communication today

I must admit that I am not proficient when it comes to using PowerPoint, nor was I aware of just how deeply it impacts the way we communicate today. The ability to organize information in an orderly fashion has many advantages, and people can certainly benefit from having information presented in different ways. Verbal and visual communication are important for getting an idea across, and theoretically PowerPoint allows the two to become one.

The notion of limiting your ideas to seven words and seven sentences is an acceptable rule of thumb because it forces you to prioritize and systematically evaluate information, but it should not be an absolute. Different types of arguments require different ways of organizing. As Clifford Nass pointed out, sometimes the process behind the argument is lost in translation.

After having read this article I will consider becoming familiar with PowerPoint in order to communicate more effectively, but I do not desire to become someone who must read information off of a slide. Nothing communicates knowledge more effectively than being able to talk comfortably about the information on the screen rather than just repeating it verbatim. In order to communicate properly there must be a balance between explicit systems like PowerPoint, and more personal rhetoric by an individual.

Your truth or mine?

Know it all

ends with a simple question: your truth or mine? The question supports my belief that wikipedia is a place not for the last word on a subject, but rather for the first word. Wikipedia is a wonderful example of something which has come to be known as crowd sourcing. Rather than relying on a small group of individuals to make decisions, a given project is opened to a larger group with a potentially greater ability to accomplish a given task.

Most people when discussing wikipedia seem to focus primarily on its accuracy and ability to transmit information effectively, and correctly. However, I think that discussion is narrow and does not foster much genuine insight. What is more promising about wikipedia is the commentary it has allowed surrounding democracy. It began with somewhat of an anti-authority mentality, and seemed to favor a system more closely related to anarchy. It is interesting that even given the great level of success, a need eventually arose for not only informal guidelines, but an eventual acquiescence to more explicit rules. For me this article was a gentle reminder that individual liberty functions best within explicitly defined parameters. Self-governance is the beginning of freedom.

bad romance

Pygmalion truly exemplifies the genius of Shaw. His work may be considered by many to be too didactic, but it is precisely this quality that appeals so strongly to me personally. It has long been argued that the purpose of art is to instruct and delight. This idea goes back to Aristotle, and is stated more explicitly in the maxims of Horace.

The fact that the Shaw describes this provokes much reflection upon completion of the story. A romance typically concludes with a commercially satisfying ending that would generally be the result of the hero and heroine falling in love. In his epilogue, he describes it as being a romance only due to its improbability, although the story is actually more common than one might think. The idea of romance seems to lean a little more toward the delight end of the instruct and delight dichotomy, and I think Shaw is attempting a valuable criticism of it. Romance has always been the battle cry of freedom in many ways, but Pygmalion seems to do a splendid job of showing just how much of a restraint it actually is. The convention has become so hammered into our minds, that considering an alternative seems almost blasphemous.

The liberation of the individual from formulaic convention was Shaw's great contribution, which was sadly undone in My Fair Lady. Some may react to Pygmalion as if it were a bad romance. This would seem fair and appropriate given the standard nature of a romance, but I believe it entirely misses the point. Shaw is too careful of a person to simply fail at writing a proper romance, rather I believe he drew attention to the idea of it as a romance for the purpose of critically evaluating its function.

Not a pebble

Pygmalion is a play I have been meaning to read on my own for quite some time now, so reading it for class makes the task that much more approachable. The story seems to be about Mr Higgins transforming a plain flower girl named Eliza into a Duchess. However, with a little more reading it is not quite that simple.

In the first place, Higgins is treating Eliza as if she were just pebbles that he can do with as he wishes. Although they establish the fact that she has no family or husband, he neglects to consider that deep down she has a sense of self ownership. Despite the fact that this girl is supposed to be considered "simple" in the most derogatory way, there is evidence early on that she has a wit about her. She is defiant sometimes without reason, but can certainly manipulate circumstances to her advantage.

Secondly, the notion that Higgins will be able to do this all on his own seems obviously impossible. For a girl who has never had a proper bath, transforming her into a Duchess by means of phonetics alone seems an impossible task. Yet there is an admirable amount of determination in Higgins, even despite the fact that it is all for his own self gain.

Any story involving change naturally appeals to me. I think as people we desire to change, and studying the ways in which other people go about this task can be enlightening. Thus far I have been reminded that rarely is change simple, and more often than not it relies on both external and internal factors, not all of which can be controlled.

Freedom through form

Poetry is one of those things that is admired by many, but understood by few. Strand makes several comments in the introductory statement that I found particularly useful. I must admit I have been guilty of merely admiring poetry with surface level understanding. Perhaps due to lack of being formal trained, I admittedly do not know the difference between a sonnet, a sestina, and a villanelle. Further, I have never been convinced of the need to understand these different forms before now.

On the very first page poetic form is said to be not a lock, but a key. This point is well received because at least in my own case I have seen poetic form as a restriction, and in most cases an unnecessary one. In retrospect this opinion seems misguided for some of the same reasons mentioned in the section on becoming a poet. The slow development of poetic appreciation in the discussion following "you, andrew marvell" is entirely relatable.

The lack of immediate understanding is shown by a naive attempt to both write and comprehend poetry. As mentioned, adolescence can often times produce poetry in us that amounts to merely spitting out feelings on paper. Likewise, time is rarely spent understanding the connotative meaning of words and a poem is understood rather in terms of some unstated aesthetic.

All of these ideas carried over into the reading of "To His Coy Mistress". Even having acknowledged some of the road blocks to poetic progress, I still found myself enjoying the poem from a surface level perspective. Simply put, I admired the rhythm and word choice. Only after a second and third reading does the meaning of the poem come to life. Although I am tempted to speak of the relevance to the male gender, I speculate that the views expressed in the poem are not gender exclusive. The poem speaks of a woman who responds slowly to the speakers desire for her. This in itself is not necessarily a problem, except in light of the brevity of human life. The poem seems to urge that life be taken more seriously in an immediate sense so as not to miss life's most meaningful moments for good.

Understanding poetry is a skill I wish to acquire. The making of a Poem seems like it will do a good job of defining necessary terms and equipping the poet with the necessary tools for understanding. Hopefully by the end poetry will carry an entirely new meaning in my life.

Passionate Rationality

After reading the section on feminist criticism I couldn't help notice both ideal perspectives, as well as some that seemed uniquely real. This naturally made me curious about what Lyn Pykett might have to say from a feminist perspective on Wuthering Heights. She begins with an excerpt, and thereafter immediately dives in. Her evaluation is thorough and well organized. The totality of her article is to examine both Catherines, and determine how each came to define themselves. This allows her to suggest which is meant to be the better of the two.

As she points out, the first Catherine seeks her identity in the status quo by choosing what appears to be the rational, and prudent path. However, her story is unique in the sense that the purpose is to understand the consequences of such a choice, and evaluate exactly how rational it is. The question becomes nearly equivalent to asking how much freedom should a woman give up for the sake of security. In the case of the first Catherine, she makes the decision to compromise freedom for security, and ultimately suffers because of it.

Cathy shares a similar story in terms of the decisions she is forced to make, but her history is the opposite of her mother's which has uniquely positioned her to perhaps make a better decision. Her mother's childhood was one of freedom as opposed to security. In contrast, Cathy has grown up rather privileged, and yet extremely protected with many limitations on freedom. It is ultimately for this reason that Cathy is eventually able to choose the path of passion and forget about prudence.

It is interesting how personal the subject is despite the somewhat removed nature of the story. I believe many of the choices presented to the characters are the same choices faced on a general scale, and yet the specificity of the story allows a different interpretation on how a given person should respond to those choices. On the surface it seems to suggest that love and passion triumph over rationality and prudence. I would suggest that at its core is not the abolition of rationality, but merely a reinterpretation of what is rational.

And they lived happily ever after?

I must say unapologetically, that almost the entire read was frustrating. While it would seem likely that this is due to overly complicated character relationships, I do not believe this is the only reason. Simply put, the entire thing was both predictable, and yet incalculable at the same time.

The general tone at the beginning of this section is one of oppression and despair. One hardly believes that anything positive could ever happen for anyone who is forced, and I mean literally forced, to be among Heathcliff. As dreary as it sounds, it was actually encouraging to me that the text seemed to acknowledge that while we all have hopes and dreams, if we are not in power we cannot achieve these things except at the mercy of forces we cannot tame.

I seem to be upset about some sort of inconsistency, and yet as I reflect it seems to remain consistent in a profoundly upsetting way. The happy ending achieved is consistent with what I believed was being said about forces beyond our control determining the outcome. Heathcliff is a prominent force, but there are things which even he cannot fend off, namely love and death. His obsessive love eventually makes the other character's situations less oppressive, and his fortuitous death allows for their liberation.

As I mentioned, the ending is both predictable and incalculable. Predictable in the sense that "they lived happily ever after" is a sort of expectation, and incalculable in the sense that the oppressed characters themselves should have no reason to expect this outcome. It seems to reward a naive sense of idealism, while at the same time acknowledging the constraints of human nature. I still wonder if perhaps I'm missing something, and admit I am eager to hear other opinions. It seems that I have changed mine in the course of this post, so I must assume that there is more to be considered.

Going somewhere?

Wuthering Heights begins with a man named Lockwood, who is recording life memories in his diary. He describes a rather dreadful encounter with a man by the name of Heathcliff. His general demeanor is all too appropriately summed up in the imagery evoked by the word wuther. Fierce and uninviting, Lockwood finds himself immediately dealing with conlicts from fending off dogs, to being falsely accused and thought a liar.

While many of the character relationships were difficult to grasp immediately, over time it became more concrete as the different relationships corresponded with different attitudes that were pervasive throughout Bronte's writing. It is clear that the novel was influenced by social prejudice of the day. There is a strong sense of social status, and the struggle between upper and lower classes seems to be the main conflict of the novel.

Lockwood eventually is stuck at Wuthering Heights for an evening due to an incredible snow storm. It is perhaps a simple reminder that we are all subject to nature. He eventually is led to a special section of the house where the story really starts to heat up. Three names, all with the first name Catherine, have been scratched into the paint which is just eerie in and of itself. Then he finds a diary that sheds light on the history of Wuthering Heights, and gives us information about Catherine. Once it has been put into historical perspective, Heathcliff's attitude makes a little bit more sense.

Lockwood falls asleep, and is awakened after having horrible dreams. Of course his reality gets much worse than even his nightmare because the ghost of Catherine tries to snatch him up out of the window, so to speak. Although this account seems suspicious at first, Heathcliff rushes in and begs Catherine to return, but to no avail. The next morning Lockwood is returned home, and requests that his housekeeper, Nelly Dean, tell him about Wuthering Heights.

It turns out that Heathcliff was an orphan taken in by Catherine's family known as the Earnshaw's. Her brother Hindley eventually becomes jealous because Heathcliff is treated well despite his crummy orphan history. It is at this point that the struggle between class becomes most obvious. Heathcliff is completely at the mercy of someone other than himself for social standing, and this eventually betrays him and costs him his love with Catherine.

She eventually marries a man named Edgar because of his stable social status. Although she loves Heathcliff, she still chooses the safe option. There is an ambiguous three year period in which Heathcliff apparently acquires wealth and supposedly becomes a new man. Although he certainly seems to walk the walk, there is still a subtle question mark hanging over him. It is in this suspension that we have been left.

Thus far this story is great. I have never read it before now, but I certainly do appreciate a little mystery in a story. I also am inclined to take a more realistic approach to most things, and Bronte certainly brings that to the table with this.

Political rhetoric and the English Language

After my first reading, I felt rather dreary and wondered if I had missed the point. I went back over it with a highlighter and feel a great deal better about what he was saying. His argument is unclear at times, but in its most simplest form makes a persuasive call to action. In paragraph 2, Orwell says that, "...it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer..." However, Orwell goes on to suggest that we as individuals play a crucial role in the reform of language. While he downplays the negative influence of the individual, he seems to preach a different gospel of positivity in regards to the ability of the individual to reform for good cause. Without getting caught up in some of the less explicit ideas, we can summarize his argument by saying that the English language is clearly declining as a result of intentionally deceptive political rhetoric, and that the path we are on has not been determined a priori.

The full force of his argument is expressed through the following sentences:

Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different...The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.

When I was able to adequately frame the discussion within the parameters of political thought, the criticism seemed much more appropriate. He cites specific examples of political speech used to convey impartiality or an air of culture and elegance. Likewise, he shows the relevance of such a discussion to communicating ideas of international politics and discussions of war. If his criticism were confused as an attack on the literary use of language, Orwell would surely be disappointed. In his final paragraph, he states clearly that this discussion was intended not for the literary use of language, but rather in the use of language as an instrument in expressing thought.

Once I finally realized the which target was in the cross hairs, I was more than ready to stand on Orwell's side in the attack. I am a firm believer that one should always be as clear as possible when communicating powerful ideas. He sheds light on many crucial problems such as the intentional ambiguity of language used to deceive listener, and avoid responsibility as the speaker. My only response to him would be that sometimes it is necessary to use more, rather than less, words in order to convey an idea appropriately. Just because I am "unclear" in my language does not automatically deem me to be insincere. However, considering the nature of political rhetoric, I do not find much fault at all in Orwell's inclination to look for the worst.

As Lime In Your Memory

In his exchange with Francesco, Augustine suggests that we intentionally take the time to set aside certain passages in reading, in order that we may readily access them in order to please our minds. This is something that is almost intuitive for me as a reader, at least in the most basic sense of bending the page I would like to return to. However, over the course of these first roughly 200 pages, Manguel sheds light on the evolution of reading, and how the lime tree of the mind finds its roots much deeper than in just modern day note taking.

We are reminded that reading is interpreted differently under different circumstances. In its earliest form, society found the most constraining, and thus most influential circumstances, to be the mere fact that many, if not most, were illiterate. Over a thousand years later, the most constraining circumstance on the reader may be something as simple as physical comfort. Each of these soils will cultivate a different kind of lime.

When culture was largely illiterate, any distinction of literature was memorized and verbally repeated, due to the fact that literature was only revealed to the masses orally. As culture continued to develop, specifically through religious expression, the masses were given a new way to relate to and understand various stories. Artists began to portray stories through imagery so that all may feel connected, and feel an immediate relation to a story, even without the ability to actually read it.

It strikes me as typical to now discover how unappreciative I am as a reader. While workers used to gather in large groups to hear books read aloud, I often times find myself not taking advantage of the privilege I have been given. I do not have to have someone tell me about a book, draw about a book, or do anything that might serve to stand between the book and the reader. Today a book can be immediately personal, and in a profound, almost spiritual way. Yet without the proper framework, it is easy, at least for me, to deprive books an adequate opportunity to produce the most wonderful of limes in the mind.

After having reading put into historical perspective, I found myself able to better define what it is that delights me about reading. Something about the constant race without any apparent finish line. The unquenchable thirst, and the possessive nature of the act both speak deeply to the desire for truth, or at least the desire for something stable. The great irony is in the fact that to achieve such a goal would ultimately undermine any desire to have it.

Whether bound by meaningful chains such as illiteracy, or shaped by something as seemingly insignificant as the reader's physical position; the simple fact of the matter is that reading is infinitely open to new interpretations, reminding us that literature, much like life, will always be an open book. The response is always larger than the text, which gives me hope that maybe the reader today would recognize the possibility of scattering seeds that may one day provide someone else with a lime.

p.s. introduction

Hello all, my name is David Carlisle. I love writing, music, photography, reading, and just about anything that gives my mind something to do. My views may appear bleak at times, but I assure you I am full of only optimism. I look forward to learning with you.

The medium is the metaphor

In his article, Twilight of the Books, Caleb Crain makes the case that both the will and the ability to read are on the decline both in this nation, and in the world at large. He reassures us that reading and writing are not likely to become extinct, but that reading books may once again be reserved for an elite reading class. While I believe his assessment to be accurate, I do not share in his pessimism.

I agree, reading and writing are not likely to become extinct and for good reason. Oral, literate, and televisual cultures transmit information in different ways. Each medium is suitable only for a particular kind of knowledge. The tools responsible for rational inquiry are merely dulled by televised viewing, largely because television places far less significance on the quality of the information than it does on the demands of entertainment.

Rational argument, however, plays an important role in print typography. Reading requires intense involvement on an intellectual level. This involvement is interactive in the sense that truth is reached by means of exchanging viewpoints while applying reason. Conversely, due to the fact that ratings determine the substance of televised programming, the content is thus evaluated on terms of commercial feasibility rather than academic excellence.

Caleb Craig is correct about literacy being on the decline, and that is precisely because written language is more difficult for the aforementioned reasons. It involves exchange of ideas with the application of reason. However, I do not believe all people need this level of intellectual exercise. There is a reason that management positions are fewer than labor positions. There is a reason that leaders are fewer than followers. The reason is that different things are required of different people. The greatest lie ever told was that all men are created equal.

While I very much understand and appreciate the importance of various literature, I simply cannot make the case that all men would benefit from reading it. A man of forty is content to speak a language, while a man of twenty-five boasts of inventing one. A journalist, forced to work on a commercial fishing boat might not last an hour. Likewise, a fisherman who was built to survive, couldn’t tie words together at the newspaper company good enough to feed himself, let alone his family.

Man is of course free to dream, but no amount of will power could make a fifty year old man the youngest golfer to play in the Masters. We must honestly evaluate ourselves and determine what role rational inquiry should play in our lives. It is not immediately evident to me that television and the decline of literacy has been a negative thing. If anything, it may serve as a means of testing ourselves to determine exactly what kind of people we are.