A Shift in the Constant
What exactly is it that spurs a child to
put on mom’s lipstick or walk around in oversized high-heels? Why do the
elderly take time to tell stories instead of making new adventuresome memories?
Many adults look back on childhood as their best years, yet kids spend ages
dreaming of adulthood. I am convinced this is because people have a hard time
realizing exactly the beauty of the situations they are in until those moments
have passed. These days, kids make funny faces at friends through devices, and
often enjoy afternoons filled with various applications and touch-screen games.
From the phenomenon described above, you would expect everyone to rejoice in
these new, fun activities that youngsters love. Why, then, are new trends, such
as blogging, causing such controversy? Because this time, generational changes
are so drastically different.
Reading is a process through which an individual
can understand both denotations and connotations of transcribed symbols. It
plays a key role in communication and societal structure. By reading different
forms of writing (blogs, poetry, prose, etc.), knowledge is shared and provokes
unique thoughts to propagate through discussions or new written works. Its counterpart, writing, is the act
of using lasting symbols to create meaning. It is an outlet and serves high
importance for communication and organization for society. Through writing, one
can organize thoughts for private or public purposes. It is obvious that both
reading and writing are necessary today, so it seems only natural that forms
for these two should evolve along with the dramatically changing world of
technology we are experiencing. These are processes that have not been altered
much since mankind began using them, though, so it is only natural that
blogging would cause many to be wary.
Blogging is certainly different. It
takes form in concise, opinionated blurbs posted for any and all viewers. By
publishing to the World Wide Web after hardly an editorial scan, thoughts are
spoken exactly as you mean them. It is a quick and easy form of writing,
because anyone can set up a blog through one of many free systems online. Posts
are often informal, and must be recurring to keep readers interested. Blogging
skips the editing process where others have a say in your work before the
public eye does. In "Introduction" and "Coming to Terms",
Joseph Harris discusses blogging as an art form. He interprets writing as a way
to carefully spit back what one has understood from the words of others. He
makes a great point that what we perceive and understand has a basis somewhere,
so our thoughts are a collection of other people's thoughts, despite the fact
that we may comprehend them from a new angle. He emphasizes in order to first
understand someone’s purpose in writing, we must paraphrase his or her work in
our heads. This paraphrasing is ultimately what would come out of our own
writing, should we choose to publicize it. Blogging is simply an outlet for the
rephrasing work we do in our heads. We do need to be careful, because often we
only see the results we intend to see, not noticing things that counter the
point we seek to confirm. According to Harris, “On the one hand… you need
to be able to restate what she or he has to say in your own terms, to offer
your own paraphrase of her or his project. On the other hand, you also need to
attend closely to the specific features of the texts you deal with… or you run
the risk of turning every text you read into a version of what you already want
to say.” (Harris, 15). The issue of correctly interpreting an author’s
intentions is relevant to novels just as much as it is to blogging. The
difference is that in books and articles the author’s opinion has been formally
organized, whereas through a blog we are closer to the original form of the
author’s thoughts so it becomes more difficult to misinterpret intentions. Novels,
articles, and the like are surely outlets too, but for a more processed form of
writing. Blogging is the form of writing most directly correlated to the raw
opinions we create.
Blogging invites us to make our own
opinions more than any other literary form has the power to. Author Chris
Hedges believes there are two different types of places. The first is literate,
or able to determine lies from the truth in the massive amounts of information
we process. He considers the literate a minority, and explains, in America The Illiterate, how he thinks
the majority of America is fed lies and is “hostage” to brands. I get
uncomfortable reading about tragedies and articles about dangers in this world,
and yet those are the articles continuously published because people, myself
included, read them out of fear and for entertainment. It’s terrifying to think
news companies can have so much power over what we imagine to be the most
prevalent problems, whether or not they truly are. Through blogging, we can
have conversations with authors of works we agree or disagree with. This opens
our eyes to the legitimacy or loopholes provided through authors’ writing. In
addition, the explosion of the blogging age has given us incredibly easy access
to the continuous works of massive ecosystems of writers who may never have
taken the time to get published. Our resources are nearly endless, and the
nature of blog writing helps us to absorb information efficiently through
direct passages of thought, as opposed to formal writing we need to decode. In
essence, blogs give us otherwise intimidating inventories of information so we
can formulate our own opinions quickly, by providing background knowledge on
the subject thanks to a vast selection of other people’s views.
It may appear that those bred into the
new media age are inclined to appreciate blogging, whereas print and prose
writers are not accustomed to the idea. Although the transition may not be
immediate, this skepticism is not always the case. Andrew Sullivan, recipient
of a Master in Public Administration degree from Harvard University, is a
practicing Roman Catholic, openly gay, and HIV positive. He has loads to say,
and his opinions err on the side of glaringly controversial. Sullivan is an
author of five books, beginning and developing his career through printed
works. In the middle of his career, he transitioned to blogging. Now, he loves
it. “Alas, as I soon discovered,” he writes, “this sudden freedom from above
was immediately replaced by insurrection from below.” (Sullivan, 3). Since
Sullivan isn’t waiting around for his writing to be poked and prodded into
printing, he has a direct route of communication to his readers. By posting
exactly what he means, he gets feedback that is unwavering from its intentions.
Sullivan appreciates blogging for the honesty it demands. When people have
compliments or criticism, they are more likely to share it with the author if
access to communication is easy. Through blogging, Sullivan knows immediately
what people think of his writing, and can use his readers’ words as inspiration
for a new post. He can’t escape unscathed if someone has harsh criticism of his
words, but Sullivan is grateful for this opportunity to grow from surrounding
opinions and be in touch with the people keeping his writing in existence. After
all, blogs must be alive with continuous posts in order to survive and thrive.
Making a continuous piece of writing does
sound treacherous, and traditional readers and writers may be more hesitant to
follow the trends of today than Sullivan was. To examine potential fears of
this mysterious technological era, Andrea Lunsford delves into the major
discrepancies between the technological, blogging generation and its skeptical
elders. The most common complaint about blog-style writing (and skipping formal
editing processes) surrounds the mass-substitution of incorrect words. However,
by cross-referencing modern written works of college-aged students across the
country, Lunsford finds:
“…While error patterns have changed in
the last twenty-five years, the ratio of errors to number of words has remained
stable not just for twenty-five years but for the last 100 years... Students
today certainly make errors-as all writers do-but…they are making no more
errors than previous studies have documented. Different errors, yes-but more
errors, no.” (Lunsford, 2).
Since
blogging has not been around for too long, statistical data about these trends
is hard to come by. But the fact that even Lunsford’s limited data can prove
criticisms unreliable is astonishing and makes a bigger point than the original
fear of spellchecker misuse in proving blogging to be a massively neutral
change.
It is clear that there are obvious
differences between polished theses and publicized diaries, but what new style
of anything doesn’t come with changes and sacrifices? Once adults learn to adapt
at a fraction of the speed of our technology, they’ll be able to enjoy the
benefits of blogging as their protégés already do. Until then, the problem lies
not with the technology itself, but with the failure for some-who are used to
literacy being a constant in their lives-to give blogging a chance.
Works Cited:
Harris, Joseph. Rewriting: How To Do
Things With Texts. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 2006. 15. Print.
Hedges, Chris. "America the
Illiterate." Truthdig. 10 Nov 2008, n. page. Web. 28 Jan. 2013.
Lunsford,
Andrea. "Our Semi-literate Youth? Not So Fast." n. page. Web. 28 Jan.
2013.
Sullivan,
Andrew. "Why I Blog." Atlantic. Nov 2008: n. page. Web. 28
Jan. 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment