emfarrington

Initial Paper:

Literacy: A Deeper Meaning

When put simply the definition of literacy is the ability to read and write. To me, however, literacy has a much broader definition. There is so much more to reading than just seeing the words on the paper; there is much more to writing than just scribbling words on a page. Being literate through reading and writing isn’t obtained in more ways than the general definition of literacy implies. Literacy is not only the ability to read and write, but also a persons ability to appreciate reading and writing.

Growing up people are usually read to at bedtime by their parents. It is a nightly routine and most children may not even go to bed without a story from mom or dad. Children embrace the reading and seem to love it. The stories told at bedtime seem to be the stories that stick with them the most, the ones they remember for their whole life. This to me, although not matching the technical definition, is literacy. Somehow children are able to connect with the literature being read to them and can recall it years later. This demonstrates an understanding and appreciation that come with the memories of the literature. In Sven Birkerts’ The Gutenberg Elegies he states that reading should be a very personal, introverted experience where only the reader and the literature interact. From my own personal experiences, I can completely disagree with this statement, and with my disagreement I believe I can speak for a majority of young children as well. Birkerts’ says when he reads alone he feels joy and a “wonderful ciphering of thought and sensation”, however; as a child I felt that way when my parents read a story to me.

One story in particular that comes to mind with this topic is when my mother was pregnant with my younger sister. When she found out another baby was on the way she bought a book for me called Mama Moon and read it to me every night. It was a story about a little girl who was expecting a new sibling. Throughout the story the little girl expressed feelings of worry and excitement about the new baby that was coming while the mother always reassured her that even with a new baby her love for her first daughter would never fade away. At that point in my life I could not exactly read all the words of the story by myself, but I remember my mother reading the words to me. Even though I could not completely associate the written text to my mother’s words, different lines from the book always danced around my mind. I understood the feelings and emotions of the little girl in the story and I felt the words that were on the paper. I could relate to it and that gave me the feeling of excitement and joy that Birkerts’ describes. Contrary to Birkerts’ statement, the appreciation that comes with the feelings of being intertwined and enthralled by literature can come through the sharing of literature like parents do with their children and not just through private readings.

Birkerts’ opinion on writing, like reading, is very conventional. He believes that writing is something that is black and white; something that is written for other people to understand and enjoy, but that just is not the case. A writer, to me, is literate when he or she can appreciate what they have written, when they have fully put their emotions into their work. When it comes to writing, many people struggle with expressing themselves or getting their point across on paper. It can be a grueling task. Does it make a person illiterate to not be able to write out complete thoughts or write things with completely accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation? According to a general definition, maybe. However, in my eyes, if a writer can understand and appreciate what they have created that is all that matters. Many times people tend to write for himself or herself, whether it be in a diary, journal, blog, or what have you. Writing is a form of expression, which is why it does not necessarily have to be understood by everyone. The experience of putting thoughts onto paper is a personal and exciting journey. Although the process of writing may be expressive and enjoyable, one person’s words may not be appreciated or understood by their readers. The lack of understanding or enjoyment from a writer’s work does not make the writer illiterate in any way. If the writer himself can feel and understand his work then he is literate. His literacy stems from his connection with what he has created. In schools all over the world students moan and groan about the literature they are reading; from Shakespeare to Hawthorne. Now, does the inability of the students to understand those older works make the authors illiterate? Absolutely not. Not one person would say that those highly regarded authors are illiterate. In regards to literacy, the outlook we have on those highly regarded authors is the outlook people should have on all writers, simply because they understand their writing. Their connection with their literary creations is what makes them literate, not how much other people connect with it or comprehend it.

Literacy is much more involved and complex than simply knowing how to read and write. The most important part about literacy and being literate is the appreciation that one may or may not have for what they are reading or writing. Appreciation for one’s own work or someone else’s work makes it known that one has taken the time to read or write and attempt to understand or help others understand and that is literacy. The act of going in-depth into a piece of literature opens this figurative door to a whole new level of understanding.

Revised Draft:

Literacy: A Deeper Meaning

When put simply the definition of literacy is the ability to read and write. To me, however, literacy has a much broader definition. There is so much more to reading than just seeing the words on the paper; there is much more to writing than just scribbling words on a page. Being literate through reading and writing isn’t obtained in more ways than the general definition of literacy implies. Literacy is not only the ability to read and write, but also a person’s ability to appreciate reading and writing.

Growing up people are usually read to at bedtime by their parents. It is a nightly routine and most children may not even go to bed without a story from mom or dad. Children embrace the reading and seem to love it. The stories told at bedtime seem to be the stories that stick with them the most, the ones they remember for their whole life. This to me, although not matching the technical definition, is literacy. Somehow children are able to connect with the literature being read to them and can recall it years later. This demonstrates an understanding and appreciation that come with the memories of the literature. In Sven Birkerts’ The Gutenberg Elegies he states that reading should be a very personal, introverted experience where only the reader and the literature interact. From my own personal experiences, I can completely disagree with this statement, and with my disagreement I believe I can speak for a majority of young children as well. Birkerts’ says when he reads alone he feels joy and a “wonderful ciphering of thought and sensation”, however; as a child I felt that way when my parents read a story to me.

One story in particular that comes to mind with this topic is when my mother was pregnant with my younger sister. When she found out another baby was on the way she bought a book for me called Mama Moon and read it to me every night. It was a story about a little girl who was expecting a new sibling. Throughout the story the little girl expressed feelings of worry and excitement about the new baby that was coming while the mother always reassured her that even with a new baby her love for her first daughter would never fade away. At that point in my life I could not exactly read all the words of the story by myself, but I remember my mother reading the words to me. Even though I could not completely associate the written text to my mother’s words, different lines from the book always danced around my mind. I understood the feelings and emotions of the little girl in the story and I felt the words that were on the paper. I could relate to it and that gave me the feeling of excitement and joy that Birkerts’ describes. Contrary to Birkerts’ statement, the appreciation that comes with the feelings of being intertwined and enthralled by literature can come through the sharing of literature like parents do with their children and not just through private readings.

Furthermore, today’s society is experiencing the new trend of electronic texts. Electronic texts range from blog posts to interactive stories. Interactive stories are similar yet very different to physical literature. Similarly, they tell stories, some of which are based off of old literature. For examples, an electronic text I read was called Red Riding Hood, it is an interactive interpretation and twist of the original story Little Red Riding Hood. In the interpreted story the reader must click different parts of the screen to keep the story going. Instead of having text through out the story, it is more of a graphic way of presenting the plotline. This type of literature engages viewers in ways other than reading words off of a page. Clicking through hyperlinks to get through the story engrosses the viewer and gives them a new way to experience and appreciate literature. Similar to being read to by parents, electronic texts are an interactive way to value literature without physically reading texts.

Birkerts’ opinion on writing, like reading, is very conventional. He believes that writing is something that is black and white; something that is written for other people to understand and enjoy, but that just is not the case. A writer, to me, is literate when he or she can appreciate what they have written, when they have fully put their emotions into their work. When it comes to writing, many people struggle with expressing themselves or getting their point across on paper. It can be a grueling task. Does it make a person illiterate to not be able to write out complete thoughts or write things with completely accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation? According to a general definition, maybe. However, in my eyes, if a writer can understand and appreciate what they have created that is all that matters. Many times people tend to write for himself or herself, whether it be in a diary, journal, blog, or what have you. Writing is a form of expression, which is why it does not necessarily have to be understood by everyone. The experience of putting thoughts onto paper is a personal and exciting journey. Although the process of writing may be expressive and enjoyable, one person’s words may not be appreciated or understood by their readers. The lack of understanding or enjoyment from a writer’s work does not make the writer illiterate in any way. If the writer himself can feel and understand his work then he is literate. His literacy stems from his connection with what he has created. In schools all over the world students moan and groan about the literature they are reading; from Shakespeare to Hawthorne. Now, does the inability of the students to understand those older works make the authors illiterate? Absolutely not. Not one person would say that those highly regarded authors are illiterate. In regards to literacy, the outlook we have on those highly regarded authors is the outlook ‘people should have on all writers, simply because they understand their writing. Their connection with their literary creations is what makes them literate, not how much other people connect with it or comprehend it.

Literacy is much more involved and complex than simply knowing how to read and write. The most important part about literacy and being literate is the appreciation that one may or may not have for what they are reading or writing. Appreciation for one’s own work or someone else’s work makes it known that one has taken the time to read or write and attempt to understand or help others understand and that is literacy. The act of going in-depth into a piece of literature opens this figurative door to a whole new level of understanding.

Final Draft: including Preface, Self Reflection, and Honor Code:

Preface:

My paper, Literacy: A Deeper Meaning, is about the appreciation of literature being the focus of what makes a person literate instead of their ability to read and write. In this paper I discuss the appreciation of literature through reading aloud with others and interactive texts. Both are ways a person can embrace a story, understand it, and then choose to appreciate it or not. When it comes to writing a similar opinion applies as well. One does not necessarily need to write correctly or fluidly for it to be appreciated. If a person can understand their writing and appreciate it then they are literate. Just because not everyone can understand another’s writing does not mean that it does not mean something to someone else or is not appreciated by someone else. One thing I tried to focus on in this paper was supporting detail and a counter argument. I used personal experience and quotes as supporting detail in my paper. For my counter argument I decided to put that before my opinions so that I could reference my counter argument in the future paragraphs. I really believe that the changes I made to my initial work has enhanced the overall outcome of my paper.

Self Reflection: In this paper I discuss what I think literacy means. I argue that it is not just the ability to read and write, but the ability to appreciate literature and the creation of literature. In my paper I tried to use personal experience and electronic texts to support my opinion and I believe it made my paper much better, I think I have worked on incorporating more quotes and textual evidence to support my argument. I think I have improved on forwarding as well as supporting my ideas.

Emelie Farrington

Dr. Meehan

Literature and Composition

December 9, 2014

Literacy: A Deeper Meaning

When put simply the definition of literacy is the ability to read and write. To me, however, literacy has a much broader definition. There is so much more to reading than just seeing the words on the paper; there is much more to writing than just scribbling words on a page. Being literate through reading and writing is not obtained in more ways than the general definition of literacy implies. Author Sven Birkerts agrees with the general definition literacy, however I believe literacy is not only the ability to read and write, but also a person’s ability to appreciate reading and writing.

Birkerts’ idea of literacy is the ability to read and write. His viewpoint is not completely invalid though, seeing that the general definition of literacy matches his. He believes that one must have personal experiences with his or her readings and compositions. His opinion stems from a lifetime of introverted experiences with literature. Although this is not exactly a wrong standpoint it is a very narrow one. There are numerous ways for people to appreciate literature besides reading .

Growing up people are usually read to at bedtime by their parents. It is a nightly routine and most children may not even go to bed without a story from mom or dad. Children embrace the reading and seem to love it. The stories told at bedtime seem to be the stories that stick with them the most, the ones they remember for their whole life. This to me, although not matching the technical definition, is literacy. Somehow children are able to connect with the literature being read to them and can recall it years later. This demonstrates an understanding and appreciation that come with the memories of the literature. In Sven Birkerts’ The Gutenberg Elegies he states that reading should be a very personal, introverted experience where only the reader and the literature interact. From my own personal experiences, I can completely disagree with this statement, and with my disagreement I believe I can speak for a majority of young children as well. Birkerts’ says when he reads alone he feels joy and a “wonderful ciphering of thought and sensation”, however; as a child I felt that way when my parents read a story to me.

One story in particular that comes to mind with this topic is when my mother was pregnant with my younger sister. When she found out another baby was on the way she bought a book for me called Mama Moon and read it to me every night. It was a story about a little girl who was expecting a new sibling. Throughout the story the little girl expressed feelings of worry and excitement about the new baby that was coming while the mother always reassured her that even with a new baby her love for her first daughter would never fade away. At that point in my life I could not exactly read all the words of the story by myself, but I remember my mother reading the words to me. Even though I could not completely associate the written text to my mother’s words, different lines from the book always danced around my mind. I understood the feelings and emotions of the little girl in the story and I felt the words that were on the paper. I could relate to it and that gave me the feeling of excitement and joy that Birkerts’ describes. Contrary to Birkerts’ statement, the appreciation that comes with the feelings of being intertwined and enthralled by literature can come through the sharing of literature like parents do with their children and not just through private readings.

Furthermore, today’s society is experiencing the new trend of electronic reading. Birkerts’ states that the “advent of the computer and the astonishingly sophistication achieved by our electronic communications media have together turned a range of isolated changes into something systemic.” This is very much true and has truly effected the way people look at literature. The internet has evolved and given us new ways to appreciate literature. One of them is electronic texts. Interactive stories are a form of electronic text that is changing the way people approach literature. Interactive stories are similar yet very different to physical literature. Similarly, they tell stories, some of which are based off of old literature. For example, an electronic text I read was called Red Riding Hood, it is an interactive interpretation and twist of the original story Little Red Riding Hood. In the interpreted story the reader must click different parts of the screen to keep the story going. Instead of having text through out the story, it is more of a graphic way of presenting the plotline. This type of literature engages viewers in ways other than reading words off of a page. Clicking through hyperlinks to get through the story engrosses the viewer and gives them a new way to experience and appreciate literature. Similar to being read to by parents, electronic texts are an interactive way to value literature without physically reading texts.

Not everyone learns or interprets things the same way. Interactive texts allow people who are more visual or collaborative learners to enjoy literature as much as a textual learner would. Seeing that many people who struggle with reading usually ignore books all together, which is why interactive stories are such a great way for people who do not read to still have the same exciting experience as a reader would. Interactive stories open doors for people who are not strong or capable readers to enter the world of literature by relaying a story to them in a way that they can understand and relate to. It is a way for them to embrace and appreciate a story without struggling through the words of a book.

Birkerts’ opinion on writing, like reading, is very conventional. He believes that writing is something that is black and white; something that is written for other people to understand and enjoy, but that just is not the case. A writer, to me, is literate when he or she can appreciate what they have written, when they have fully put their emotions into their work. When it comes to writing, many people struggle with expressing themselves or getting their point across on paper. It can be a grueling task. Does it make a person illiterate to not be able to write out complete thoughts or write things with completely accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation? According to a general definition, maybe. However, in my eyes, if a writer can understand and appreciate what they have created that is all that matters. Many times people tend to write for himself or herself, whether it be in a diary, journal, blog, or what have you. Writing is a form of expression, which is why it does not necessarily have to be understood by everyone. The experience of putting thoughts onto paper is a personal and exciting journey. Although the process of writing may be expressive and enjoyable, one person’s words may not be appreciated or understood by their readers. The lack of understanding or enjoyment from a writer’s work does not make the writer illiterate in any way. If the writer himself can feel and understand his work then he is literate. His literacy stems from his connection with what he has created. In schools all over the world students moan and groan about the literature they are reading; from Shakespeare to Hawthorne. Now, does the inability of the students to understand those older works make the authors illiterate? Absolutely not. Not one person would say that those highly regarded authors are illiterate. In regards to literacy, the outlook we have on those highly regarded authors is the outlook ‘people should have on all writers, simply because they understand their writing. Their connection with their literary creations is what makes them literate, not how much other people connect with it or comprehend it. When children first learn how to write they are prone to make mistakes. Their writing is riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, but that does not mean that they do not understand what they are writing. Even young children are literate. They can write sentences, fully aware of what they are writing, look back on it and be proud of what they wrote. The appreciation of one’s own writing, although it may not necessarily be generally considered correct, is what makes someone literate when it comes to writing. This does not just apply to children wither. This applies to everyone who attempts to write. If one can understand and admire his or her own work then in my eyes they are considered literate.

Literacy is much more involved than simply knowing how to read and write. The most important part about literacy and being literate is the appreciation that one may or may not have for what they are reading or writing. Appreciation for one’s own work or someone else’s work makes it known that one has taken the time to read or write and attempt to understand or help others understand, that is literacy. The act of going in-depth into a piece of literature opens this figurative door to a whole new level of understanding.

I pledge my honor that I have completed this work in accordance with the Honor Code.

Works Cited

Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age. Boston:  Faber and Faber, 1994. Print.

My first writing project is titled “Literacy: A Deeper Meaning”. For my final Project I hope to build off of this paper and make it better. In this paper I discuss how being literate is not defined by one’s ability to read or write but how they appreciate literature and the creation of literature. Some keywords in my argument were appreciate and understanding. I hope that when I return to this work I can potentially add the word interactivity to the list. In this first writing project I mentioned the being read to as a child is a form of literacy, I also believe that being read to is a form of interactivity and I can forward evidence from recent texts, like electronic texts, to help support my argument that you don’t necessarily have to be able to read to understand or appreciate a story or piece of literature. I can counter my argument with text from Sven Birkerts who believes that the ability to read and write and understand the text fully is what makes someone literate. I plan on incorporating how electronic texts don’t always use words to tell a story but animations or pictures. Even though those texts don’t provide words they are still able to get a story across that can be understood and appreciated. I believe adding interactivity and electronic texts to my list of points is a good idea because it will emphasize the fact that people can embrace literature without reading it. People can also create stories, like electronic texts, that can be embraced by many people with out necessarily having to be read.

The electronic age of writing has evolved greatly in the past few years. There are now texts that are available to everyone with just a click of a finger. Not only is this text widely available, but also it is not just strictly text. There are now forms of “literature” online that are interactive stories and games. An argument arises, though, if these online texts can even be classified as literature. For example. I recently read an electronic text called Red Riding Hood. Actually I did not so much read it as I did play it. It was an interactive story where you click different spots on the screen to get to the next part of the story. There is not any text in this electronic text. There are just moving characters visuals to help you understand the story. The story also does not read like the original story itself, but it was more of a twist or an interpretation of the story. The aspect of electronic texts that sparks interest in me is, can something be literature if it has no text? I believe the answer is no. I would consider this particular electronic text to be more of an art rather than a type of literature. I see this as art because it to me seemed more like a videogame rather than something I was reading. In a case like this, author Sven Birkerts would probably agree with saying this electronic text is not literature. It would not count as literature to him for plenty of reasons. First, it is electronic and if anyone has ever read Birkerts’ work they would know that he is not the biggest fan of technology and believes that reading is an act between one and his book. Also, since there is no text in the story how would one read it? Literature is something you read, not something you stare at mindlessly and click through. However, even though Birkerts or myself may not consider this electronic text literature that does not mean it has nothing to offer to the literary world. This electronic text seemed to be a person’s interpretation. The ending did not match up with the widely known ending of Little Red Riding Hood. The creator of this texted added his own flare not only by changing the ending, but by giving the animation an unexpected look as well. A very cartoon looking animation with dark tone, and edgy looking characters also changed the whole vibe of the story. Those aspects are very thought invoking and could spark some ideas into its viewers and give them a new perspective on the literary works of Little Red Riding Hood. In reference to the magazine Wired Birkerts talks about how pornographic books and magazines are referred to as “masturbation aids” and that “Wired is, for [him], of that ilk—except that it does not get [him] thinking dirty thoughts, it just gets [him] thinking (211).” I believe that that the thoughts Birkerts encounters when reading a very picturesque based medium is what readers experience when they read electronic texts. Although the text itself may not be literature it has an effect on how the literature it’s based off of is viewed and that I believe may be just as influential as the literature itself. To say all electronic texts are far from being literature is unfair, but are most of them just knock-offs of others works? Are they having a positive impact on the literary world? Are the disrespecting the hard work of authors by taking stories and manipulating them? Are they positively or negatively affecting the way our society reads?

Technology is always advancing. Whether we like it or not, technology is constantly progressing. To some it is scary and misunderstood, but to others it is greatly accepted and loved. People of an older generation tend to by skeptical of our newest technologies. They disapprove of the obsession with technology that has is consuming our generation. However, people in today’s society may argue that it is not an obsession, but an adaptation. The new technologies around us are just a new way of living, and to keep up with the world we must keep up with the technology. Technology has become more and more interactive throughout the years. It is not just talking on the phone or watching television anymore. It has evolved to video chatting, people finders, and games that allow you to choose your own path. We have come to a crossroads with technology where we are always left wanting more. As Janet Murray stated in her introduction to Hamlet on the Holodeck, “[we] take the powerful sensory presence and participatory formats of digital media for granted. [We] are impatient to see what is next.” As a person who has grown up around technology I have to agree with her. Technology has become such a prominent aspect of my life, as well as others, that we do not even realize that we take it for granted. We do not realize the impact that technology has had on our lives. If it were to be taken away from us we would be lost. We would be stuck; we would be forced to slow down. With the lack of technology we would have to take the time to read full-length stories rather than reading online summaries. We would have to read books that have a designated beginning, middle, and end rather than reading online stories such as The Museum, which allows the reader to click on hyper links and choose the path of the story they are reading. The speed that is correlated with technology and how we are learning is not necessarily bad, however. Although technology catalyzes our rate of working and desire for continuation or answers, it does not make us less intellectual. Technology is an endless database of information. Technology, specifically the Internet, provides us with information from all over the world. The world is literally at our fingertips when we are on the World Wide Web. In Nicholas Carr’s “Is Google Making Us Stupid” he discusses how the Internet has been a huge help with research and writing. With the simple click of a finger one can have access to a plethora of articles, blogs, journals, and research. The Internet is essentially an extension of different peoples minds. People post their knowledge on the Internet, making it available for everyone. This extends facts, ideas, and opinions to others sparking new thoughts in those who read those texts. All in all, technology has had a heavy impact on our society. Where would we be without it? Would we be more intellectual without it?

“All media are extensions of some human faculty- psychic or physical.” This quote from Marshall McLuhan’s The Medium is the Massage really grasped my attention. It sparks an argument stating that all technology is an extension of human characteristics. When I came upon this quote I had to ponder on it for a little while. How could technology be and extension of humans? After thinking on it, it became obvious what it meant. Personally, I believe with this quote the author is saying that even though technologies and media are not human they were still created by humans, which give them a hint of human characteristic. When people invent or create anything they are not only putting in their time, but parts of themselves into their creations. When an author is writing a book, the novel is an extension of his mind. His ideas, personality, and opinions are embedded in his work, taking those things from his mind and extending them onto paper. The same occurs in situations online, such as blogs, Twitter, and Facebook. All social media sites are extensions of the people the profiles belong to. Posts of pictures, thoughts, and “likes” extends a persons physical being and turns it into an electronic one. This technological extension allows a person to be anywhere and everywhere while they, physically, are in one place. In a more physical aspect, technology comes to be an extension of the human body through things such as prosthetics, automobiles, and clothing. Prosthetics, an obvious extension, replicates the human body and allows one who used to have those parts to again extend a hand to shake or a foot to walk on. Automobiles are a less obvious extension of humans. They are metal, have wheels, and all together look nothing like humans. However, think of your feet. What do they do? They are a human form of transportation. They take you from one place to another. Now, what do automobiles do? They do the same thing as feet, right? Man created the automobile to be an extension of the foot. Like the foot, the automobile acts as a form of transportation for the human. It extends the function of the foot by being a faster, more efficient form of transportation. Even more extensive, is clothing. Clothing extends the skin as extra layers, for warmth and protection. McLuhan truly elaborates on extensive human features that different mediums possess. However, if Sven Birkerts were to read this book he probably would not agree with McLuhan’s perspective on extensions. Birkerts has a tendency to frown upon the evolution of technology and would not agree with McLuhan’s statement saying that technology extends the human. Birkerts believes that technology puts a damper on a person’s ability to extend their knowledge. Birkerts opinion is not an uncommon one either. Many people in today’s society disagree with the advancement and extension of technology. With the evolution of technology many questions surface for discussion. Are advancements in technology enabling us or extending us? If technology is an extension of humans, will there be a point where the extension ends? Will there be a point where the extension consumes the human?

In Sven Birkerts “ Into the Electronic Millennium” chapter and Dennis Baron’s “Should Everybody Write?” article, both authors discuss the transitions of writing over the years. They each describe how writing has evolved from an exclusive, academic task to a communal, almost absent-minded hobby. In the past not everyone could read or write, and the few that could were dedicated to their works and worked diligently and competitively for their work to be accepted and shared. Now, however, most people are literate and have immediate access to a computer, which allows them to jump onto a word document or the Internet and type away about whatever they’d like. Although the two authors write essentially about the same topic it is obvious that they have two different opinions on the transition of writing.

Birkerts is very old fashioned in his tastes. Throughout his novel The Gutenberg Elegies he weaves in his distaste for technology and his strong opinion about how it is destroying meaning and personal experience behind writing. Contrary to Birkerts, Baron’s view seems to be very accepting of literary changes throughout history. He sees the new, expansive tactics of writing as a good thing. He states that having such a broad community of writers allows there to be a little bit of text for everyone to enjoy.

I strongly agree with Baron’s conclusion, but I believe that Birkerts has a stronger argument and is much more persuasive with his writing. In Baron’s article he basically gives a timeline of the changes in writing over time and then gives a brief insight to his opinion on the topic at the very end. While his article is informative and easy to read, Birkerts gives thorough details and examples to enhance his argument. He reflects on his encounters with professors who want to get rid of their books and entices the reader by asking what is becoming of students through the transitions of writing.

If I were to forward one of these texts I would choose Baron’s article. I would try to enhance his article with more examples of how the expansion on writing has been beneficial to people. Examples whether it is statistics, personal experiences, or references to other texts could really liven up his argument. Has the expansion of writing actually made people less literate or has it changed the definition of literacy? Does the communal aspect of writing in today’s society take away from or add to the personal experience of writing? How has the publicity of so many texts affected the originality of them?

In the current chapters of Frankenstein, the narrating voice has shifted from Victor Frankenstein to his creature and yet again back to Victor. The shift of voice captivates the reader and allows them to see a different perspective of the novel. Seeing the creature’s perspective of the situation may change the reader’s view on who the protagonist and antagonist in the story actually are. Hearing from the creature we find that he is facing many difficulties while being on his own. The alternating perspectives also allow the reader to sympathize with both characters and embrace the emotional turmoil they are both going through.

Throughout this novel one of the reoccurring conflicts is loneliness. Although not blatantly stated, it can be inferred that Victor initially created his monster in search of a friend. This is an understandable assumption seeing that Victor was not popular as a child and never exactly had that one person he could relate to. However, once his monster is created instead of finding companionship in his creation, he ran away, leaving his creation with the same hollow feeling of loneliness. The creature’s loneliness stems from abandonment. Victor left the creature with nothing. Through reading and observing nature and the DeLacey family, the creature learns about companions and relationship. Watching the family work together through hardships and reading texts describing happy relationships between creator and creation give the creature enough knowledge and understanding to realize that he his lonely and has no one to turn to. His loneliness is even more enhanced when the DeLacey family rejects him during his venture to become accepted. The creature loneliness quickly becomes a base for his new obsession with revenge. The creature wants to get back at Victor for leaving him alone in a world that is so harsh. The creature states, “You can blast my other passions, but revenge remains—revenge, henceforth dearer than light of food! I may die, but first you, my tyrant and tormentor, shall curse the sun that gazes on your misery.” In this statement the creature is declaring revenge on Victor, saying that even though he may die he will make sure Victor suffers or dies before that happens. In the pursuit of vengeance the creature takes Victor by surprise and kills Elizabeth on their wedding day instead of him, causing him more pain than death ever would. Essentially the theme of loneliness in this story has layered itself over different characters and evolved into something much more serious. The loneliness originating in Victor was passed to his creature who then turned his loneliness into revenge leading to the death of Elizabeth, leaving Victor even lonelier now without his wife than he was at the beginning of the novel.

In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein many themes are introduced within the first ten chapters. One of the biggest themes I have noticed is obsession. Throughout Victor Frankenstein’s life he has been an introvert. His obsession with his studies kept him from having many friends. Even his only friend, Henry Clerval, was obsessed with studying as well. As a young person Victor’s obsession had little effect on him other than lacking friendships; however that changed, as he got older. As a man Victor becomes so obsessed with his studies that he begins to collect body parts to create a perfect human. He is enticed with his experiment to make a body of collected limbs and parts come to life. Through his enthrallment Frankenstein begins to isolate himself more than ever. He essentially locks himself away from everyone, including his family, not speaking to them for two years. Not only does his social life fade away, but so does his health during this time. Victor is no longer a healthy man, but a weak and tired one.

Victor’s obsession in his life is very unhealthy. It destroyed his relationships as well as his health, but furthermore it brought him great despair. After endless days and nights of work Victor’s hard and tedious work his creation comes to life. You would think that this would overwhelm Victor with joy and excitement, however that is not the case. Once Victor saw the “yellow dull eye” of his creation he was terrified. He was scared of his creation and disappointed in himself that he created something so horrific. Through his fear and dismay Victor runs away from his creation, which then roams into the world alone.

I think that in this novel Shelley argues that obsession is unhealthy and dangerous. Being so occupied with only one thing is detrimental to ones life. It not only takes you away from the rest of the world, but it can also cause you to neglect you health and every day needs. Furthermore, being so in love and focused on one thing in your life can set you up for failure. If you dedicate yourself to one specific thing and it doesn’t come out the way you intended, it will most likely bring you great disappointment, similar to the disappointment Victor felt after seeing his monster alive. At this point in the novel I wonder if Frankenstein will learn from this horrid experience. Will his obsession with learning dwindle? How will he overcome the happenings that his obsession has caused?

The Gutenberg Elegies by Sven Birkerts is an awakening into the transition from paperback and hard covered physical texts to computerized and technological reading. Birkerts discusses his feelings on the generation of readers moving from physical books to electronic ones and his disapproval that generates from the new trend. He feels as though the sanctity  of reading is being lost through technology.  Furthermore, he discusses his personal interactions with his literature in his life. He describes himself getting lost in the books he read saying he loved them for the “wonderful ciphering of thought and sensation” they gave him. Reading gave him joy  and a way to leave his life for a little while and live in someone else’s; it was an escape. An escape that he believes is lost when reading and writing is done electronically. He believes the sharing and discussion of works online ruins the personal experience of the reader and limits them from truly becoming one with their reading. However, Birkerts also states that the “advent of the computer and the astonishingly sophistication achieved by our electronic communications media have together turned a range of isolated changes into something systemic”. This quote really caught my attention simply because it contradicts Birkerts previous opinions. It essentially states that through media and technology we can relate to and enjoy literary works communally instead of in solitude. I completely agree with this idea. Personally, although i would rather read a physical book, I appreciate online articles and texts especially ones that allow people to express their opinions. I enjoy articles with comments because after I finish my reading I have usually formulated an opinion on it and have only thought about it from my perspective, but with comment sections there is an endless realm of different perspectives and opinions on the same article. As a reader, the interactiveness of electronic reading gives me a better way to understand certain literature. It opens my mind to a plethora of ideas and interpretations that further my knowledge on a topic and sometimes even changes my mind set on things. I believe that the technological advancements being made with literature are incredible. Not only does it allow us to share and experiment with literature, but also brings us into the minds of other people and not just the text we are reading, is that not the same if not even better than just being inside of a book?

As a recent high school graduate and a reader of Gerald Graff’s “Hidden Intellectualism,” it is obvious to me that high school has remained static in regards to the perception of intelligence in students. In Graff’s work he makes the point that people are commonly divided into two intellectual groups: those who are book-smart and those who are street-smart. In high school those who are academic intellects are the people who are quick to get respect, as well as good grades, and who are deemed models for other students. And while those book-smart students are basking in the sunshine of everyone else’s approval, the street-smart students, or nonintellectual students, seem to get shrugged off and treated as though they are not as valuable or desirable as an intellectual student. The division of the intellects is unfair and illogical, simply because the students who fall under the street-smart category are made to feel as though they are not intelligent at all, which is certainly not the case. To not be book-smart does not mean that a person is not smart at all. Many students who do not fall under the category of book-smart may tend to just have difficulties getting their ideas, thoughts, and knowledge out in the open in a school setting. Furthermore, the division of intellects is illogical due to the fact that in essence, one person cannot seemingly be one over the other (book-smart vs. street-smart), but a combination of both in some way. Due to personal experience, I feel very strongly about this article. Academically, high school was a struggle for me. I was not the smartest person in the class, but by no means was I dumb. Even though I knew I was not intellectually lacking, I often felt that way due to the competitiveness of my classmates as well as the incredibly negative connotation that comes with not always being the best in the classroom. My problem stemmed not from a lack of understanding or knowledge of what I was learning, but from not being sure of myself and not always knowing how to get my answers across in a proper fashion. Tests were a hefty part of our grades in high school, and there was little focus on other aspects of the class. This was an issue for me. I would ace the homework, classwork, and participation in classes, but when the tests came, all of that would go right out the window. This is where the division of intellects became extremely unfair. Was I less of an intellectual because I couldn’t get my thoughts out on paper? Did doing poorly on my tests make me a bad student? No. Not at all. The pressures of being strictly a book smart student need to end. From Graff’s article I have realized that not much has changed in high school through the years, but it should. How is it that, in over fifty years, schools have not evolved to become more accepting of students who aren’t necessarily book smart? How can we create an environment where people don’t feel lesser than others for not acing assessments? Most importantly, will it ever change?