Blog Post Week 10

The last and probably only time I was ever really engrossed in a book series was A Series of Unfortunate Events when I was much younger. I honestly don't know exactly what made me enjoy them so much, that is to say I can't put my finger on it. Perhaps it was Lemony Snicket's more to the point writing style as I tend to struggle with books that fill their pages with pointless details that really aren't important. Over the years I've come to lose my attention span for books as a medium and I don't really think I'll ever be engrossed like that with books ever again. I love to hear a good story, I just can't absorb them from books anymore.

Prisoner on the Hell Planet (Post 12)

What did I think one of the most pathos-laden parts of Maus Vol. 1 was, you ask? I feel like I barely have to think about the answer. When I read the inserted comic, "Prisoner on the Hell Planet," I had to stop, think, and then read it again. Maybe it's because it was so dark, or so full of emotion, or so shocking. "It was so... personal!" Mala had said--and she's right. I had never really given comics / graphic novels a chance before, but this moment made me wonder why. To see Art express so graphically and blatantly his feelings about his mother's suicide tied a knot in my gut. Chock-full of emotion, it made me realize how deeply personal comics could be, rather than just funny, political, or swarming with superheroes. But perhaps more importantly, that comic felt like a window into Artie. A necessary part of himself that is crucial to our understanding of the whole book--showing Art's feelings about his parents and showing that he, too, is a survivor. It's likely that "Prisoner on the Hell Planet" might remain the most striking part of Maus for me, but I suppose I'll have to wait and see.

Blog Post 11

Overall, I was not a fan of The Shallows. The title "What the Interned is Doing to Our Brains" intrigued me, but by the 3rd chapter, I was bored of the book and did not want to read it anymore. I would have been fine with two chapters of background information that is relevant to Carr's argument, then given his viewpoints and the effects the Internet has on the brain. I mostly agreed with his point that the internet makes us more distracted in the everyday life. I always find myself checking my twitter feed, Facebook, or instagram during homework or classes, which makes it so much harder to efficiently learn and pay attention. Our brains always want something new to look at because of the way the internet effects us. Also, in Carr's first chapter, I agree that it is much much harder to read in depth novels or articles because we are used to getting snips of info from the internet and we prefer that because it takes less time. One thing I disagree with is that the internet makes us lose touch with the real world. Maybe in the sense of having real conversations and getting the full emotions from people, but the internet significantly connects people all around the world. I think with this being said, we have more knowledge of things going on around the world and we can understand a lot more. With the easy access of the internet, we can learn so many different things, even if we are not reading in-depth. I feel that there is no chance of getting away from the internet and/or the impact it has on our brains, positive or negative. It is part of our culture and a futuristic way of social behavior. 

Blog Post #11

The Shallows was definitely not my favorite book. I found my self constantly getting distracted by other, more interesting things while reading this book. Which is the idea that Carr explained at the beginning of the book, which I guess I do agree with. As we get so used to multitasking and reading information in little snippets we want to know more at the same time and faster. Making it hard for us to focus on one thing at a time. Although, one reason that I could not pay attention and got easily distracted is because the book wasn’t that interesting for me to read, but I can pay attention to a book that I am interested in. So I believe that not all our brains change due to the internet. I think that it is something that differs from person to person. It’s the same thing with how people learn differently; everyone’s brains work differently. I do though agree with Carr’s argument that advancing in technology does change the way we work. We survived before the concept of time, clocks, books and the internet, but now younger generations feel that they wouldn’t know how to do simple things without the internet. Tasks are becoming easier but that doesn’t necessarily mean that are brains are becoming dumber, the internet and other things like social media are just making us greater in other places, like visually, like what the article we read said.

(Post 11)

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo The Shallows...

I feel like I spent a healthy amount of time in class (and on my own) ridiculing Carr for his approach and for an argument that, for me, seemed to have no call-to-action. I found myself consistently upset by how he laid out his argument. But did I ever admit that, for the most part, he's right?

I guess my inability to decide how I feel about the book is because it gives me too many conflicting emotions. I do believe that the internet is removing our ability to hold attention to longer materials, and that it's making younger generations more reliant on media and technology than on actual human emotions and interactions, and that books are starting to become obsolete. So perhaps it's not that he's wrong, just that he overlooked some other important things. Like, for instance, the fact that I can go online and learn about basically anything I want to. Or how I can plan a trip to Morocco with a friend that lives in Ireland--thousands of miles away yet talking in real time. Or how I can see pictures of my friends as they go on life-changing adventures (or as they simply go to class and notice something oddly beautiful on the way). The internet is a tool for us to use. Carr is right in saying that it can destroy us, but not if we use it correctly. And we're still learning. What more can he ask of us?

Last 4 Prompts of the Semester (and Bonus!)

For those of you who are eager to get the blog done, here are the last 4 prompts of the semester. (There is also a bonus prompt, which can replace your lowest blog post score of the semester.)

Post #11:

Write a response to The Shallows, taking into consideration the things Carr said that you both agreed and disagreed with. What part of his argument did you accept? What part did you find yourself unable to accept? Why? 

Post #12:

After finishing the first volume of Maus, find a moment in the story that you feel exemplifies extraordinary pathos. Describe it (giving the page number of your edition) and why you feel it is particularly pathetic (in Jay Heinrichs’ sense of the word). How does this moment fit in with the story at large? 

Post #13:

After finishing Maus, compare it to the other texts we’ve read this semester. How is it similar to Jonathan Safran Foer’s Eating Animals and Nicholas Carr’s The Shallows? Think about the book beyond its content, and think about how it makes its argument? How is the rhetoric of Spiegelman’s graphic text similar to the rhetoric of Safran Foer’s or Carr’s?

Post #14:

As you watch your peers’ speeches this week, what issue did you think was the most interesting/compelling/challenging/controversial? Why? What aspects of the controversy had you never considered before? What aspects did you think about differently after the speech? Was there a moment that was particularly rhetorically powerful?

Post #15: Bonus

Tell me about your summer plans in the most rhetorically interesting way possible. If you need an argument, tell me why it’s going to be awesome/terrible/interesting/boring, etc. Pull out all the stops: use ethos, logos, pathos, argumentation, exaggeration etc. 

Blog Post #10

The last book that I got immersed in was First They Killed My Father which is an autobiography of a little Cambodia girl who remembers as young as five years old, what happened during the war in her country. The book describes the intense situations she was thrown into after her father died. Before the war, she spoke about how her life was ideal. She was a five year old who had everything, a loving family and nice house. It was soon after the war started that she was forced to be an orphan and do everything she was told, otherwise she would be killed. I think the reason I wanted to keep reading and reading was because it was amazing how courageous she was as a young child and her will to survive. Not only did she stand up against old men that were trying to kill her, but she kept an open mind the whole time. Writing this book she showed many others how to stand up for yourself and what should be right. Another reason I wanted to keep reading is because I honestly thought that maybe her sister or brother was actually writing the book for her, making assumptions that someone had killed her. She was in very harsh conditions the whole time and still made it through alive. It was the suspense that kept me alive. I ended up finishing the book within three days because I kept wanted to know what was going to happen next and also the fact that I was stuck in the car on my way to California with my parents. Haha