If something is sticky, it is very difficult to get off, like jam or honey. Ideas can be sticky in the sense that they do are not easily forgotten. They stay (stick) with you. These concepts are difficult to “get off,” or “unstick from” the brain. I’d like to be able to do that—get people to remember what I say (write).
The Heath brothers write that templates enforce more creativity. This is certainly true for myself. If I am told to write something, I need guidelines of some sort. I don’t think everyone feels like this, though. Templates could definitely hinder some artists. Music in the twentieth century was all about ignoring preset forms, and some of the greatest pieces have been composed because of that (in my opinion, anyway).
The “Stalker project” was actually really interesting. You have to wonder who was watching you, and if the person you were watching knew you were doing so.
However, that was not the point. This activity made you think about different words for the same thing, without being synonyms. Case in point: Listing 12 things that can fill in for the word “green.” I personally used a lot of symbolism in that list. Envy is green. But so is grass, which is not so abstract.
I had a hard time making metaphors out of physical descriptions and activities. I kind of just wrote what that description might mean about the subject’s personality. For instance, my subject sat up very straight, with wonderful posture. So I wrote that this person looked regal. I might have missed the mark a bit though…
For a writer, describing things in multiple ways is a great skill. We think of synonyms all the time, why not words/phrases that are not exact, also? To think of metaphors for a word is more difficult, but is more interesting in a piece of writing.
Dogs follow humans. They need some kind of direction to function well. However, if the human is lacking direction, they cannot possibly hope to control a dog. Dogs see right through to our emotions. If they see that we are struggling, they’ll take advantage. Likewise, when we humans are unstable, other humans can usually tell, and that affects our judgment of a person. If someone is uncomfortable with something, we are less likely to want him or her to do that thing.
From Peter’s blog:
5.What community of writers does the creator of "Stitch Bitch" reach out to?
6. Does the creator of "Stitch Bitch" ultimately find himself/herself by the end of the text?
Jackson is speaking to all writers, especially those who think they know what they are saying, or what they want to say. She wants to prove them wrong, that no one knows much at all. But she also wants them to realize this, thus helping them, in her own way.
1. Is Jackson plagiarizing herself?
2. If Jackson was able to persuade classmates to think one way only, why not her readers?
3. Is hypertext the “good writing” or the “dirty flesh” of “the feminine?”
4. Can one make anything without it being a collage of others?
5. “Alphabetical order is a contradiction in term” how?
6. Are the banished body and the patchwork body opposing forces?
"My immediate reaction to “Stitch Bitch” was that Shelley Jackson is schizophrenic. She even says that “Hypertext is schizophrenic.”
We don’t think about things that are “understood,” things we can’t see but somehow insist are there. Like a “1” in front of an “X” in math.
Jackson knows (or knew) how to fool her readers, or so she says. I wonder if she is trying to fool us even now in reading this article.
She hopes for plagiarism, like Jonathan Lethem. She wants “piratic readers,” which is strange, until she explains: she doesn’t mind because she might steal back her ideas in the future.
Jackson is pessimistic, cynical, a realist. She sees things for what they truly are: “your reader will just stop reading.” She also realizes that what we think is there may not be.
She doesn’t like flowery words, like Mark Twain. This suits her personality—she’s very forward and blunt. If I met Jackson on the street, I’d probably think she was insane, but still it’d be interesting. She’s obviously very intelligent.
Lethem writes that when artists try to claim sole rights over their work, the value is lost. The piece is no longer as important because it cannot be used again. It is only there to be looked at, not touched. The artist loses fans. But Lethem believes that “the collective public imagination” is most negatively affected. We cannot legally use any part of that work, therefore, it is lost, and our ideas are stunted.
Artists look for praise, people who want to use their ideas. But then they are offended if someone tries to steal them. So they copyright them, which Lethem hates, and keep the ideas for themselves. Artists don’t help society grow if all of their ideas are off limits.
Do artists recycle their own ideas? If they copyright them, can they be used again? Did the artist not steal from another source to create their work? If that source were copyrighted, where would the idea come from?
I think they must reuse ideas—think of a band that uses the same chord progression in every song, or a painter who uses the same technique over and over again
Also, in keeping their work off limits, they are only promoting themselves, and not the ideas, which Lethem deems more important.
It’s true that once you read what you’ve written, it is easier to see what you wanted to say and if you accomplished that goal. In the blogging that we do, it is especially true. Once you’ve explained what an article means, what an author is saying, you can decide what, if anything is lacking. You can take a step back and see the whole post.
"We write frankly and fearlessly but then we “modify” before we print.
Life on the Mississippi"
In our blogs, or any informal writing, we write what we feel. We write as we would speak. Then, after the post’s completion, we may attempt to make it sound more forma by fixing grammar and punctuation. At least, I do sometimes.
Jonathan Lethem does condone plagiarism, but only because he sees it as necessary for ideas to grow, or to prove a point, as he did. He (someone else…) writes that nearly everything comes from something else. A landscape painting is a plagiarism of nature. Songs start out as the same chord progression as another, but are eventually changed to make something “new.” A writer’s work is about something they did not come up with, but changed to make it their own.
Lethem seems to believe that “imitation is a form of flattery.” Because I cannot cite this sentence, he would consider it plagiarism. But Lethem doesn’t mind it, because it supplements a point. He even states that anyone can take his ideas and use them, but not his exact words, because his ideas “were never mine in the first place, but I gave them to you.”
Lethem’s view on copyright laws is that they are hindering creativity. They are hypocritical: Walt Disney could take an idea from someone else, and then copyright it so that no one can use that same idea. And, Disney movies are repeatedly copyrighted, after expiration.
He writes that everyone plagiarizes, but it is mostly legal plagiarism. We have been familiar with certain things for so long, that it is difficult to remember where they came from to properly cite their sources.
Observations:
1. chimes
2. NYC
3. European
4. 2 kids
5. 1 boy
6. 1 girl
7. silly music
8. lost
9. have cell phone
10. has GPS
11. skipping
12. cross street
13. use GPS
14. found their way
15. girl blonde
16. when lost, music slows
17. girl wearing a kerchief
18. voice over at end
19. kids don’t speak
2. no adults with them
1. They are independent children (or neglected....)
2. They're happy at the end after finding their way
3. very young
4. able to use technology easily (the phone is simple to use)
5. German(?)
1. Why are they in NYC?
2. Where are their parents”
3. Or any relatives/guardians?
4. Why did no one think that two oddly dressed children walking around NYC was strange?
5. Did they have money on them to take the subway?
Analysis
The point here is either that AT&T makes phones that are easy to use (so easy a caveman could do it?), thus insulting children and their parents, OR, children are becoming more independent, thus praising said people. Not sure. I for one, don’t think kids should be walking alone in New York City without knowing where they’re going. But we’ve become so dependent on technology. We can’t imagine leaving the house without a cell phone. Or using a MAP (not using GPS). I know I can’t read maps well.
I forget who said this (and the exact words are lost to me), but it is a wonderful quote:
“The more elaborate the means of communication, the less we all actually communicate.”
This is so true—we (myself included) have become so used to not having to deal with people face-to-face. I hate calling people I don’t know, or answering the phone when I don’t know who is calling. I don’t know if this is because I’m shy (I doubt that—I’m kind of loud around those I know well) or if it’s truly because of the technology I have grown up with.
I digress. Blogging seems annoying…even the word is annoying. I don’t see why it’s necessary to share EVERYTHING as some bloggers/myspacers/facebookers do. I can understand that they are ways to “talk” to people when nothing else works. I might actually be forced to create a facebook account because, like texting, everyone does it. Maybe that’ll change my mind. But for now, I’m not a fan of blogging.
