Essay Unit 1: Rough Draft

I am writing this essay to the people who don’t like change, the people who are stuck in their ways and like it there. I’m talking about the people who approach the internet with caution and worry about how it is changing the way we do things. They aren’t necessarily young or old but possibly a little stubborn. I feel like this is a good audience for me because I am one of those people; I know their concerns because they are in the back of my head as well. The difference is that now I have been turned on to the benefits of the internet (some of them at least). Who better to address their fears? I’ll discuss the changes, the issues they bring up, and their benefits to tailor my essay to this audience.

It’s a comfortable thing always knowing what to expect. When change comes it can throw those of us who are a little stubborn and not willing to accept it. We look at change and see its negative effects; how it will force us to alter our routine. And when that change is bigger than Coke coming in a different colored can, we push back with even more opposition.

Literacy is changing; the internet has changed it. When I was in high school I had my own personal battle with the internet. You see, I became editor-in-chief of my school’s newspaper at the same time the school hired a new journalism adviser. She was an advocate for new media and declared our new focus would be online journalism. And so it began. I had dedicated three years to learning everything about AP style, InDesign, and the correct width for a column margin and wasn’t about to let that go. I wasn’t going to sacrifice the satisfaction of cutting the binds on a fresh stack of newspaper just so we could join the revolution in news media. I had plans to go into print journalism but all around me I saw newspapers failing or jumping online. I did what I could to fight it at school and the internet and I never reconciled. The fact is the internet is changing the way we read and write. There is discussion in today’s society over whether this change is a good or bad one. There is no doubt the internet has affected literacy, the question is how?

Has the internet fried our brains? Should we listen to the critics who say the World Wide Web is shortening our attention span and mutilating language? Or do we embrace the other side and view the internet as a place of endless possibilities to connect and share ideas? Is the internet actually enriching the way people read and write? In beginning this discussion it is also important to consider what literacy really means.

Literacy has many facets. Though many may define it simply as the ability to read and write, I believe literacy also encompasses what occurs when these skills are put to use, the knowledge that is gained and the ideas that are shared.  Sylvia Scribner thought of literacy as a more complex being and attempted to define it as three different parts. The first was “literacy as adaption,” or the fundamental skills you need to perform everyday tasks (Scribner, 9). This can involve anything from reading a street sign to writing a paper. Has the internet affected our ability do such things? In a study overseen by Stanford professor Andrea Lunsford, the findings were that it has not. The study looked at the quality of students’ written work to see if it had changed or diminished. It was found that shortened speech and texting slang never showed up in academic papers and that students excelled at tailoring work to their audience. When first looking at samples of work, Lunsford found that her students “were increasingly aware of those to whom they were writing and adjusted their writing styles to suit the occasion and the audience (Lunsford).” This seems a natural outcome. Just because students use a modified language when emailing or texting doesn’t mean it will rub off onto their formal work. Thus, it also follows that students can identify these different situations and alter their prose accordingly. I know not to fill this essay with smiley faces just as I am conscience of the difference in my tone when I email a friend or college professor. With the multiplying number of places to write something down, we are becoming better at identifying the right style to use.

The internet hasn’t affected our basic skills of reading and writing. There are still plenty of words to be found online, so until it becomes a picture book, I think reading is safe. As to writing, I would venture to say that we are exercising this skill more and more. Most likely, a majority of things people used to write were for academic or work related purposes. Now, with the help of the internet, people are writing all the time. We text, email, and update our Facebook statuses, not to mention longer compositions on blogs. Writing has become integral to the way we socialize.

Another way Scribner defines literacy is the way it brings value to the person who is literate; she calls it “literacy as a state of grace (13).” I interpret this as the general knowledge and intelligence one gains as an active reader and writer. The question here is not can we read and write, but how? When reading and writing, are we getting as much from the experience as we did before the internet? The internet thrives on how often you click; the more things you look at the more advertisers can make. With this principle in place, the internet is very good at providing short articles full of links to other blurbs that have links to captions, all of which are surrounded by linked pictures and ads. On a typical Wikipedia page, almost every sentence contains a telltale blue word that is ready to whisk you away to the next thing. Articles are shortened to keep you moving. The Internet allows us to skim, flitting from one topic to the next, never staying long on one page. Are these habits affecting our attention span? It’s reasonable to think that they would. Nicholas Carr suggests that the internet can change the way you think. Reading, unlike speech, is a learned skill and as such the brain could possibly be rewired to read differently. A habit like continually jumping around online can potentially weaken your ability to focus for long periods of time (Carr). This means reading a book could become a chore. Now this is troubling.

First hand, I have experienced Carr’s concerns. For a college class, I was assigned weekly readings, articles that were usually three to five pages in length. One week, I opened the document to find 19 pages waiting for me. It was terrible and I could barely get through it. Now, normally 19 pages would be nothing; I read at least four times that each night before I go to bed. The difference was I wasn’t expecting it; in relation to the other readings it was a novel. Does this mean my brain has been affected? No, I don’t think so. I still read books and can stay focused for long periods of time; although I can’t say I spend much time reading online anyway. There may be truth to Carr’s concern. The internet’s tendency to facilitate instant gratification could be affecting our attention span. Our minds may be conditioned to expect something new each moment. “If we lose those quiet spaces, or fill them up with ‘content’” will we be able to think logically and make the connections to reason through problems (Carr). Will we still be able to read books?

 The final question of literacy to explore is why do we read and write? The internet has affected this answer as well. We interact online to connect to our culture. There are news articles to read, twitter feeds to check, and the latest popular YouTube video to watch. Stay offline for an entire day and you may not know what anyone is talking about in the morning. The internet is a source of social capital. It’s not all entertainment either; bloggers have made their splash in the ocean society surfs daily. Aside from actual media websites, blogs are the largest source of writing. Blogs are the newest form of prose and they owe their existence to the internet. A blog creates a conversation; as the author posts, readers can produce immediate feedback and the process repeats itself. Corrections, arguments, and new sources get the conversation rolling. This interaction between author and reader generates an informed blog; under the scrutiny of readers, no mistake goes unnoticed. Also, by linking directly to other pages, authors can prove the legitimacy of their information, that’s something a research paper can’t do (Sullivan).

Is the internet narrowing the scope of writing in the future? Will books and newspapers be replaced by the blogosphere? The answer is no. The internet isn’t here to replace traditional writing, but aid it (Sullivan). Blogs and other online sources provide a pool of inspiration for the more serious writer to draw from. They provide the foundation of ideas and information that books and essays and news are born from. The internet skims the surface so that others can go in-depth.

In his book on writing, Joseph Harris advises the reader to consider how interesting a composition is when evaluating it. What interest has the author added the subject discussed? What interest does the author have in the subject? Has the author presented the subject in an interesting way (Harris, 11-12)?  The first two questions allude to the message while the last suggests the medium. You can paint a portrait or take someone’s picture and the person in them will be the same. The invention of the camera didn’t change the subject matter; it just presented it in a new way. Similarly, the internet is not replacing old styles of writing; it’s just a new medium to speak through. The key will be knowing when to use it; “the message dictates the medium. And each medium has its place…(Sullivan)”

I still never read many articles online and print journalism will always have a special place in my heart. I cringe whenever Facebook comes out with a new update and I refuse to change to Timeline until forced to. I love books and hate to think that because of the Kindle Borders went bankrupt. But who knows, I may come around. Every person has their preferences, their likes and dislikes, but the internet’s possibilities will outweigh these prejudices every time.

Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic July-Aug. 2008. The Atlantic. Web. 27 Jan.

2012.

Harris, Joseph. "Introduction." Rewriting. Logan, Utah: Utah State UP, 2006. 1-12. Print.

Lunsford, Andrea A. Our Semi-literate Youth? Not So Fast. Stanford Study of Writing. Web. 27 Jan. 2012.

Scribner, Sylvia. "Literacy in Three Metaphors." American Journal of Education 93 (1984): 6-21. Print.

Sullivan, Andrew. "Why I Blog." The Atlantic Nov. 2008. The Atlantic. Web. 27 Jan. 2012.

I'll talk, you listen...or don't, it's whatevs

It hasn’t been hard to write blog posts. When you don’t have the pressure of needing to construct a formal essay and double check your grammar, it’s much easier just to write. It makes it even easier when there is little research involved and you don’t have to cite sources. The main source is YOU! Blog posts are a great place for YOUR thoughts and feelings and opinions.  

Blogs are awesome, and if you had asked me that a month ago I probably would have said something completely opposite. They’re refreshing. On a Facebook profile anyone can post on your page and share what’s on their mind (even if it’s a silly YouTube video, it counts). And really I shouldn’t say thoughts; Facebook is the land of Happy Birthday’s, relationship updates, and those statuses that outline the activities of the day. And if someone was to post a status longer than a few lines about an actual subject, people would just ignore it or get annoyed. Which is fine, Facebook isn’t the place for that, blogs are. On my blog I get to post whatever I want and I don’t have to worry about a billion responses. Everyone on Facebook creeps (stop denying it) and Facebook makes it really easy too. Blogs don’t have as much traffic (at least not the everyday person’s blog); the only people who read it are the ones who took the time to search for it (or are required to). And as I see it, I don’t really mind if anyone reads it. It’s fun to get comments, but just being able to post ramblings about what’s important to you at any moment of any day is fun.

            I don’t know if I have earned the title of “blogger” yet but I do enjoy it.

What is Literacy?

There are so many different ways to define literacy. Does it mean you can sign your name or write an essay? Read a chapter book or analyze a novel? Know what a computer is or know how to use all of its programs? Literacy can be described by many adjectives, too; one can be technologically literate, musically literate, or even literate in sports.

Scribner acknowledges the complexity of defining the term “literate” and breaks the term into three components that can be studied. The areas are literacy as adaptation, as power, and as a state of grace; the skills needed in everyday life, the ability of a literate society to invoke change, and the value literacy gives to those who are literate. Of course, all three must also be looked at in terms of the society it is applying to and the individual needs of its members; that’s when it becomes complicated with no bottom line solution. I was most fascinated with the description of literacy as a state of grace. According to Scribner, this area defines literacy as how “cultured” or knowledgeable a person is, how well rounded they are. Literacy to me never meant if a person could read and write, but if they had general knowledge of the world around them, kind of like a liberal arts education.  

Hedge’s article coincided most with Scribner’s ideas, especially where the last area is concerned. He titled people illiterate even if they could read at a fourth or fifth grade level because they didn’t understand or engage in events around them. Literacy is more than the ability to read and write, it’s going a step further and using those skills.

Carr and the ideas in Thompson’s article similarly corresponded. Carr proposed that the internet is altering the way we read just as Lunsford, the professor whose studies Thompson commented on, said that literacy isn’t dying, but changing. The internet has actually made people write even more, when before most never wrote another paragraph after they exited school, and students are better at knowing and targeting their audience. And I’d just like to say a big thank you to Professor Lunsford for proving that “text speak” NEVER is used in academic papers. I am so tired of hearing teachers complain about this case, because it doesn’t happen. Students are actually smarter than that.

I think we are doing alright literacy wise; there are a few things to work on, but overall as literacy (whatever that may mean) evolves, we’ll evolve with it. The most pressing matter is to teach those who can’t to read and write. With the basic skills, anyone can begin to explore the world... It also wouldn’t hurt to find a way to make everyone read a book once in a while.

Books 'R(n't) Us

80% of families in the United States DIDN’T BUY A BOOK in 2007. What…what is going on. Books are awesome. Aside from that being rather frightening, it also troubled me when Chris Hedge suggested that people become slaves to their illiteracy. He discussed how people who can’t read only eat at places where they can order from pictures or how the same people can’t read a prescription on a bottle of pills. It’s strange to think some people can’t read. In Carr’s article he mentions how reading is a learned behavior not a given one, so I suppose it shouldn’t be so outlandish. But it’s kind of the basics, like if someone couldn’t add, subtract, multiply, or divide (and if a lot of people can’t do that either, we’ve got another problem). I don’t even remember learning to read, just like I don’t remember learning to speak. It wasn’t something to study for or take tests on, it just happened. I suppose I should thank my parents for that.

Hedge describes America as being split into two worlds, the literate and the illiterate, and from what I gathered he thinks this is a bad thing. The illiterate (which includes those who can read but at a very low level) can’t fully participate in society. He makes an example of political campaigns, saying that many illiterate people don’t vote, and those who do make their decision based on pictures and propaganda geared toward emotional appeal. But still, it’s not so much being able to read as what being able to read allows you to do. Hedge’s closing statement sums it up:

“The core values of our open society, the ability to think for oneself, to draw independent conclusions, to express dissent when judgment and common sense indicate something is wrong, to be self-critical, to challenge authority, to understand historical facts, to separate truth from lies, to advocate for change and to acknowledge that there are other views, different ways of being, that are morally and socially acceptable, are dying.”

He sees illiteracy as lacking the ability to be an individual, to make informed choices based on the facts around you, and not letting yourself be manipulated.

Other than the frightening facts about book reading habits, Hedge’s and Carr’s articles don’t have much of the same message. Hedge’s is about the plight of illiteracy while Carr’s is about a new kind of literacy, the way reading may change.

Also, on a completely unrelated note, I’d like to add that I do not appreciate his dig at Disney. I doubt even Mickey Mouse would be the most famous person anymore.

iGoogle = iRobot

           After getting creeped out by the first paragraph and then adding A Space Odyssey to my list of movies to see, I settled down and listened to Nicholas Carr’s argument. From my interpretation, it’s not so much a question of “Is Google making us stupid” but “Is Google changing the way we think?” He referenced many studies done to support his view that continued internet use is rewiring our brains. Reading isn’t an instinct; it is a learned behavior that can change. I like the quote he referenced: “We are how we read.” He suggests that the way we sift and skim over the internet is affecting our ability to concentrate on long texts. “If we lose those quiet spaces (in our mind) or fill them up with ‘content’” then we lose the ability to get into a really good page turner. We WON’T be able to READ BOOKS. Is anyone else scared out of their mind?

He pins this problem on search engines. They make it easy to quickly find hundreds of entries on any subject that can keep a person occupied and not focused for hours. The internet thrives on how often you click. Carr brought the founders of Google into his argument. They, Brin and Page, apparently are into artificial intelligence. If Google could think for itself it could possibly produce the exact results you wanted when you entered something into the search bar. But really, our intelligence becomes artificial as we rely on an entire web of information to be available at the touch of a button.

I find it interesting that Carr centers his argument on search engines. It’s not as if Google or Bing or Yahoo actually have any content. But I suppose if it is all about being efficient and accessible, search engines do provide those one stop link emporiums. Compared to my classmates’ blogs, however, it doesn’t seem as if we spend much time using Google, at least to search. More time was spent on Facebook, YouTube, or websites of personal interest. If he was to answer the question “If Facebook making use stupid” though, I think he’d answer no. His paper isn’t about wasting time on the internet, or losing personal connection, but the way we get information now by reading snippets and summaries.

Can you imagine the internet without search engines? Really think about it. If you got online and needed to find something about…say garden gnomes, how would you? You wouldn’t be able to just type it in and click “go”. You be frozen on your home page! Or at least limited to the small number of URL’s you knew. Even if libraries that don’t have card catalogs you are still able to browse the shelves. Where would the bookshelves for the internet be? One website with an infinite list of addresses?