My Blog!

Blogs Revisited

2005-02-21T21:31:00.000-08:00

To be perfectly honest, my general opinion of blogs hasn't changed much in the past eight weeks...but several of the particulars have changed a bit. For one thing, I no longer consider blogs irrelevant: however useless they might appear, a huge number of people keep and read blogs. It is impossible to dismiss them the way I wanted to at the beginning of the quarter. I still feel, however, that blogs don't really have a place in academia, either as an art form that can be guided and crafted nor as authoritative academic sources. Blogs are deeply subjective, and as they are predicated not on content but on form I think it is really impossible to "teach" or "grade" blogs. Any blog that follows the accepted format is valid. A valid blog, that is, not a valid authority on whatever subjects the blog expounds upon. There is too much uncertainty in the authorship of the blog for it to be trustworthy. Informative, perhaps. Entertaining, definitely. But trustworthy? NO...

...with one exception. Unless you personally know the blogger! In a huge step for me, I've decided to actually keep a blog this summer when I go on my Semester at Sea voyage...I figure it will be a way for my friends and family to keep up with me as well as a failsafe way to archive my awesome (I hope!) journey. Obviously I would think my friends could trust my blog, because they KNOW me...but even giving my future blog's trustworthiness, I wouldn't suggest it has an academic function.

Basically, in the epic battle blogs versus Sarah, there's a draw. I still don't particularly like blogs, but I recognize and salute their functions. E-Rhetoric claims another victim...? =)

Presentations

2005-02-18T09:31:00.000-08:00

I found several things memorable about the most recent slew of presentations - most of all people's seeming comfort with NOT using technology in their presentations. many of the presentations did use technology very well, but I was impressed that so many people felt confident without the crutch of the powerpoint dun dun dunnnn. hooray!

I was also impressed with the degree to which many people had gone into their topics. many people really have gotten their teeth into it and it really comes through. i am actually excited to check out these hypertexts when they are finished.

Finally, I found the "upgrades" most people made to their presentations very encouraging. Not that people did badly before, but I think most people definitely improved, which was really nice to see and which kept me engaged with the presentations.

"Blog" Entry

2005-02-07T20:10:00.000-08:00

This is supposed to be the blogging entry, but I read the interesting and surprisingly well thought out article from the Stanford Daily about AIM. I'll try to focus not on AIM, though, but on Feng's points about virtual communication in general and so somehow justify this entry as the "blogging" entry...

I was very interested by Feng's assertion that advances in communication technology have improved humankind's social skills (he mentioned this in the context of the telephone). I'm...not...sure I agree with him. Virtual communication has definitely encouraged already social people to socialize even more and has certainly allowed the shyer among us to get out there and talk to somebody. However, what has it done to the quality of the conversation? I have never had what I would classify as a "deep" conversation online...somehow, knowing that I'm going to be shutting the dialogue box as soon as I or the person I am chatting with has to leave discourages me from exploring deep philosophical ideas or even really important events in my life online. Even events that don't count as "important" but have emotional weight. When a boy has broken my heart, I don't IM my friends about it, I call them up, arrange to go out to get ice cream, and we sob together over banana splits (with caramel...mmmm).

See, even here in my blog I can't talk seriously about things that have any emotional weight, even hypothetically! I always have to add on the caramel =) the same is true on AIM...one is trying too hard to be witty or charming to be able to focus on saying something truly important. So yes, online communication has increased human sociability...but at what cost. IM conversations could never replace those ice cream conversations with my girls, or replace the til-4-AM marathon talks EVERYONE has freshman year with their dormmates, or even informal, comfortable conversation between siblings. My sister who lives on the east coast got into grad school today...IMing her to congratulate her never entered my head. I called her about four times over the course of the day to share her excitement. IMing could never have adequately expressed how proud I am of her, or how excited I am that she is really living out her dream (yes, grad school to get a PhD in English Literature is indeed my sister's dream...she's something of a nerd, gotta love her), or the new pressure I am feeling to do as well for myself as she is doing for herself. Those feelings and communicating them are the meat and potatoes of human interaction, the salt of friendship and love. IMing is at best sour cream and onion fritos.

Of course, I cannot deny that I am a huge hypocrite where AIM is concerned...as I type this, my buddy list is floating off to the side and I am talking to my friend about getting a ride to the library. Ack! What's a girl to do...?

Conversation Follow-Up

2005-02-04T09:21:00.000-08:00

Our conversation was not helpful in the sense that we thought of mew ideas for my presentation, but very helpful in the fact that it confirmed for me that my presentation won't crash and burn. Hurrah! I also really enjoyed talking about Dan's presentation; his subject is really unique and I think his presentation will be fun to watch.

Monday's Presentation

2005-02-04T09:10:00.000-08:00

I just wrote this and it got erase and I am sad, so I will do it again later. ARGH.

Hypertext!

2005-01-30T13:15:00.000-08:00

I spent some time perusing the "Non-Linear Tradition in Literature" from the Electronic Labyrinth, and found a lot of food for thought there. I had never really thought before that a book, as a Book, has a format that could possibly be limiting: I'd always thought of books as really being able to transcend limits because of the variety of information and worlds it could take me to...the actual physical set-up of the book had never entered my mind as a factor before. Once I read the link however, I found myself not that enamored of the suggested emendations to the system. For example, the hypertext of "Hopscotch" sounds to me like its a story that the reader builds, picking and choosing where to go. That is fine if the purpose is entertainment, but when it comes to literature I don't agree that the only function is entertainment. There is alos the message that the creator is feeling impelled to communicate, and if that all-important creative impulse is subsumed to the whims of an attention-deficit reader, it is a real problem. My basic reaction to the idea of creating hypertext literature is no way. That said, as an entertainment tool I think its great - interactive and creative for the reader and well as the author.

Powerpoint!

2005-01-23T16:03:00.000-08:00

I just read the article concerning the Gettysburg address as a Powerpoint. What a powerful article - all the more because it was so amusing. But the point was clear: using Powerpoint (or any technology at all) as a crutch can obscure meaning and, what's worst, detract from noble human pursuits. The Gettysburg address is one of the greatest speeches ever given - to imagine it lost and obscured through the use of crippling technology is heart-wrenching. The most impressive line in the article was the first sentence of the "Speaker's Notes" section: "These are some notes on the Gettysburg meeting. I'll whip them into better shape when I can get on to my computer," followed by the original transcript of the address. I wondered what oratorial gems or seminal ideas have been lost (or ever failed to be) as a result of Powerpoint.

As to my own feelings on Powerpoint...I'm something of a hypocrite. I don't like using Powerpoint in my presentations; I aim to be interesting enough to keep the audience engaged without having something to distract them. But on the other hand, I really appreciate when others them - not so much in oral presentations or talks, but as ancillary material to a lecture in class. Powerpoint in this context does have its drawbacks, however: I know countless students who, knowing that the Powerpoint summarizing the lecture will be put online later, simply fail to go to lecture and try to teach themselves from the Powerpoint presentation on the web. It never works. It must be remembered that Powerpoint is supposed to be an aid, and extra, the icing on the cake: not the presentation itself. When you view a Powerpoint while listening to a lecture, everything in the garden is lovely. When you try to use Powerpoint (or operate Powerpoint) as an independent entity things get hairy.

Research!

2005-01-09T23:26:00.000-08:00

Both of my possible ideas for my research project were inspired by the New York Times Magazine special Year In Ideas 2004 issue. Two of the technological developments of the past year were...fascinating? wildly innovative? mind-blowing? Yes, mind-blowing is the right phrase. I can't believe a) that people thought of these things and b) actually had to ability to realize them. In any case, here are my proposed topics...

1) Societal Response to Nanotechnology

The nanotechnology feature in the Magazine was INSANE. A nanotechnology expert here in California, Dr. James Gimzewski, has developed a system that he uses to listen to cells. This idea sounds feasible, if not that thrilling, in theory, because all the infinitesmial parts of a cell are always vibrating and so are producing sound waves; listening to a cell is just a matter of amplifying the sound. But what this doctor heard in practice is seriously unbelievable. He reports that a normal healthy cell sounds musical, that an inert cell produces a "dead-sounding hiss" and that cells immersed in alcohol (effectively killing them) give out a "creepy screaming sound." This technology has practical applications - Dr. Gimzewski is planning on developing the technology as a diagnostic tool and "listen" for quickly growing cancer cells - but it's the other implications of nanotechnology like this that is fascinating to me. I think Dr. Gimzewski's accomplishment sounds like science fiction come to life...in fact I feel certain I've read a book where cells sing. Madeline L'Engle, maybe? In any case, I wonder how society at large will react to nanotechnology as it becomes more and more ubiquitous. Will they respond with fear? Delight? Skepticism?

http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3494722

2) Land Mines and Nature

It took me a while to think of a title for this topic, and even "land mines and nature" is pretty weak in my opinion. For one thing, it sounds desperately random. But a little background...according to the Magazine, Danish scientists have genetically engineered a species of grass to grow red in soil that land mines are buried in. I'm a bit vague on how exactly this works...some reaction to a chemical present in land mines, I believe. Anyway, the crux is that the grass grows green where it's safe to walk, red where it's not, and that it has the potential to make clearing up land-mines far safer and more efficient. This is amazing technology anyway, but in light of recent events in southern Asia it could be really vital. A little-talked-about side effect of the tsunamis in Sri Lanka was the washing out to sea and presumed replacement on land of thousands of land mines. Fields that were known to be minefields may be safe; they may not be - no one really knows. What a chance for this technology! It's eerily perfect. In any case, the interaction of land mines and nature (both nature as developed by man and nature at her destructive worst) is so intriguing.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11797096%255E1702,00.html

I actually think I'd be happy with either topic, but at the moment I'm tending a bit more towards nanotechnology. This is mostly because a concept that I am exceptionally interested in is tangential to it: the relationship between technology and religion. Religious concerns would definitely figure in societal (particularly American societal) reactions to nanotechnology, and I know I would really enjoy that particular aspect of my research. So we will see, but I suspect nanotechnology will emerge the victor.

*New York Times Magazine link:
http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2004/12/12/magazine/index.html

2005-01-05T20:35:00.000-08:00

Deep Breath, Here We Go

OK, not gonna lie. I'm suspicious of blogs. My friends have tried to explain the beguiling charming nature of blogs to me, but basically all I got out of their lectures is that a blog is a diary anyone can read. ANYONE. Call me crazy, but isn't that completely counterintuitive? I understand that a lot of people (though not me, incidentally) work through feelings etc etc and so forth in journals, and that writing things out is very important yadda yadda yadda. If you want to do soul-searching, why do it online? This is deeply confusing to me.

But very well. Let us accept that bloggers want people to read about their lives. The burning question in my mind is, why? Whyyyy would you want someone to read all about your life? I mean, maybe if your life is utterly fascinating and exciting, involving cliff diving in Bali or walking on the moon or international espionage complete with nifty gadgets. But in that case why why why are you taking time from all that to write about it online? And if your life doesn't involve intrigue and excitement...well, sitting at home writing about how your life is boring doesn't exactly help in that department. Another question: what if you get stalked?

To be perfectly fair, I haven't had the best experience with blogs. A couple of years ago my friends were once AGAIN regaling me with the virtues of blogs, and i gave in and set up a ...livejournal? thing. Yes, I think it's livejournal. Anyway, I made exactly one entry...if I recall correctly it was about how I went walking with my dog in the woods and a deer chased my dog. Yeah, you heard me. Now what did I accomplish? Well, first I informed the world that my dog is dumb as a rock (I love her and everything, but my dog really is spectacularly stupid. She's scared of bikes and squirrels too. Also those huuuge blow-up snowmen that people put on their lawns at Christmastime). I also informed the world that I had nothing better to write about than how my dog is afraid of Bambi.

This didn't make me feel very good about myself. I'm no James Bond, but my life isn't lame either. But in order to make my blog slightly more interesting, I'd have to write about other people, since most of my life involves interacting with friends and guys and everything. Isn't that a huge violation of THEIR privacy to relate conversations and actions involving other people? To make an interesting blog, I'd have to detail my day to day, minute to minute actions...which just seems waaaaaay too narcissistic to me. I think that's the real problem I have with blogs, aside from the questions I talked about earlier. It seems incredibly narcissistic to write volumes on your life and expect the internet community to want to read it. I know, I know, there are blogs that get thousands of hits a day. So clearly some of the narcissism is justified. But still.

Oooooh, just realized that a majority of the class probably keep blogs and that I have most likely offended everybody. I am probably officially hated. Gah! [wince] Sorry sorry sorry, mea culpa. Hate the blog, love the blogger! Love love love!

I can hear you all now..."Yeah, whatever, you idiot...(possibly you're thinking an insult more profane than "idiot," but I can't exactly write it on a class blog, ya know?)...Why'd you sign up for E-Rhetoric if you don't like blogs? What's with the insults? You jerk, you're so MEAN!" Eeeeeh, I know. Aaah, not that I'm mean. What I meant was that I know that I signed up for this class despite my blog suspicions. It's weird. But this is how I saw it: like it or not, blogs are definitely a phenomenon. The internet itself is an explosive phenomenon. It's the newest way, fastest way, most democratic way to communicate. It's also dangerous and risky. Explosive, novel, fast, risky, commitment to democracy...man, I should be James Bond. Or at least a Bond girl. But I digress. I really want to understand a bit more about the way internet communication works, especially because I'm an STS major. You can't get much more science-technology-and-society-ish than this class. And sadly you can't get much more inarticulate than this entry.

But hey, aside from the thrilling tales of Mulligan the Cowardly Golden Retriever, I'm new at this.

**No offense meant, I swear.**