily for me, my friend agreed to read it, and I bombarded him with questions after he did so. He and I spent a long time talking about that book and eventually, we felt as though we were able to figure out most of our questions. My experience with this book was defined by the fact that I had someone else to read it with me. Being able to toss out ideas and bounce theories off of each other made all of the difference and entirely enhanced my feelings towards the book itself. Through this, the actual act of reading is improved significantly.  This is the exact point of my initial argument of why an online article is absolutely, 100% legitimate, even though Birketts would condemn it with no signs of mercy.

This article, “Is Google Making us Stupid?” was written by a journalist, who’s job is to convey the news, touch on topics in current events, and basically convey information to the general public. This article, does just that — it provides people with information to be shared with people. It is here where Birketts may run into some problems with his own argument. Does the fact that this article was written with the intent to be read, shared, and discussed among the masses make it illegitimate? Because he would probably say yes to this, the same thing can then be said about books; aren’t they intended to be read, shared and discussed among numerous people? The answer is a resounding yes – making Birketts’ first argument disappointingly hollow.

Birketts also finds a quarrel with the general location of said text. The fact that these words are located on an electronic screen suddenly sends his vantage point into a tail spin of chaos. To Birketts, as soon as words appear on a screen – something he vehemently condemns throughout his book – they become drastically different, and can by no means be considered as pieces of literature anymore. Again, I find him hugely at fault here, and unreasonably close minded. If anything, the fact that they are on a screen, and on the World Wide Web, make them almost twice as legitimate as they would be if they were located in a book. Allow me to break this down into my sometimes hard to follow logic:

By my standards, reading is indeed something which should be thought provoking and should stir emotions. Because of standards like that, it should also be something which becomes social as people share their ideas, their reactions and their feelings about whatever it is that they have just read. An article about a controversial topic to begin with will be thought provoking by nature, but when it is displayed on an  online venue, it is offered up as a topic of discussion to whomever my stumble across those words. From there, they can then join their fellow readers in discussion and post a comment on the article, or if they’re feeling really ambitious that day, they can blog about it by means of some other online site. This chain of events – reading something, mentally marinating over it and digesting it, and then turning around and joining discussion on it, is what reading to me is all about. That is exactly what the author is generally trying to accomplish. He or she is intending to start conversation with their words. That’s how they know that they have done a good job in their work.

It is also at this point where I see the generation gap between me and Birketts playing a key role. I’ve grown up in the age of technology, a time when all of the information I could ever care to access is literally at my fingertips through the internet. Because I have been exposed to this as a basic, bear necessity fact of life, I am comfortable with and appreciative towards the availability of text. Birketts on the other hand, has sensed the overall communal switch to online word processing. He even goes so far as to say, “A change is upon us — nothing could be clearer.” (118.) Unfortunately, he has not only apparently taken offense to it, but has also  turned his back on it without giving technology a chance to grow on him, and without making an effort to open his eyes to all that it has made possible. Because reading and writing are so seemingly sacred to Birketts, he should be happy that things like blogs and web based articles exist, as they are always there, always accessible, and being used by everyone. It is a shame that feels so intruded upon by the internet, and by machines in general, as when it comes down it, all they have done, at the absolute worst, is made those texts which Birketts holds so dear to his heart even more accessible and readily available to him.

In my opinion, one of the biggest holes within Birketts crusade against machines can be found within his argument of what he calls “vertical reading.” Birketts says, “Print also posits a time axis; the turning of pages, not to mention the vertical descent down the page, is a forward – moving succession, with earlier contents at every point serving as ground for what follows. Moreover, the printed material is static – it is the reader, not the book, that moves forward.” (122.) First of all, things like hyperlinks which are embedded within a text, bring, in my mind, his concept of vertical reading to an all new level. As Birketts would like, the reader is very active when devouring some type of online text. Take the article for example. As the reader moves down the page (the same way they would when reading a book) they can choose to read further and into different topics through those hyperlinks. This makes the process of reading ultimately a never ending process should the reader choose to just keep “clicking through” those webpages.

Birketts would undoubtedly take stabs at my redefining of his term, whining that the reader is not fully intaking the text if he or she keeps “clicking through” a score of pages, but that is exactly where my point of positivity lies. If anything, it is better to be able to read “vertically” by my definition because you can cover a huge range of topics, and learn dozens of new things about all sorts of areas, rather than being constricted to simply the words on the pages of a book. The ability to “click through” pages makes an online article such as this one not only more interesting, but more thought provoking and more educational (if used properly) because the reader can view so many different pages within such a short amount of time and with minimal effort.

Overall, a web based article is without a doubt a proper, and legitimate form of literature, as is almost anything with some sort of context and some point of message, no matter where it happens to be located. Specifically though, for the purpose of my more narrow attack of Birketts‘  definition of reading, an online article fits Webster’s definition, and the standards which I laid out based on my views. It is thought provoking, can involve numerous people to partake in, and can provide insight on numerous different topics the way that a simple book cannot do. So what if Birketts gets cold feet as soon as words that could just as easily be printed in a news paper appear on a screen instead? The bottom line is that an article possesses every quality necessary to facilitate it into the realm of legitimate literature.

Final Project

Not a cousin of the papyrus leaf?

A crisis for Birketts, but fine by me.

The Webster Dictionary vaguely defines the word, “literature” as, “writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features.” In a more targeted, and by my taste, close-minded definition, Birketts would most likely offer a definition entailing words on a page, or some sort of venue akin to papyrus, bound together into a single book. According to Birketts, literature is not only an endangered commodity, but is also something which should be enjoyed entirely in private. According to him, one should view these words alone, so as to fully intake the glory that is the act of reading; and so as to not interact with another living soul. If one were to point Birketts to an article on a website for example, he would by no means classify those words as legitimate forms of literature, but frankly, he would be making a terrible mistake in doing so. Specifically, the essay, “Is Google Making us Stupid?” is innately a piece of literature, both by Webster’s definition in that it offers ideas of interest, and also by my own standards and by the standards of the Webster Dictionary.

Throughout this essay, I will break down Birketts’ entire argument towards literature, and undermine his reasoning that reading is a private activity. In place of his close minded and weak arguments, I will replace them with my own points of view and an overall better sense of what it means to actively read something according to someone from today’s generation. I bring up this point because I find it to be one of the most blatant weak points in Birketts’ definition of writing and of literature. When it comes down to it, the world, and the words within it, and the venues which they are displayed on have changed and evolved – something which Birketts has failed to do.

Although Birketts would disagree with me here, the act of reading was never intended to be done privately. Take hieroglyphics for example, one of the earliest forms of writing possible –  these symbols conveyed messages which were meant to aid communication when it was not able to be verbally spoken. This example offers some of the earliest proof that reading and writing were, from their point of creation, intended to be a social event. The idea of a social approach to reading can even be found today within academia, as was not so much the case when Birketts was going through school. Throughout my education, English classes were almost entirely conversational, in which students were encouraged to speak up, brainstorm together and to bounce ideas off of one another.  Several months ago, I begged a friend of mine to read One flew  over the Cuckoo’s Nest about a week after I had in a last – ditch effort to figure out what on earth was going on with Kesey’s constant reference to the “fog” among other vague statements which seemed to fly over my head. Luckily for me, my friend agreed to read it, and I bombarded him with questions after he did so. He and I spent a long time talking about that book and eventually, we felt as though we were able to figure out most of our questions. My experience with this book was defined by the fact that I had someone else to read it with me. Being able to toss out ideas and bounce theories off of each other made all of the difference and entirely enhanced my feelings towards the book itself. Through this, the actual act of reading is improved significantly.  This is the exact point of my initial argument of why an online article is absolutely, 100% legitimate, even though Birketts would condemn it with no signs of mercy.

This article, “Is Google Making us Stupid?” was written by a journalist, who’s job is to convey the news, touch on topics in current events, and basically convey information to the general public. This article, does just that — it provides people with information to be shared with people. It is here where Birketts may run into some problems with his own argument. Does the fact that this article was written with the intent to be read, shared, and discussed among the masses make it illegitimate? Because he would probably say yes to this, the same thing can then be said about books; aren’t they intended to be read, shared and discussed among numerous people? The answer is a resounding yes – making Birketts’ first argument disappointingly hollow.

Birketts also finds a quarrel with the general location of said text. The fact that these words are located on an electronic screen suddenly sends his vantage point into a tail spin of chaos. To Birketts, as soon as words appear on a screen – something he vehemently condemns throughout his book – they become drastically different, and can by no means be considered as pieces of literature anymore. Again, I find him hugely at fault here, and unreasonably close minded. If anything, the fact that they are on a screen, and on the World Wide Web, make them almost twice as legitimate as they would be if they were located in a book. Allow me to break this down into my sometimes hard to follow logic:

By my standards, reading is indeed something which should be thought provoking and should stir emotions. Because of standards like that, it should also be something which becomes social as people share their ideas, their reactions and their feelings about whatever it is that they have just read. An article about a controversial topic to begin with will be thought provoking by nature, but when it is displayed on an  online venue, it is offered up as a topic of discussion to whomever my stumble across those words. From there, they can then join their fellow readers in discussion and post a comment on the article, or if they’re feeling really ambitious that day, they can blog about it by means of some other online site. This chain of events – reading something, mentally marinating over it and digesting it, and then turning around and joining discussion on it, is what reading to me is all about. That is exactly what the author is generally trying to accomplish. He or she is intending to start conversation with their words. That’s how they know that they have done a good job in their work.

It is also at this point where I see the generation gap between me and Birketts playing a key role. I’ve grown up in the age of technology, a time when all of the information I could ever care to access is literally at my fingertips through the internet. Because I have been exposed to this as a basic, bear necessity fact of life, I am comfortable with and appreciative towards the availability of text. Birketts on the other hand, has sensed the overall communal switch to online word processing. He even goes so far as to say, “A change is upon us — nothing could be clearer.” (118.) Unfortunately, he has not only apparently taken offense to it, but has also  turned his back on it without giving technology a chance to grow on him, and without making an effort to open his eyes to all that it has made possible. Because reading and writing are so seemingly sacred to Birketts, he should be happy that things like blogs and web based articles exist, as they are always there, always accessible, and being used by everyone. It is a shame that feels so intruded upon by the internet, and by machines in general, as when it comes down it, all they have done, at the absolute worst, is made those texts which Birketts holds so dear to his heart even more accessible and readily available to him.

In my opinion, one of the biggest holes within Birketts crusade against machines can be found within his argument of what he calls “vertical reading.” Birketts says, “Print also posits a time axis; the turning of pages, not to mention the vertical descent down the page, is a forward – moving succession, with earlier contents at every point serving as ground for what follows. Moreover, the printed material is static – it is the reader, not the book, that moves forward.” (122.) First of all, things like hyperlinks which are embedded within a text, bring, in my mind, his concept of vertical reading to an all new level. As Birketts would like, the reader is very active when devouring some type of online text. Take the article for example. As the reader moves down the page (the same way they would when reading a book) they can choose to read further and into different topics through those hyperlinks. This makes the process of reading ultimately a never ending process should the reader choose to just keep “clicking through” those webpages.

Birketts would undoubtedly take stabs at my redefining of his term, whining that the reader is not fully intaking the text if he or she keeps “clicking through” a score of pages, but that is exactly where my point of positivity lies. If anything, it is better to be able to read “vertically” by my definition because you can cover a huge range of topics, and learn dozens of new things about all sorts of areas, rather than being constricted to simply the words on the pages of a book. The ability to “click through” pages makes an online article such as this one not only more interesting, but more thought provoking and more educational (if used properly) because the reader can view so many different pages within such a short amount of time and with minimal effort.

Overall, a web based article is without a doubt a proper, and legitimate form of literature, as is almost anything with some sort of context and some point of message, no matter where it happens to be located. Specifically though, for the purpose of my more narrow attack of Birketts‘  definition of reading, an online article fits Webster’s definition, and the standards which I laid out based on my views. It is thought provoking, can involve numerous people to partake in, and can provide insight on numerous different topics the way that a simple book cannot do. So what if Birketts gets cold feet as soon as words that could just as easily be printed in a news paper appear on a screen instead? The bottom line is that an article possesses every quality necessary to facilitate it into the realm of legitimate literature.

Final Project

Not a cousin of the papyrus leaf?

A crisis for Birketts, but fine by me.

The Webster Dictionary vaguely defines the word, “literature” as, “writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features.” In a more targeted, and by my taste, close-minded definition, Birketts would most likely offer a definition entailing words on a page, or some sort of venue akin to papyrus, bound together into a single book. According to Birketts, literature is not only an endangered commodity, but is also something which should be enjoyed entirely in private. According to him, one should view these words alone, so as to fully intake the glory that is the act of reading; and so as to not interact with another living soul. If one were to point Birketts to an article on a website for example, he would by no means classify those words as legitimate forms of literature, but frankly, he would be making a terrible mistake in doing so. Specifically, the essay, “Is Google Making us Stupid?” is innately a piece of literature, both by Webster’s definition in that it offers ideas of interest, and also by my own standards and by the standards of the Webster Dictionary.

Throughout this essay, I will break down Birketts’ entire argument towards literature, and undermine his reasoning that reading is a private activity. In place of his close minded and weak arguments, I will replace them with my own points of view and an overall better sense of what it means to actively read something according to someone from today’s generation. I bring up this point because I find it to be one of the most blatant weak points in Birketts’ definition of writing and of literature. When it comes down to it, the world, and the words within it, and the venues which they are displayed on have changed and evolved – something which Birketts has failed to do.

Although Birketts would disagree with me here, the act of reading was never intended to be done privately. Take hieroglyphics for example, one of the earliest forms of writing possible –  these symbols conveyed messages which were meant to aid communication when it was not able to be verbally spoken. This example offers some of the earliest proof that reading and writing were, from their point of creation, intended to be a social event. The idea of a social approach to reading can even be found today within academia, as was not so much the case when Birketts was going through school. Throughout my education, English classes were almost entirely conversational, in which students were encouraged to speak up, brainstorm together and to bounce ideas off of one another.  Several months ago, I begged a friend of mine to read One flew  over the Cuckoo’s Nest about a week after I had in a last – ditch effort to figure out what on earth was going on with Kesey’s constant reference to the “fog” among other vague statements which seemed to fly over my head. Luckily for me, my friend agreed to read it, and I bombarded him with questions after he did so. He and I spent a long time talking about that book and eventually, we felt as though we were able to figure out most of our questions. My experience with this book was defined by the fact that I had someone else to read it with me. Being able to toss out ideas and bounce theories off of each other made all of the difference and entirely enhanced my feelings towards the book itself. Through this, the actual act of reading is improved significantly.  This is the exact point of my initial argument of why an online article is absolutely, 100% legitimate, even though Birketts would condemn it with no signs of mercy.

This article, “Is Google Making us Stupid?” was written by a journalist, who’s job is to convey the news, touch on topics in current events, and basically convey information to the general public. This article, does just that — it provides people with information to be shared with people. It is here where Birketts may run into some problems with his own argument. Does the fact that this article was written with the intent to be read, shared, and discussed among the masses make it illegitimate? Because he would probably say yes to this, the same thing can then be said about books; aren’t they intended to be read, shared and discussed among numerous people? The answer is a resounding yes – making Birketts’ first argument disappointingly hollow.

Birketts also finds a quarrel with the general location of said text. The fact that these words are located on an electronic screen suddenly sends his vantage point into a tail spin of chaos. To Birketts, as soon as words appear on a screen – something he vehemently condemns throughout his book – they become drastically different, and can by no means be considered as pieces of literature anymore. Again, I find him hugely at fault here, and unreasonably close minded. If anything, the fact that they are on a screen, and on the World Wide Web, make them almost twice as legitimate as they would be if they were located in a book. Allow me to break this down into my sometimes hard to follow logic:

By my standards, reading is indeed something which should be thought provoking and should stir emotions. Because of standards like that, it should also be something which becomes social as people share their ideas, their reactions and their feelings about whatever it is that they have just read. An article about a controversial topic to begin with will be thought provoking by nature, but when it is displayed on an  online venue, it is offered up as a topic of discussion to whomever my stumble across those words. From there, they can then join their fellow readers in discussion and post a comment on the article, or if they’re feeling really ambitious that day, they can blog about it by means of some other online site. This chain of events – reading something, mentally marinating over it and digesting it, and then turning around and joining discussion on it, is what reading to me is all about. That is exactly what the author is generally trying to accomplish. He or she is intending to start conversation with their words. That’s how they know that they have done a good job in their work.

It is also at this point where I see the generation gap between me and Birketts playing a key role. I’ve grown up in the age of technology, a time when all of the information I could ever care to access is literally at my fingertips through the internet. Because I have been exposed to this as a basic, bear necessity fact of life, I am comfortable with and appreciative towards the availability of text. Birketts on the other hand, has sensed the overall communal switch to online word processing. He even goes so far as to say, “A change is upon us — nothing could be clearer.” (118.) Unfortunately, he has not only apparently taken offense to it, but has also  turned his back on it without giving technology a chance to grow on him, and without making an effort to open his eyes to all that it has made possible. Because reading and writing are so seemingly sacred to Birketts, he should be happy that things like blogs and web based articles exist, as they are always there, always accessible, and being used by everyone. It is a shame that feels so intruded upon by the internet, and by machines in general, as when it comes down it, all they have done, at the absolute worst, is made those texts which Birketts holds so dear to his heart even more accessible and readily available to him.

In my opinion, one of the biggest holes within Birketts crusade against machines can be found within his argument of what he calls “vertical reading.” Birketts says, “Print also posits a time axis; the turning of pages, not to mention the vertical descent down the page, is a forward – moving succession, with earlier contents at every point serving as ground for what follows. Moreover, the printed material is static – it is the reader, not the book, that moves forward.” (122.) First of all, things like hyperlinks which are embedded within a text, bring, in my mind, his concept of vertical reading to an all new level. As Birketts would like, the reader is very active when devouring some type of online text. Take the article for example. As the reader moves down the page (the same way they would when reading a book) they can choose to read further and into different topics through those hyperlinks. This makes the process of reading ultimately a never ending process should the reader choose to just keep “clicking through” those webpages.

Birketts would undoubtedly take stabs at my redefining of his term, whining that the reader is not fully intaking the text if he or she keeps “clicking through” a score of pages, but that is exactly where my point of positivity lies. If anything, it is better to be able to read “vertically” by my definition because you can cover a huge range of topics, and learn dozens of new things about all sorts of areas, rather than being constricted to simply the words on the pages of a book. The ability to “click through” pages makes an online article such as this one not only more interesting, but more thought provoking and more educational (if used properly) because the reader can view so many different pages within such a short amount of time and with minimal effort.

Overall, a web based article is without a doubt a proper, and legitimate form of literature, as is almost anything with some sort of context and some point of message, no matter where it happens to be located. Specifically though, for the purpose of my more narrow attack of Birketts‘  definition of reading, an online article fits Webster’s definition, and the standards which I laid out based on my views. It is thought provoking, can involve numerous people to partake in, and can provide insight on numerous different topics the way that a simple book cannot do. So what if Birketts gets cold feet as soon as words that could just as easily be printed in a news paper appear on a screen instead? The bottom line is that an article possesses every quality necessary to facilitate it into the realm of legitimate literature.

Not a Cousin of the Papyrus Leaf? No Problem.

The Webster Dictionary vaguely defines the word, “literature” as, “writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features.” In a more targeted, and by my taste, close-minded definition, Birketts would most likely offer a definition entailing words on a page, or some sort of venue akin to papyrus, bound together into a single book. According to Birketts, one should view these words alone, so as to fully intake the glory that is the act of reading; and so as to not interact with another living sou. If one were to point Birketts to an article on a website for example, he would by no means classify those words as legitimate forms of literature, but frankly, he would be making a terrible mistake in doing so. Specifically, the essay, “Is Google Making us Stupid?” is innately a piece of literature, both by Webster’s definition in that it offers ideas of interest, and also by my own standards.

Although Birketts would disagree with me here, the act of reading was never intended to be done privately. Take hieroglyphics for example, one of the earliest forms of writing possible –  these symbols conveyed messages which were meant to aid communication when it was not able to be verbally spoken. This example offers some of the earliest proof that reading and writing were, from their point of creation, intended to be a social event. This is the exact point of my initial argument of why this online article is absolutely, 100% legitimate.

This article was written by a journalist, who’s job is to convey the news, touch on topics in current events, and basically convey information to the general public. This article, does just that — it provides people with information to be shared with people. It is here where Birketts may run into some problems with his own argument. Does the fact that this article was written with the intent to be read, shared, and discussed among the masses make it illegitimate? Because he would probably say yes to this, the same thing can then be said about books; aren’t they intended to be read, shared and discussed among numerous people? The answer is a resounding yes – making Birketts’ first argument disappointingly hollow.

Birketts also finds a quarrel with the general location of said text. The fact that these words are located on an electronic screen suddenly sends his vantage point into a tail spin of chaos. To Birketts, as soon as words appear on a screen – something he vehemently condemns throughout his book – they become drastically different, and can by no means be considered as pieces of literature anymore. Again, I find him hugely at fault here, and unreasonably close minded. If anything, the fact that they are on a screen, and on the World Wide Web, make them almost twice as legitimate as they would be if they were located in a book. Allow me to break this down into my sometimes hard to follow logic:

By my standards, reading is indeed something which should be thought provoking and should stir emotions. Because of standards like that, it should also be something which becomes social as people share their ideas, their reactions and their feelings about whatever it is that they have just read. An article about a controversial topic to begin with will be thought provoking by nature, but when it is displayed on an  online venue, it is offered up as a topic of discussion to whomever my stumble across those words. From there, they can then join their fellow readers in discussion and post a comment on the article, or if they’re feeling really ambitious that day, they can blog about it by means of some other online site. This chain of events – reading something, mentally marinating over it and digesting it, and then turning around and joining discussion on it, is what reading to me is all about. That is exactly what the author is generally trying to accomplish. He or she is intending to start conversation with their words. That’s how they know that they have done a good job in their work.

Also, because an online article such as this one has things like hyperlinks embedded within the text, it offers dozens of different avenues to continue reading as the reader may choose to “keep clicking through.” Birketts would argue that this is a form of “vertical reading” in the sense that all of the words on the page are not being fully appreciated or read for that matter, therefore the work is relatively illegitimate. To him, books are superior because they do not offer avenues for such audacious crimes to be committed, as the reader must continue on horizontally instead of bouncing from page to page and topic to topic. In my mind, Birketts’ condemnation of “vertical reading” is asinine.

If anything, it is better to be able to read “vertically” because you can cover a huge range of topics, and learn dozens of new things about all sorts of areas, rather than being constricted to simply the words on the pages of a book. The ability to “click through” pages makes an online article such as this one not only more interesting, but more thought provoking and more educational (if used properly) because the reader can view so many different pages within such a short amount of time and with minimal effort.

Overall, a web based article is without a doubt a proper, and legitimate form of literature. It fits Webster’s definition, and the standards which I laid out based on my views. It is thought provoking, can involve numerous people to partake in, and can provide insight on numerous different topics. So what if Birketts gets cold feet as soon as words that could just as easily be printed in a news paper appear on a screen instead? The bottom line is that this article possesses every quality necessary to facilitate it into the realm of legitimate literature.

Compost for Project 4

For assignment 4, I’ve revamped my approach and am now planning on using the article discussed in class which is entitled, “Is Google Making us Stupid?” by Nicholas Carr. I’ve chosen this one because I not only now have a better understanding of the assignment in general, but also because it has so many similarities to the themes presented by Birketts such as the legitimacy of text, reading’s correlation to the way people socialize, and so on. I have disagreed with Birketts from the get-go, and this paper will be no different. As I said in the beginning, reading is reading, no matter the form or the venue, and I plan to flesh this argument out further, while also disagreeing with not only Birketts on the broader matters, but also with Carr on the more specific ideas he presents within his article. I plan to focus a lot of my essay around this passage:

“We are how we read.” Wolf worries that the style of reading promoted by the Net, a style that puts “efficiency” and “immediacy” above all else, may be weakening our capacity for the kind of deep reading that emerged when an earlier technology, the printing press, made long and complex works of prose commonplace. When we read online, she says, we tend to become “mere decoders of information.” Our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged

With this in hand, I will pick apart Birkett’s concepts of “vertical reading” and “horizontal reading,” and in a way, redefining his term “vertical reading.” I see a connection with clicking through pages, and going deeper and deeper into web based text as an even better form of vertical reading in which the reader benefits more and more with each click – a click that Birketts strongly condemns.

I think the strongest counter argument is that the accessibility has made us dumb, however I don’t see that as a strong argument. I think, as I said in class, that there is simply a disconnect between the generations and an unwillingness of the older generations to make room for the new venues on which reading will be presented as time goes on.

Moby Dick Site

To be honest, I can see myself having some issues with this upcoming writing project. I’m still having a hard time wrapping my head around the actual assignment itself. I think I’ve got it sorted out by now in the sense that I understand the objective of the assignment, however I call into question my method of accomplishing said task. To me, text is text; no matter where it is located. Luckily enough for me, I can disagree with Birketts  right then and there, literally from the get-go, giving me an immediate thesis option. The trouble I see myself running into arises when I think about how I am going to go about doing that. I can’t exactly take up four pages simply saying, “words are the same words no matter where you put them – whether it’s on paper, a rock, a screen, a piece of papyrus leaf, or scribbled in chalk on a sidewalk – whatever they’re saying will always be the same.”

To remedy the problem I see on the horizon, I think I’m going to use a website called Moby-Dick, Summary and Analysis, located at http://www.bookrags.com/Moby-Dick. The reason I’m siding with this website is because it sort of reminded me of the Wikipedia example that we brought up in class which helped me to understand the actual assignment in the first place. The site is broken down into things like a summary analysis, various in depth theme discussions, objects, characters, style and quotes. It’s interesting because it’s almost a mini-english class on the novel.

I read Moby Dick last spring…all 997 pages of it, and my class spent about a month on the book. Not to discredit my English teacher in any way – but this site literally covers everything we discussed with him, and then some. It is instances like this, when an online text can really enhance the original such as is done here. With this particular example of an online reading, it in no way takes away from the words which were written on the page as Birketts would argue, however it helps to put it all into perspective once the book has been read. It is almost as though the pages offered by this site encourage the reader to step back and look at the book again from a different angle and with a more analytical eye on the entire piece.

My personal favorite part about this site is the page which contains various quotes of significance. Personally, one of my favorite parts of reading classics is stumbling upon that one line or that one phrase you’ve always heard associated with the book. For example, I’ve always known that the phrase, “Call me Ishmael.” came from Moby Dick, but until I read it, I never really understood what it was. To see a bunch of those quotes simply laid out in front of me instead of having to creep through 997 pages of text is a nifty little bonus available on this website as opposed to reading the whole book.

Once a Frankenstein Movie, always a Frankenstein Movie

In 1974, the movie, “Young Frankenstein,” directed by Mel Brooks was released to the United States. The movie itself is a parody of other “Frankenstein” related movies which came before it, rather than being a specific parody of the original novel by Mary Shelly. Whether intentional or not, the producers of the film actually created a movie which is much more closely tied to the novel than it is to the motions pictures which followed it. It is not within the plot where the true similarities lie, as is the case with most other Frankenstein films; but  is instead found within the over exaggerated stereotypes and the underlying themes which those stereotypes produced as a byproduct of their presence.

The plot, although similar on a very basic level, is actually quite different from the novel. The movie was intended to appear as though it were a sequel to the book, with the main character being the grandson of Shelly’s infamous Victor Frankenstein. This character which the films calls, Freddy Frankenstein, is called to report to his grandfather’s house after his death. During his stay at his grandfather’s old home, he eventually picks up where Victor left off and is absorbed by the compelling drive to reanimate dead flesh. Freddy is convinced that he can preform the same operation, but this time, because he will use the brain of a dead scientist, he will not create a monster as his grandfather did, but instead, he will simply create a seven foot tall brilliant, and previously deceased scientist.

Throughout Shelly’s novel, the story itself has a sort of eerie, dark and dank aspect to it. The poetry inserted to the chapters are in way like her version of a director’s special effects. She uses verses from things like “The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner” which are bleak and dismal, thus helping to convey the desired emotion within the reader. The directors of the film did not need to turn to poetry for their special effects, simply because they literally had their own special effects to work with. To convey the similar state of mind the way that Shelly did, they used effects like lightening flashes, booming thunder and images of shadows that dart across walls in specific scenes. All of these aspects combine to leave the viewer with the same heavy sensation of lingering suspense within every scene.

As far as the director’s choice of stereotypes, there is a long list. Nowadays, when most individuals think of “Frankenstein,” the first thing that comes to mind is a massive green zombie like creature with bolts coming out of his temples, a decrepit looking castle and a hidden underground laboratory in which the crazed mad scientist preformed his gruesome experiment. Mary Shelly, while not explicitly describing anything exactly along those lines, does indeed leave room for the imagination to fill in the blanks which she left with images not far from the above mentioned stereotypes. Within “Young Frankenstein,” the bulk of the film takes place literally within the walls of the castle which Victor Frankenstein allegedly lived. There are scenes  which contain startled horses rearing unexpectedly amidst bright flashes of lightening, and characters cowering in fear at the sound of what are said to be the howls of werewolves.

Nowhere in Mary Shelly’s novel does she mention anything akin to a werewolf (aside from the creature itself) however with werewolves come feelings of apprehension and fear, things which she absolutely did try to convey through her words. Nowhere does she discuss a structure similar to a castle, however the house which Freddy returns to, is complete with multiple turrets and cold stone brick walls, which leave the viewer uneasy at the sight of. It is through these visual effects where the producers sought to instill those very same feelings which Shelly managed to do through her words.

Also hidden within the movie are subtle similarities within the script of the movie. One of the central themes to Shelly’s novel, was the idea of how Victor was so blinded by the idea of his creation that he failed to see exactly what it was that he was producing. To him, the creature was going to be a thing of beauty, a creation of shear genius, and he was appalled when the reality of the situation struck him. One of the words which Shelly used to describe the creature was “hideous.” This word was used more than once when referencing the creature, and was probably chosen specifically because it is such a strong word that conveys such utter negativity. Within the script of the movie, both of these aspects – the idea of being blinded by his passion, and the concept of the creature’s grotesqueness – appear at once during the creation scene. Freddy’s assistant says to him, “He’s hideous.” to which Freddy promptly retorts, “He’s beautiful, and he’s mine.” This demonstrates the same underlying situation which appeared within Shelly’s pages, but can only be extracted with a fine tooth comb.

The last aspect of the film which is central to it’s relation to the novel, is the use of music.  In “Young Frankenstein,” the only thing that can control the creature, is the sound of music. What is interesting about this, is that it is specifically the sad, woeful tune of the violin which controls him.  Although this is a specificity and an idea which does not appear in Shelly’s tale, the concept does. The fact that it is not the bold blaring of a trumpet, or the rhythmic thumping of a drum, but is instead the gentle and delicate sound of the violin which cuts straight to the creatures’s core, demonstrates the vulnerability and the ultimate sadness which the creature feels. Similar to the novel, the creature is indeed sad, and looking for companionship, and whether it realizes it or not, it is seemingly in search of acceptance of some kind.

While the film is in no way intended to be a serious motion picture, it does however bare numerous subtle similarities to the very serious novel of “Frankenstein.” Ironically enough, it is just that – the fact that it was not necessarily intended to be taken all to seriously – which brought it one step closer to being a standard “Frankenstein Movie.” In the end, it was the aspects of the movie which for most people would have taken the film further away from the novel such as the stereotypes, the words chosen for the script, and the additional aspects provided by the director’s creative license which all helped to bring this seemingly aloof film to another level of alikeness to Shelly’s original novel.

Young Frankenstein – A comedic twist to the creature

As of now, for my third writing project, I’m planning on writing about the novel Frankenstein and the Mel  Brooks movie, “Young Frankenstein.” I can see myself running into problems with this because it’s not quite as clear cut as other people’s approaches. For those who are doing movies like Pinnochio, or Blade Runner because they can all sort of handle this with the “creator – creature” relationship comparison. The problem with Young Frankenstein is that it is the exact same plot (because it’s supposed to be) however every character and the relationships between the characters are drastically different. I think that it is here where the bulk of my paper will be formed and I see it having a relatively different structure than most people’s final pieces.

I think that one of the most interesting parts of the movie is how the director constructs the parody of Frankenstein while also remaining relatively true to the plot. While he definitely took some creative license, he by no means lost the overall purpose of the storyline. Overall, Victor Frankenstein was still a scientist driven by the idea of creating life from something dead, with his wife Elizabeth at his side. The creature still rose from the dead and wreaked some havoc after doing so, however his actions while alive were drastically exaggerated and given a strong comedic twist.  Victor’s character was seemingly made to exist in a little bubble of chaos in which almost everything he intended to accomplish was simply not possible, while the character of Elizabeth was also twisted from a pseudo cousin to what appears to be a wife with a French mistress edge to her.

The differences within the creature are some of the most profound. In this movie, he is not portrayed quite as much as the hideous walking piece of dead flesh as Mary Shelly made him out to be. Here, he is almost more like a big, dumb child which Victor then assumes the role of fathering. The creature almost has a personality which comes out particularly in the scene where he and Victor preform the song, “Puttin’ on the Ritz” for other scientists. The creature reacts badly to the audience’s surprise, similar to the way that the creature reacted badly to society’s rejection of him in Shelly’s novel.

All in all, I can see a basic shape for the paper in which I plan to focus on the specific characters and their relationships as opposed to the overall picture of the different plots the way that the rest of the class seems to be heading. I’m hoping that this works out smoothly, but I wouldn’t be surprised if I got a bit tripped up towards the end when it comes time to tie it all together.