Self Reflection

When Professor Meehan told us that we had the chance to improve our earlier essays, there was no doubt in my mind that I was going to revise my first essay. This is because I wanted to improve with the things that I had learnt that year. I felt like the earlier essay was a high school essay; therefore I wanted to make it a college essay.

The difference between my first project and my fourth project is that my fourth project counters my first essay by giving Birkerts the benefit of the doubt. I still have the same thesis and still believe that it is better for one to read in a social setting that in a private setting. However I try to explain Birkerts point and try to understand his point of view. In the first essay I heavily criticized Birkerts but then later realized that I was doing the same thing I was criticizing him about. After reading my first essay then reading my revised and final essay, I realized that the latter is more credible because it shows that I am trying to understand Birkerts’ point of view and just not criticizing it for the sake of it.

I learnt during the semester that counter arguing is the best way to make your point of view rather than just heavily criticizing the writer. After I read Murray’s work towards technology then read Birkerts’ I realized that it is always best to sit on the fence before you give your point of view. These are one of the many things that I learnt in Professor Meehan’s class that has really made my writing better and make my writing into a “college essay”.

Something else that has really improved in my writing is my close reading. My analytical skills have really improved and I am better at forwarding quotes from texts to use in my writing.

Final Paper

            Have you ever wanted to have a group reading or study session with your friends but your parents or teacher says no because they think that the study session will quick turn into a social gathering. I always had that problem with my parents during my high school time. Every time I read a book I always wanted to hear what other people feel about what the writer is trying to portray and the only way I would know that would be by reading with friends. However my parents never saw it that it way and that is because they were probably highly influenced by Sven Birkerts.  Birkerts argues that reading should be in a private setting because it attaches the reader more to the book. Birkets does have a point because when one is in a private setting it easier for him or her to gather their thoughts and understand the passage better. However literature is all about interpretation and understanding. Therefore different people will have different interpretations towards a certain text. Therefore, it is important that reading is done in a social setting so people can share their ideas and give their different interpretations of the text. This is a better way of reading because you manage to learn different aspects of the reading that you did not think about.

            Birkets argues that reading should not be social but private because it helps you gather your thoughts and helps you understand the text better. Birkerts does have a point because when people gather into a group to read a book, it sometimes turns out into a social gathering.  Therefore in his opinion it undermines the culture of reading. This reminds me of when I would ask my parents if my friends could come over to do homework and she always said no. This is because she did not believe that reading with a group of friends was effective; she thought that they would always turn into a social event. Birkerts has similar opinion to my mother. He believes that when one is reading a book, for him to be able to appreciate and understand it fully, he needs to be one with the book. Therefore in his opinion the only way for that to happen is for one to read in a private setting without any distraction.

However in my opinion due to the complexity of certain texts these days, I think it is important for reading to be done in a social setting. He believes that as years have gone by the reading culture has also deteriorated. He states that one of the reasons why is because more people tend to read in a more social setting and this undermines the whole reading culture. However in my opinion, I believe that reading and writing has evolved and become more complex, making it harder to understand. Therefore reading in a more social setting would bring more ideas to the table and help dissect the information in the text better. For example when I read a book by myself I always believe that I know and understand exactly what the reader is trying to say. However when I discuss the text with my peers or my classmates I feel like I missed out on very important information or did not understand certain symbolic events. Birkerts’ argument is that it is easy to get distracted when reading in a social setting is understandable but he also needs to realize that one can also be easily distracted in a private setting. In fact, normally when I read in a private setting I easily get distracted or lose my concentration, however when I read with a group of friends I get more engaged into the reading because we always instigate debate. These days’ books are very open to interpretation and you will find very many people with different opinions towards a certain text, therefore due to the complexity of today’s written work I think it is better to read in a more social setting than in a private one.

Speaking from my academic experience, there are some classes where the saying “too many cooks spoil the broth” refers too. Like Math for example I need to work alone in order for me to gather my thoughts and solve a problem. If I worked with my friends that sound of people talking around me would distract and frustrate me. Birkerts probably feels the same way when he is reading. He argues that reading in a social setting undermines that hard work of the writers and it also destroys the culture of literature. However even though I feel it is better for me to do math in a private setting, I do not think it is like that for everyone and this is where I disagree with Birkerts, he can generalize and think that everyone feels the same way he does. Literature is getting more and more complicated every day. Therefore, for one to fully appreciate and understand the work of the writer one needs to read in a more social setting so they can all dissect the text and share their ideas. Like I mentioned before, today’s written work is very open to interpretation; therefore it needs more than one mind to dissect it. Birkerts needs to accept no only the fact that technology is being a big part of the world today but that also literature is changing and becoming more complicated.

            During my sophomore and junior years of high school, reading was something that was always done in a social setting. My teachers always believed that the best way for us to understand a certain text was if we all shared our views and critiqued each other. During my sophomore year my teacher always had reading seminars every Friday where we read one chapter out of a book and broke it down as a class. This made me appreciate and enjoy books even more. For example earlier in the year I had read a farewell to arms leisurely at my own time and I did not really like it. However, when we read it as a class I grew to like and appreciate it because i had a better understanding of it. Reading is all about interpretation and sometime we believe we understand what a writer is trying to when we do not. However in my senior year of high school reading became more private.  I read all the books that were assigned in my room by myself. I always stopped to think what the writer was trying to portray in the book. I liked reading in a more peaceful and private environment because it concentrate better.  Although it was easier to gather my thoughts in a private setting, I was always open to more ideas about the text. I missed reading with my fellow classmates and friends where we could share our ideas and critique each other. It made me realize that reading in a social setting helps you look at different text in different way, it helps you notice different types of techniques that probably never caught you attention.

            Reading in a social setting will always leads to a debate which in my opinion I believe literary healthy. In high school my friends would read books together and we would always debate about what the writer was trying to portray. Although these debates sometimes turned violent it was always interesting to hear other people’s point of view. It was also to see people who are not big reading fans become so passionate about reading. It made realize how having a strong understanding of a text can make you appreciate it way more and be more passionate about it. Reading in a social setting makes it more of a leisure activity and make the reader enjoy it even more. However Birkets does not agree because he believes that reading in a social setting undermines the whole reading culture. He believes it is important to read in a private area because it attaches you more to the book and gives you a better understanding. In my opinion one can understand a text better only if they enjoy it and I believe they enjoy the text more if they are in a comfortable environment and for me that is amongst my peers.

            Birkerts talks about how the youth today undermine literature, he talks about the use of technology in literature and how people read in social settings. As a neutral, Birkerts argument would valid at first, however with my experience in reading I would beg to defer. The most important thing when one is reading a book is that they have to be in an environment they feel comfortable in. Birkerts strongly believes that it is important to read in a more private setting because it is easier to gather your thoughts and it gives you a better understanding. However I believe that one should read in wherever environment they find comfortable and in my opinion that is social setting. I believe that one can understand better if more ideas are brought to the table and that can only happen in a social setting. As the famous saying goes “two minds are better than one”. 

Books have always been a big part of my life, from the age of three of when I read Pinocchio till today when I read award winning Books like The Great Gatsby and A Farewell to arms. Reading books has helped me enhance my critical analytical skills and strengthen my vocabulary. Books are normally judged and appreciated because of their plot, their diction and the author’s writing techniques. The three things that create imagery for the reader and help them appreciate and understand the text better. However, as time has gone by and as technology has become a big part of our lives, therefore Hypertexts are starting to play a much bigger role in the literary world. A fact that aggravates writers like Sven Birkerts, who believes that hypertexts undermine our intelligence and are not as intellectually challenging as novels. He believes that technology is ruining literature. However in my opinion, comparing hypertexts and books is like comparing visual art and music. It is not easy to compare the two because they both enhance our intelligence but in different ways because Books use diction and writing technique, while hypertexts use image and sound.

            When I first encountered hypertext, I remembered the pictures I read in pre-school that had few words and pictures. I felt like they were undermining my intelligence because they were for children and not for adults. Sven Birkerts describes Hypertext as “visible” while other forms of literature like Books are “invisible”. Describing them as “invisible”, Birkerts argues that one needs to use the mind in order to analyze and understand the information. Whereas hypertext all they need is for you to look at the images. Explaining that Books require a certain level of intelligence to understand and appreciate, while in order to understand a hypertext all you need is your eyes. When I first read the museum, my feeling towards hypertexts was similar to Birkerts. I got frustrated with the lack of pages or directional plot. I felt like I was back in my preschool days when I read picture books. For a second I felt like my intelligence was being undermined. Books are good forms of literature and do enhance our intelligence. Birkerts also has a fair point when he says that it would be bad for literature if books became obsolete. Personally I agree with his point because I love books and I believe that it would have a negative effect on literature.

However, despite the fact that I agree with some of Birkerts’ points, I do not agree with his extremism towards hypertexts. In his book Gutenberg Elegies, Birkerts says, “The devil no longer moves about on cloven hooves, reeking of brimstone. He is an affable, efficient fellow. He claims to want to help us all along to a brighter, easier future, and his sales pitch is very smooth.” Birkerts argues that technology deceives us into believing that it helps in the development of literature while all it is doing is ruining it. Although I believe that it would be disastrous if book became obsolete, I would not go as far as describing hypertexts as the devil. Hypertext like books are also intellectually challenging but in a different way. Unlike books, the readers of hypertexts have total control of the text because there is no direction like page numbers and they are very open to interpretation. I believe that is unfair to compare the two because they are totally different. They are different forms of literature that both contribute positively to the literary world. Some people prefer to read information in order for them to analyze and understand it, while other people will understand information by visually looking at images and also probably hearing sound. Therefore technology has not ruined literature, what it has done is made it more accommodating for people to enjoy literature. Birkerts is selfish and in a way ignorant to think that Books are the best form of literature and are better than hypertexts.

In addition to his ignorance towards hypertexts and technology, Birkerts is so obsessed with his opinion on technology that he does not even want to see what is on the other side of the fence. If he was not clouded by opinion, he would see that some people appreciate hypertext more than books and vice versa. He would then probably understand my point that hypertext is not really a replacement to books but an addition to the literary world. In her book, a book lover longs for cyber drama, she says that technology helps enhance learning but also has it disadvantages. The fact that she keeps her eyes open to both sides of the argument, makes herself more credible than Birkerts. She argues that technology is good to enhance some people’s learning and is not necessarily a bad thing for literature. She argues that technology brings a new dynamic to literature. I agree with Murray on that point because after reading the museum for the second time, I started to appreciate its uniqueness. I started to appreciate the fact that it was different but it did not make me like books any less. My new love for hypertexts did not change my earlier affection because both of them are different. Therefore it would be unfair to compare them.

I love music I listen to music every day while I am in my room or working out. I love all genres of music including classics. Therefore if someone came up to me and told me that music was not a real art compared to visual art I would be pretty upset. First of all it is unfair to compare the two because they are totally different. I believe it is the same thing with hypertexts and books. I do not believe that hypertexts will ever make books obsolete because they are different. It would be like music making visual art obsolete.

 

Bibliography

Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies. New York : Faber

and Faber Inc, 2006. Print.

Murray, Janet. A book lover longs for cyberdrama . Boston : Cambrige MIT Press, 1997.

Hypertexts

When I read a book, I have learned to expect a lot about it. I expect it to have a plot with characters and sometimes have a protagonist and antagonist. However recently I have learned to appreciate another type of literature.  When I first came across hypertexts, I literally thought that they were a waste of my time. However, when I continued read more hypertexts, I started to appreciate the creativity and innovation that is needed to create them. One needs to be in tuned with both the literary and the media aspect of art. Something that Sven Birkerts would definitely not agree with.

Some writers and critiques like Sven Birkerts criticize these types of literature because they do not believe they are as innovative and intellectually challenging as the classic forms of literature. However, I would argue that it is not true and that hypertexts are intellectually because they do not lead you to the plot of the story.  What they do is that they give the reader control of the plot and leave the story very open to interpretation. Which in my opinion is as intellectually challenging as classic literature?

When I first read the Hypertext, “Birds singing other birds song” i started to get very irritated because of the sounds the birds were making and the fact that I didn’t understand what the author expected from the audience. There was no certain direction on how to approach the text like the way a book has page numbers. It was very confusing for me. However it was its confusing aspect that really made me appreciate it more. I felt much challenged by it and the best types of literary works are the more challenging ones. The museum for example was very confusing because it did not have a certain direction on how to approach it, so you just had to go through pages and try understanding it. However it is this aspect of hypertexts that I like because it makes us be creative and innovative and try make sense of the story. If Birkerts was my father he would probably ground me for life for reading hypertexts because he does not believe that it is real literature. He refers to novels to being invisible, while hypertexts are visible. Implying that hypertext do not need any certain level of intellectuality to understand. However the fact hypertexts are confusing show that they need as much intelligence to understand as novels and poems. Therefore what critiques like Birkerts need to understand is that hypertexts challenge audiences in a different than classic literature.

When I first came across Hypertexts, I remembered the picture books that I used to read in elementary school and for a second I felt my intelligence was being undermined. However, after reading more hypertexts I started to appreciate the fact that media and literature were coming together. I also appreciated the way hypertext are so open for interpretation, therefore they really engage the reader into the story. Although critiques would argue that it is confusing due to its lack of direction. 

Different ways of Persuasion

Personally as a reader, I enjoy reading an essay or a text that gives the reader two side of an argument. A writer that attempts to meet the opposition halfway and gives the reader the luxury on choosing sides on a certain topic. One of the main reasons I am highly critical of Birkerts in Gutenberg elegies is that he is totally biased towards one side that he doesn’t try to look at the other side’s point of view. Therefore this makes him less credible than Murray who weighs the views of both sides.

            The fact that Murray was both an English major and a computer engineer makes her very credible source when it comes to technologies effect on literature. She really meets both sides halfway by understanding both their views. Therefore the reader makes the choice for themselves on where they lie. Unlike Birkets who seems to force you to agree with him. For example Murray says that some people think of technology, they think of Frankenstein. A monster that killed people and basically destroyed the life of its creator. Murray the writer explains saying that technology can be a monster and can have a negative effect on our lives and the people around us. She also explains that it has negative effect on the true meaning of literature. However, Murray the computer engineer argues that technology can also be looked at like 1890’s movie something that is new and that will improve everything in the world better. She says that technology has really helped in the development of the world and made life easier for us. One could say that Murray is contradicting herself, but she is not what she is doing is looking at both sides of an argument before giving her stance on a topic. As a scholar I believe that this makes her very credible because she has been on both side of the fence and looks at both sides of the argument

            In his book Gutenberg Elegies, Sven Birkerts argues that technology is affecting the literature of today. He argues that due to technology the youth of today do not appreciate classic literature like Shakespeare. These one sided claims would probably convince someone who doesn’t know anything about technology and literature but for a college student like me they don’t. People like Birkerts normally argue by attack the other side of the argument without giving it the slightest chance to be right. This can be an effect way to persuade with some neutrals. However If one wants to persuade someone with a slight background on the topic at hand, I believe Murray’s way is better. In my opinion, Murray’s way of persuasion is better because her lack of bias creates a certain amount of trust with the reader. Therefore, when she gives her point of view, you are most likely to agree with her.

            Reading books like The Gutenberg Elegies and A book lover longs for cyberdrama has not only improved my reading but also my writing. They both portray different ways of persuading a reader and giving your point of you. Birkerts way of taking the reader hostage and forcing his views down their throats and Murray’s way of weighing both sides of the argument and later giving her point of view. 

I have always known that technology has an effect on your life but I have never known how drastic the effect can be. Personally Technology does have an effect on my life both positive and negative effects. However, in the book the medium is the massage, it states that media and technology has way more of an effect than we all think, most of which are negative. It states that media affects our privacy, our education and our relationship with others. A view that Sven Birkerts, writer of The Gutenberg Elegies would probably agree with.

            Media and technology in general are wonderful things. Mediums that have helped our world developed and connected. Technology does have a lot of positives, positives that have made our lives on earth so much easier. However, it is arguable that media and technology in general undermines our ability to do things for ourselves. The book argues that media has really affected our ability to socialize with other people and our relationship with other people. Parents normally have the most influence in their children’s lives, however the book argues that ever since the introduction of media things have changed. For example the book states, “The family circle has widened. The World pool of information surpasses any possible influence mom and dad can bring to bear”. This is stating that the media has really affected us so much that it has more of an influence in our lives than our parents do. Therefore indicating that media is weakening our relationships with our parents.

            On a personal note, media plays a big part of my life and with the constant development of technology it keeps playing a bigger role every day. I use my phone and my laptop to communicate with my professors, my family and friends when I cannot see them face to face. Forms of medium that Birkerts and the writers of the medium is the massage would probably hate. However they might also have a valid point. Facebook for example is social network that has really helped me connect with my friends who are around the world or around the country. However, it has also had negative impact on my life because I use it as a procrastinating tool sometimes when I could be using the time more productively.

            In his book Gutenberg Elegies, Sven Birkerts seems to only focus on how technology affects literature. However, I think he would still have something to say about the way the medium is the massage states the effect media and technology as a whole have on education. The book states that today’s media is affect children’s education because they are stuck in two worlds. He said that today’s child does not have the structured education that lets say the early 19^th century child had. His argument here reminds me of Birkerts arguing that the average child today has not read Shakespeare or other famous writers of his time. Therefore, arguing that technology is weakening literature. Therefore you would say that both Birkerts would agree that technology has a negative effect on the academic development of a child.

            Technology has undoubtedly changed the world and helped in its development. Personally media and technology as a whole makes my life so much easier and helps me communicate with my friends and family. However, media does have its negative effects too like undermining our ability to do things for ourselves without the use of technology. 

The invention of Hugo cabret

                When my professor assigned us the invention of Hugo Cabaret to read for our assignment, I thought he was joking. My first impression of the book was that it was a children’s book, and kind of felt insulted being asked to read it. However, when I started reading it, I started to see the book more of an adult than a child’s read. The writer’s use of hyper mediation is something that I had never encountered before. This immediately made me love the book even before I was half way through it. This is because i realized that the writer is trying to link film and literature and show how they can work hand in hand.

            The writer of Invention of Hugo Cabaret does something that I had never encountered a writer do. He writes the book for two target audiences that are completely different. He writes the book for a children audience and for an also more mature audience.  The use of pictures in the book can make one think that the writer is targeting a younger audience. However it would need some with a rich experience of reading to realize that the writer uses the pictures give to link film and literature. Writers normally use diction for imagery, they choose specific words to give reader an image of what they are trying to portray. However in The invention of Hugo Cabaret, rather than using complex words the writer uses pictures for imagery just like in films.

            Normally when I am reading a book I like to link to other books I have read. When I read the invention of Cabaret, the first question I asked myself was what Sven Birkerts would think about it. My first thought was that he would hate it because he would think that it undermines literature. The lack of literary techniques in the book would disappoint and would probably blame technology for it. However, after sometime I started to have second thoughts of what his opinion on the book would be. I started to think that Birkerts might actually like the book because it shows the development literature which he highly encourages in his book. This shows a stronger relationship that film and literature have formed over the years. For example in the book we keep seeing a heel of a shoe. This immediately makes you think that there is some significance in the shoe. It reminds of movies and how the camera focuses on someone and you always have a feeling that the character might be significant in a certain way. The repetition of the shoe scene reminded me of the same thing which shows the books link to film.

            When one first reads the invention the invention of Hugo Cabret, one would immediately think that it is a children’s book. However, the writer targets both an adult and child audience. The use of pictures is not only used to accommodate the children audience but to also link the book with film.