James Gleick's article about the digitization of many of the world's greatest and most prized documents and artifacts is one that I find very interesting. The idea that almost any historical and/or literary document will soon be available at the click of a mouse is entirely exciting for me. I think that this digitization will only bring a higher value to knowledge, and in my opinion any amount of knowledge is more valuable than any artifact one can buy.
The fact that there are those out there who are opposed to this idea of a digital renaissance simply shows the ignorance of society. In order for human society to further itself and evolve as a whole is by the acquiring on information, and the applications of this and previously known information. Without the digitization of the world's great information, millions of people will continue to live in the dark. They will never really know where they came from, or why they do the things they do, or anything other than the obvious. The people who oppose the idea of the digitization of information are probably worried about the financial losses actual museums, libraries, and other establishments known for housing information will take, but the increase in information value is completely lost on these skeptics.
I personally find that digital researching can be just as time consuming and personally taxing as any research done in the stacks of a library. I also have found that there is a wider variety of information, ideas and counter concepts available to today's digital researchers, and this variety allows for a more concrete understanding of the ideas and information accessed. I think this digital renaissance has begun, and will only continue to move forward, and allow more and more people around the world to access any piece of information they can dream of at the touch of a finger, and I can't wait to see what happens next.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
A WikiWorld
Jimmy Wales, any way you look at it, is a technological and encyclopedic genius. Through his ideals of self-expression, and his experience in the stuffy world of academia Wales seems to be the perfect creator of such a controversial and yet reliable information site. The fact that Wales spent so many years and so much energy on his own education allows him the best insight into research gathering techniques, and an inside look to the lack of readily available, free information to the public.
Wales was able to create a world-wide revolution in the age old argument of "your truth or mine". Since the dawn of time, people have been arguing over everything and every fact that every came into existence. Wikipedia's self-editing function is both helpful and devastating to the quality of information found on the site. The fact that any person can correct, or change, anything in any article on the site is great when a user comes across an error in an entry, or is able to add useful information to a previously created article. The opposite is also true; any user can say anything they want, be it true or false, about any subject discussed on the site.
With these facts in mind, I have always felt slightly uneasy about relying on the information provided in Wikipedia articles. When at first researching a subject, I tend to veer away from Wikipedia articles because I have am warry of the source of the information. I do find, however, that many articles, or ideas presented in some articles, lend themselves to further research efforts in a more academic area. The main aspect of Wikipedia that makes me distrust its information is the fact that people, unfortunately, are opinionated, and many times, underinformed,this alone leads to petty wars over the internet, and can interfere with any sort of accurate information gathering.
Jimmy Wales created a new way of life for the current generation, and has forever changed the way in which people view encyclopedias and their accuracy.
Wales was able to create a world-wide revolution in the age old argument of "your truth or mine". Since the dawn of time, people have been arguing over everything and every fact that every came into existence. Wikipedia's self-editing function is both helpful and devastating to the quality of information found on the site. The fact that any person can correct, or change, anything in any article on the site is great when a user comes across an error in an entry, or is able to add useful information to a previously created article. The opposite is also true; any user can say anything they want, be it true or false, about any subject discussed on the site.
With these facts in mind, I have always felt slightly uneasy about relying on the information provided in Wikipedia articles. When at first researching a subject, I tend to veer away from Wikipedia articles because I have am warry of the source of the information. I do find, however, that many articles, or ideas presented in some articles, lend themselves to further research efforts in a more academic area. The main aspect of Wikipedia that makes me distrust its information is the fact that people, unfortunately, are opinionated, and many times, underinformed,this alone leads to petty wars over the internet, and can interfere with any sort of accurate information gathering.
Jimmy Wales created a new way of life for the current generation, and has forever changed the way in which people view encyclopedias and their accuracy.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Pygmalion's Conclusion
Bernard Shaw's wonderful drama, "Pygmalion", is a play that weaves such an intricate personal connection from one character to another that the reader is unknowingly drawn in from the very start. In the final two acts of this play, Shaw brings his tale of a poor, uneducated, common flower-girl and her transformation into a real lady of court thanks to the tedious training of Professor Higgins and the financial backing of Col. Pickering. In the end, the audience finally learns that Eliza, the flower-girl, does win the bet for Prof. Higgins, in that she tricked all the people at the ball into thinking that she was born into high society. This fact, however, does not serve as the climax of the play, as one would think. The ultimate climax is reached when Eliza realizes that Higgins does not truly care about her or her well being, because he so readily dismisses her and her future as no longer his concern now that his bet is won. At first, the reader might get the idea that Eliza is asking Higgins for his affectionate/romantic kindness, but we soon find that she just wants him to show that he has a heart, and has become as attached to her as a friend and companion as she has to him.
The fact that Eliza ends up marrying Freddy Eynsford Hill is both comical and fitting to me. I felt all along that Eliza would require a fanatical, unconditional love from the man she married, but the fact that she found it in timid, unassuming Freddy makes me laugh. Eliza is such a domineering and loud character that it makes perfect, and yet no sense that she falls for Freddy. It is almost too perfect, however, that Freddy and Eliza are able to get their flower shop up and running, and are finally able to make a profit from their dreams. These dreams would never have been reached if not for the support of Col. Pickering, again.
The fact that Eliza ends up marrying Freddy Eynsford Hill is both comical and fitting to me. I felt all along that Eliza would require a fanatical, unconditional love from the man she married, but the fact that she found it in timid, unassuming Freddy makes me laugh. Eliza is such a domineering and loud character that it makes perfect, and yet no sense that she falls for Freddy. It is almost too perfect, however, that Freddy and Eliza are able to get their flower shop up and running, and are finally able to make a profit from their dreams. These dreams would never have been reached if not for the support of Col. Pickering, again.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Orwell's Opposition
George Orwell has been one of my favorite writers since I read 1984 in my ninth grade literature class. I have a great respect for Orwell’s resistance towards conformity, and the power of institutions of all kinds over the culture and everyday lives of the human race. In his article “Politics in the English Language” I have been once again moved by Orwell’s revolutionary ideas. Through this in depth look into the constructs and misconceptions of English itself, Orwell allows his audience to see their language (English) from a starkly different perspective than we do on a regular basis. The examples given in this article are striking to the audience because he comments on the “normal” literary conventions of the day. Thus, Orwell forces his reader to confront his own use of English as a communicative device. Orwell is able to succinctly point out the different uses, and misuses, of language, and then describe the true effect of language on the meaning of an English work.
One main aspect of Orwell’s article that sparked my interest is his emphasis on the power of language. I find it interesting to see how the smallest idiosyncrasy in a sentence can completely change the tone, emotion, or even meaning of a work. It is interesting to note how accurately Orwell portrays the language of what is popularly considered politics and how it can change the true meaning of an otherwise fundamental idea. In the thirteenth paragraph of this article, Orwell draws a startling conclusion about politics and the English language, he describes a politician reciting an overwrought speech full to the brim of colloquial phrases and metaphors meant to emphasize whatever point he is trying to make. Through this description, Orwell makes a serious comment on the power of language as a whole. Anyone can make up an idea and share it with others, but those who manipulate language in order to meet the ends they desire are helping to destroy the overall clarity of the English language. I tend to agree with Orwell on this subject. I feel that most propaganda, whether political, religious or what-have-you is a gross misuse of the English language, because it twists words and gives them new meaning in the context of whatever they are promoting. I wish more people would just say what they mean in a clear, concise statement rather than fluff up their diction in order to gain sympathizers.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Feminist Curiosity
In reading the "Feminist Criticism and Wuthering Heights", I found myself very curious as to the lense of study and its true meanings. Before reading this section of criticism I had a very basic concept of feminism in general. I was one of those people who looked at feminist point of view as solely a critique of the injustices of women in society, so the different definitions and perspectives of this article were very enlightening for me.
The most interesting aspects of this criticism, for me, are the different regional perspectives of feminism. "French feminists tended to focus their attention on language, analyzing the ways in which meaning is produced. They concluded that language as we commonly think of it is a decidedly male realm"(451), ""American feminist critics began by analyzing literary texts rather than philosophizing about language. Many reviewed the great works by male writers, embarking on a revisionist rereading of literary tradition"(454), "British feminists tended to distingush themselves from what they saw as American overemphasis on texts linking women across boundaries and decades and an underemphasis on popular art and culture. They regarded their own critical practice as more political than that of Norht American feminists, whom they sometimes faulted for being uninterested in historical detail"(455). From these different, regional definitions of feminism truly helped me grasp the different nationalities of women, and their points of view in regards to Wuthering Heights.
"These femisists strss that, while all women are female, they are something else as well (such as African American, lesbian, Muslim Pakistani). This "something else" is precisely what makes them, their problems, and their goals different from those of other women"(456). From this quote, I am more readily able to draw different conclusions on the women of Wuthering Heights, not based on their general circumstances placed on them by the narrative itself, but rather on the circumstances put on these women from the standpoint of history and society at the time. Catherine Linton is no longer just a spoiled, confused woman, she becomes, under this new lense, a undereducated, underappreciated, and underambitios somewhat noblewoman of the English moors of the nineteenth century.
The most interesting aspects of this criticism, for me, are the different regional perspectives of feminism. "French feminists tended to focus their attention on language, analyzing the ways in which meaning is produced. They concluded that language as we commonly think of it is a decidedly male realm"(451), ""American feminist critics began by analyzing literary texts rather than philosophizing about language. Many reviewed the great works by male writers, embarking on a revisionist rereading of literary tradition"(454), "British feminists tended to distingush themselves from what they saw as American overemphasis on texts linking women across boundaries and decades and an underemphasis on popular art and culture. They regarded their own critical practice as more political than that of Norht American feminists, whom they sometimes faulted for being uninterested in historical detail"(455). From these different, regional definitions of feminism truly helped me grasp the different nationalities of women, and their points of view in regards to Wuthering Heights.
"These femisists strss that, while all women are female, they are something else as well (such as African American, lesbian, Muslim Pakistani). This "something else" is precisely what makes them, their problems, and their goals different from those of other women"(456). From this quote, I am more readily able to draw different conclusions on the women of Wuthering Heights, not based on their general circumstances placed on them by the narrative itself, but rather on the circumstances put on these women from the standpoint of history and society at the time. Catherine Linton is no longer just a spoiled, confused woman, she becomes, under this new lense, a undereducated, underappreciated, and underambitios somewhat noblewoman of the English moors of the nineteenth century.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Culturally Correct
In reading the chapter on cultural criticism, a few new concepts and ideas were brought to my attention for the first time about a novel I've spent close to three weeks reading and analyzing. My first good realization occured after reading this passage, "Rather than approaching literature in the elitist way taht academic literary critics have traditionally approached it, cultural critics view it more as an anthropologist would" (412). This line spoke to me because I took a class on anthropology last semester that I loved, and in that class I learned that anthropologists look to find the origin of both arts (high culture) and those of everyday activities. In realizing that cultural criticism is all about any action any culture does at any time, with no distinction of class or race or any other possible variable. I had been going at cultural analyses all wrong. I always consdered culture in terms of "cultural events" or religious activities.
Another passage that stuck out to me in the opening piece What is Cultural Criticism?, is on pages 422 and 423, "The future of literary criticism will owe a great deal indeed to those early cultural critics who demonstrated that the boundaries between high and low culture are at once repressive and permeable, that culture is common and therefore includes all forms of popular culture, that cultural definitions are inevitably political, and that world we see is seen through society's idealogy. In a very real sense, the future of education is cultural studies" (422,423). I like this idea of studying anything requires some sort of cultural history on the subject of inquiry, whether it be an artist, author, a society, or an artifact. We, as humans, will always use cultural studies to know more about eachother, and why we do the things we do.
The essay, Imperialist Nostalgia and Wuthering Heights, by Nancy Armstrong looks deeply at cultural studies of the time period surrounding the novel Wuthering Heights, and the different occurences of the time and their reflection on Emily Bronte's characters and their actions. In her section on Photography, Armstrong makes this comment, "For twenty years or so before Wuthering Heights appeared and caused a minor sensation, a number of individuals in England and France were developing the technology fo rmechanically reproducing images of the countryside and making them available to urban viewers. This technology brought the more remote regions to the metropolis in much the same way that Wuthering Heights did" (438). I especially like the comparison of novels, and the written word in general, acting as a kind of postcard for the time, place, and author of its contents, and I am glad to confirm that there are other people out there who look at literature in the same manner.
Another passage that stuck out to me in the opening piece What is Cultural Criticism?, is on pages 422 and 423, "The future of literary criticism will owe a great deal indeed to those early cultural critics who demonstrated that the boundaries between high and low culture are at once repressive and permeable, that culture is common and therefore includes all forms of popular culture, that cultural definitions are inevitably political, and that world we see is seen through society's idealogy. In a very real sense, the future of education is cultural studies" (422,423). I like this idea of studying anything requires some sort of cultural history on the subject of inquiry, whether it be an artist, author, a society, or an artifact. We, as humans, will always use cultural studies to know more about eachother, and why we do the things we do.
The essay, Imperialist Nostalgia and Wuthering Heights, by Nancy Armstrong looks deeply at cultural studies of the time period surrounding the novel Wuthering Heights, and the different occurences of the time and their reflection on Emily Bronte's characters and their actions. In her section on Photography, Armstrong makes this comment, "For twenty years or so before Wuthering Heights appeared and caused a minor sensation, a number of individuals in England and France were developing the technology fo rmechanically reproducing images of the countryside and making them available to urban viewers. This technology brought the more remote regions to the metropolis in much the same way that Wuthering Heights did" (438). I especially like the comparison of novels, and the written word in general, acting as a kind of postcard for the time, place, and author of its contents, and I am glad to confirm that there are other people out there who look at literature in the same manner.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
My "Wuthering" Confusion
Emily Bronte's "Wuthering Heights" has been known to me as a literary classic throughout my life, but I have never attempted to undertake its reading until now. Boy, did I not know what I was in for... After reading the first fifteen chapters I find myself perplexed in a few different ways, but simultaneously interested and anticipating an more complex explanation of my confusions.
The most obvious confusion I come across in my reading of this novel's exposition is the ambiguity of the different characters and their relationships to one another. The initial descriptions of the characters seem somewhat vague, which leads me to confuse which one Nelly is referring to and when. I find myself forgetting if Nelly is talking about Heathcliff, Hindley, or Hareton, because their names are so similar and we know so little about each one; or which Catherine she is referring to in each situation. Honestly, I get the suspicion that Bronte wanted her readers to feel somewhat confused about the different characters and where they came from. I think she does this both to spark an interest in the rest of the characters' stories, but also to force the reader to pay close attention to her writing style and attention to detail.
One of the other main aspects I find myself confused, or curious, about are the characters feeling towards each other. It seems to me, that throughout our initial introduction to the main characters that there are a lot of feelings and opinions among each person about all of the others. It seems that in Bronte's views no one goes unjudged; justly or not. I am wondering what will end up happening between Heathcliff and Catherine early on in my reading, but as I continue I am mainly curious about Heathcliff, and how he will behave as he ages. Also, Nelly's character seems to be subdued to me. For someone who has seen so much of the lives of the people she is describing she must have had strong feelings and opinions about them that she does not fully disclose, but she herself must have been more involved in the unfolding of events than she leads us to believe.
Finally, I am anxious to continue my reading to find out Lockwood's character's final actions. I want to know what his role in all of this is going to be.
The most obvious confusion I come across in my reading of this novel's exposition is the ambiguity of the different characters and their relationships to one another. The initial descriptions of the characters seem somewhat vague, which leads me to confuse which one Nelly is referring to and when. I find myself forgetting if Nelly is talking about Heathcliff, Hindley, or Hareton, because their names are so similar and we know so little about each one; or which Catherine she is referring to in each situation. Honestly, I get the suspicion that Bronte wanted her readers to feel somewhat confused about the different characters and where they came from. I think she does this both to spark an interest in the rest of the characters' stories, but also to force the reader to pay close attention to her writing style and attention to detail.
One of the other main aspects I find myself confused, or curious, about are the characters feeling towards each other. It seems to me, that throughout our initial introduction to the main characters that there are a lot of feelings and opinions among each person about all of the others. It seems that in Bronte's views no one goes unjudged; justly or not. I am wondering what will end up happening between Heathcliff and Catherine early on in my reading, but as I continue I am mainly curious about Heathcliff, and how he will behave as he ages. Also, Nelly's character seems to be subdued to me. For someone who has seen so much of the lives of the people she is describing she must have had strong feelings and opinions about them that she does not fully disclose, but she herself must have been more involved in the unfolding of events than she leads us to believe.
Finally, I am anxious to continue my reading to find out Lockwood's character's final actions. I want to know what his role in all of this is going to be.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)