Project Web: Homework #2 - Part One & Two

Project Web: Homework Assignment - Part One

    The responsibilities I was assigned in my group was finding out the history and development of Google, and researching the groundwork behind the site. I had to find out how Google developed, how it started and its complete background. In creating a product, individuals and or companies often encounter difficulties, so it was important that I made reference to the difficulties Google’s co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page encountered in developing the website.

    After researching the birth of Google, I had to research how exactly the media form works and why its consequently efficacious. In this case, Google’s foundation is built around its search engine and the results it provides its users, so I researched that dutifully. Another important point I researched was the privacy privileges of Google, and how much control over content/usage the user has.

    The process I used in going about this project was researching all the information I needed, and then I printed out all my sources. The reason I printed everything out was in order to make it easier to compare my information to make sure I had solid facts. Next. I went on to highlight and underline important lines. After that, I wrote out everything in a kind of essay form and finished. I wasn’t exactly done yet, I went on to post my findings on the group created website, and added some videos and photos with citations that went along with my information. Ultimately, I think I fulfilled what was asked of me and went ahead and provided more.

    My colleagues and I functioned quite healthy as a group. Each group member knew his or her assigned responsibilities. Some people might have finished a bit before others, but in the end, everything flowed relatively smooth. Putting together a website in a few days can be hard, but my group tried to make it easy and succeeded.

Project Web: Homework Assignment - Part One

    Writing a digital piece of media that was longer and more complex than a blog post, text, tweet, or Facebook post, was quite challenging, because there were many sections to cover, and formulating and formatting everything was kind of a drag. Especially with creating a website because there’s a plethora of items to add in order for it seem credible. Creating this website really showed me how easy it is to go online and post a multiplicity of information, whether it being true or false.

    In planning and creating a website, I learned that the digital process is perhaps much simpler, because it doesn’t necessarily have to be academic. In other words, I felt more free to say what I wanted to say and how I wanted to say it. My information was of course factual, but as I was putting the website together it felt like it flowed, as oppose to a watered down version of what I wanted to include. Though I concede that the digital writing process is easier, I still insist that there are some similarities between creating a website and crafting an essay on paper. One of the most notable similarities I noticed was that ahead of time I knew this work was going to be ‘published,’ so I made sure I added credibility and tried to sound as professional as possible. Since a few people were going to view it, I wanted them to believe I knew what I was talking about. My writing process was different in a writing a piece of digital media versus traditional paper. One of the main differences as I stated above was the way in which my words just simply felt more fluid.

    Personally, I didn’t really enjoy writing collaboratively. Once people start cutting, snipping and moving paragraph around, I get quite anxious,  mainly because I tend to be such a safe writer that I sometimes don’t trust myself to make big changes. In other words, my writing process isn’t usually messy, and when I move things around, I feel like I’m taking a step back, which perhaps isn’t a healthy philosophy to have as a writer. Ultimately, what this project taught me abut my writing process, and myself as a writer was to experiment and be freer with my words, but still keeping in mind to support my claims.

    I think I’ve changed as a writer as the result of creating digital media simply because I know how it feels to write freely. Occasionally when I write essays on paper for class they’re usually a standard format of writing, but over the Web, I as a user have more leeway on stating specific claims or ideas; or at least it feels that way. In the end, creating a website and crafting an essay on paper can show you a complete opposite side of you as writer that perhaps you thought didn’t exist.

Reflective Essay

Christian Vargas on Writing

    At the beginning of the semester I thought of myself as a rather proficient writer. I was relatively confident in my writing skills, having already taken one semester of college level English. Unlike last semester, I knew what I was walking into, and this time around I didn’t walk into the course feeling intimidated, and anxious. From the very beginning, I was deeply aware that there were still some things I needed to learn and have reiterated, such as the importance of a well structured introduction and thesis. This second semester of English 114B well-appointed the fundamental principles of a well structured thesis. In short, my first semester of college level English was quite interesting, and since English and writing have always been some of my favorite subjects throughout my years of education, I was undoubtedly looking forward to undergoing the second semester.

    This semester I was expecting or hoping to explore more exercises that involved creativity, similar to past assignments in English 114A. My hopes and expectations were definitely met through Project Web, Project Space, and Project Text. Within these projects, I was given the liberty to create a descriptive and educational website about Google, explore how Ralphs supermarket uses particular methods and tactics to get you shop, and analyze dense literary works such as Watchmen. Personally, I find it terribly vital and significant for a literary piece to be constructed in a form that gives the writer a voice, a personality, and I feel that these three projects demonstrated that.

    Reflecting on this second semester, I learned a wide variety of disciplinary applications in writing I didn’t notice last semester, such as never beginning a paragraph with a quote to introduce a new source. To get your paper off to a great start, you should try to have a first sentence that engages your reader with your ideas. Think of your first sentence as a hook that draws your reader in. As you researched your topic, you probably discovered many interesting anecdotes and quotes, but these should be used to back up your claim and not simply just to make your claim. An engaging introduction should introduce your ideas as well, not just someone else’s. In short, I learned this semester that its little things like this that create a strong beginning.

    This semester, techniques in avoiding “hit-and-run” quotations were also reiterated, which are situations in which the writer fails to introduce the quotation appropriately or explain why he or she finds it worth quoting. The writer simply abandons the quotation in his or her rush to zoom on to another point, because of this, the reader is undeniably entrenched in an arduous situation, because the lack of tools and explanation. It makes it completely incomprehensible for the reader to not only understand what you are trying to say, but also what the author you are quoting is arguing. Neglecting quoted words doesn’t explain how the author’s words connect with anything you have to say. Undeniably, a writing application like this is awfully imperative in the Art of writing; I’m glad I had the opportunity this semester to master the principle.

    Another application that I didn’t necessarily learn, but was reminded of it’s importance,
was having a solid introduction and conclusion. Throughout the course Professor J. reiterated the
lesson with each of our writing assignments, similar to last semester. The introduction is the most read section of any paper or document, so it holds countless significance.  Mainly because it usually determines your reader's attitude towards the whole work, and if it is boring your reader might not pay proper attention to the rest of your essay. As for the conclusion, it should make your essay complete and leave the final impression on your reader. One thing I will never forget about a conclusion is how it should not contradict or deviate significantly from the main idea of your essay. A strong conclusion is essential, because it’s what your reader remembers last.

    As a writer, I now feel confident in writing solid thesis statements. I’ve become skilled at writing a rich thesis statement, and setting a vibrant tone in the framework of the entirety of my papers. A thesis statement is considered critical because it captures the whole argument in just a single sentence. It’s also important because it informs the reader of your purpose in writing the paper, and the direction you plan on taking. Last semester I felt like I still needed a bit of improvement on writing thesis statements, luckily this semester really enhanced my ability on writing a concrete thesis.

    I plan on continuing to improve as a writer through my upcoming years in college and in my future occupation, by understanding how writing is a form of communication. In the real world, academic writings that consists of a well articulated framework is essential for your career. In short, utilizing writing in my personal life will enable me to accomplish my goals in my chosen career. In the end, English 114B not only helped me understand these points, but broadened my horizons of the literary world.

Project Text: Homework Three - Annotated Bibliography

Gibney, Christian. “Profile of a Hero: Rorschach.” University of Connecticut. 23 April 2012. Web. <freshmanenglish.uconn.edu/students/10.Gibney.pdf>.

In this essay, Gibney explores the scale of who chooses our heroes, who watches our heroes, and who watches the Watchmen. While he acknowledges that we choose our heroes, he expresses how heroes fight for justice and will risk their lives to protect all of those that justice protects, the good people in our society. He also emphasizes that a hero will do the unpopular task in order to make sure good prevails. Clearly, his idea of a hero, is someone who is willing to risk the opinion of the public eye in order to preserve righteousness. Gibney gets his point across by analyzing Watchmen’s Rorschach, a man with a mysterious ink-blot mask and even more mysterious persona, who represents justice in its purest form and will go to any length to make sure that it is carried out. Ultimately, yielding the idea that anyone can be heroic and all it takes is an idea and a will to fight; which he claims Rorschach embodies.

    Although his primary focus for writing is to expose how Rorschach could be considered a hero, he also cites several other sources. Gibney also places the debate about controversial heroes over the course of history, and the many public figures that have been scrutinized for heroic actions that some have deemed controversial. He cites several characters throughout history, such as Charles Darwin, President Harry Truman, and gangster John Dillinger. Although those characters are really bizarre and exceedingly diverse, all of these characters, in his view, share a common characteristic concerning their heroic lore: “the controversy surrounding the decisions they have made continues to resonate throughout society.” In short, Gibney concludes the characters he cited, are not just people who just went out and encapsulated “good,” but instead went out and made a change in the world armed with only their minds.

Hughes, Jamie A. "“ ‘Who Watches the Watchmen?’: Ideology and ‘Real World’ Superheroes " The Journal of Popular Culture 39.4 (2006): 546-57. Print.

In this journal, Hughes explores how the word “superhero” conjures up a very specific image in the minds of many readers: the archetypal visions of “the good guy.” She acknowledges that superheroes like Batman and Superman, despite their various powers and realms, have one thing in common, they are “good guys.” Contrary to that, she explores how the Watchmen characters are the complete opposite of these heroes. Superman, Batman, Flash, and the rest of the traditional good guys become superheroes for some central responsibility. As oppose to those heroes, there’s the unusual Watchmen characters who choose not to do it for much more routine reasons such as money and power, but rather to promote their own ideology.

    In chorus, in the graphic novel, it is easy to see how Moore and Gibbons have created superheroes who are nothing more than individuals caught up in an ideology. These characters are viewed as half-crazed people who care little for society, and just for their ideology. Hughes maps out how the characters are not up to some grand scheme, but rather just regular people trying to fight for something. She concludes that we are all subject to the same power, which is that of ideology.

Project Text: Homework Two - Book Review (A Landmark Graphic-Novel)

Review of Watchmen

Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons: Watchmen
New York, NY: DC Comics (2008) $39.99 (hardback) ISBN: 9781401219260

    The graphic novel Watchmen, created by writer Alan Moore and artist Dave Gibbons, with its rich language, its dense and interwoven themes, and its relationship between words and images, serve to question our notions of what is heroic. Watchmen is a magnificent crime fiction, action, drama and mystery tale of dark times, told by some of the darkest characters in storytelling. Being a graphic novel, it includes incredible amounts of detail in every tiny panel, so the readers can choreograph every little thing. The graphic-novel begins with warm and cheerful colors and throughout the story is gradually made darker to give the story a dark and bleak feeling. Keep in mind that this graphic novel is meant for mature audiences and is filled with complex themes and issues. That said, both children and adults could gain some knowledge by talking about the many ethical issues raised by the actions and circumstances of the characters. In short, the story is set in 1985 and accounts the alternative history of the United States where the U.S. moves alarmingly closer to nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Within this world exists regular individuals who, by motive or chance, decide to wear costumes, fight crime in New York City, and try to eliminate the catastrophes that could strike the city. However, some of these characters, like Rorschach and the Comedian, often appear more violent than the criminals they battle, ultimately, positively equipping readers with a correlating idea of what constitutes justice, and whether a vigilante can really represent justice and an emblematic 'hero.'

    For readers unfamiliar with Watchmen, the story takes place in a world where
Nixon is still president and the Soviet Union invades Afghanistan, which sets the Soviets and the Americans on the verge of nuclear war. Contrary to that, the masked vigilante Rorschach, wanted by the police for his murder of several criminals, investigates the killing of another former vigilante, the Comedian. In chorus, Rorschach makes it his duty to warn several other fellow retired masked heroes that their lives may be in danger. Amongst these masked heroes are, the Nite Owl, Silk Specter, Dr. Manhattan, and Ozymandias. Unsurprisingly, the former superheroes do not take Rorschach’s warnings seriously.

    Thus, making the story take even more of a twist, because soon after this, an assassination attempt is made against Dr. Manhattan’s life, the novel’s only actual super-powered being and America’s main nuclear preventative. After this, Dr. Manhattan decides to leave Earth for Mars after being suspected of causing cancer of his old friends. Around this time Rorschach is set up for the murder of a retired villain and ends up getting arrested and incarcerated. Thus, making him powerless, but still persistent on halting the havoc that could strike the world. Also, around this time, the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union mounts and nuclear war becomes more of a noticeable possibility. As a result of this, Nite Owl and Silk Specter decide to persist with Rorschach’s investigation and bust him out of prison. As a consequence, all three trace the web of conspiracy of the superhero killer to its center. Its also important to note that Dr. Manhattan, being able to see the past, present and future, could have stopped the world from nuclear holocaust, but didn’t. By the end, the characters learn of Ozymandius’ plan to prevent nuclear war and create the world in his ideal way; therefore causing him to try to take out the Watchmen.

    With this background information, one can decide upon whether a vigilante, such as Rorschach, can really represent justice and an emblematic “hero,“ despite how he often appears more violent than the criminals he battles. Rorschach isn’t simply just a character that is mentally ill, morally uncompromising, and filled with immoral behavior as he might often be portrayed. He’s more of an unanticipated hero, in the way in which he pursues his goals. Generally, a hero is a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal. In my view, Rorschach adequately lives up to this definition. Although, he is imperfect in a sense of him being so strongly idealistic to uphold truth and justice. Rorschach is the person who does not walk way from confrontation or the mystery of who is killing the Watchmen, and continues to find out, despite the circumstances.

     Rorschach isn’t exactly anyone’s primary definition of a true hero, but he is a guy who would sacrifice the whole world if it meant punishing the actions of one wicked man, Ozymandius. Towards the end, Rorschach is killed after finding out the truth about the global catastrophes suffered by New York, and refusing to keep silent about the truth. He nearly begs to be killed by Dr. Manhattan to prevent the truth being exposed by himself. Although, some might consider him mentally ill and morally uncompromising, he still does whatever it takes to stop the world from utter chaos. In the long run, Rorschach brings salvation to the idea that anyone or anything, despite their background, can constitute justice, under any circumstance.

    In terms of creativity, dense ideas, artwork, or commercial standing, it is almost impossible to overstate the importance of Watchmen and it’s questioning of our notions of what is heroic. Throughout the story, the idea of what makes a hero yields many important questions people should consider. Why would a normal man choose to put on a mask and fight crime without the support of the police or superhuman abilities? What happens to a normal man who can rewrite reality but has no human connection to the reality in which we live? Does doing whatever it takes to save your loved ones make you a monster? All those questions, and more, are asked and explored within Watchmen. Ultimately, all these questions correlate an idea of what constitutes justice, and if a vigilante can really represent justice and a representative “hero.” Thus, positively giving readers a better idea of who and what can really represent justice, before they make an overriding assumption about others.

Project Space: Homework Two – The Mall, Hegemony, and Ideology

    Working class people have habitually accepted the ideological view of the world presented over and over to them by the ruling class, because they aren’t aware of the phenomenon. It's sad to think that the world suffers from this kind of homogeneous Mall Syndrome, where peoples’ desires are exploited and marketed for profit, and accepted because of unawareness. The capitalist class maintains power over the working class by using hidden methods and tactics, which ultimately, makes the working class unaware and “blind” of what’s occurring behind the scenes.

    This in chorus, conveys how we as a society are unaware consumers, causing us to unknowingly accept the ideology of owners dominating over the working class, and the hegemonic control it creates. Antonio Gramsci, notorious for his exposure of the concept of hegemony, described it as one group ruling over the other with the consensus of the controlled group (Lears NP). As I understand Gramsci, capitalists are able to rule because they make the system seem natural, constant, and predictable; all while it so steadily reproduces itself. Ultimately, because the capitalist economic system requires expanding consumption to survive, a culture is created where a group of intellectuals, assist the capitalist with the perpetuation of maintaining the working classes’ behavior. In the context of a shopping mall, the intellectuals are the people designing and developing the lucrative schemes of control, one example, could be the individuals who create music playlists for Abercrombie & Fitch. Essentially, they have developed naturally together with the ruling class and toil for the benefit of the ruling class. They can also take the form of store managers, teachers and professors, lawyers, etc. Conclusively, the intellectuals help bind the effects of hegemony together and help it function, while keeping the working class oblivious.

    Capitalists have hegemony because working class people are unaware of it. One must only look at any mall to see the ideology of hegemonic control in action, in which the capitalist and intellectuals collaborate. For instance, The Mall’s economy has, for the most part, prospered as its citizens buy more and more things, so it’s vital to keep citizens there as long as possible. In order to do this, the capitalist create a territory that explores the desires of individuals and their establishments. For instance, if I went to The Mall to buy a pair of shoes, but then wanted to leave because I was hungry or perhaps thirsty, the Mall’s food court would be there to the rescue, purposely tricking me into spending more money and alienating me to stay longer. In this sense, shopping malls could feel alienating, because shoppers are tossed into a space occupied with numerous stores, which are trying to get them to buy their products, and it’s quite difficult to silence desire, and the capitalists know that.

    Another example of how capitalists and intellectuals perpetuate the function of hegemony through the shopping mall is the deliberate placement of particular stores. For instance, purposely placing the big named stores, such as Macy’s or Sears, in the front of The Mall to capture and reel people in without difficulty. It’s sort of like writing a story, you start of with a hook (larger company stores out in front), and then you move on to the body paragraphs (smaller stores and food court in the middle) and ultimately end with a conclusion (virtually a complete round trip around the Mall’s establishments). This scheme is fundamentally articulated through the idea of consumption. If I like one store, why not stay in The Mall longer and go into another store? This is what the ruling class is after, the placement of institutes where the working class will continue spending, which is completely reflected in The Mall.

        Whatever motivates a person to visit the Mall, whether it’s the company of others or shopping opportunities, people should be aware of the unconstructive services the Mall offers. For instance, if someone decides to express love for a person by finding them the perfect gift, whether it’s for a birthday, anniversary, graduation, or Valentine’s Day – the idea of “Oh, I can buy a gift at the Mall,” will perhaps, most definitely, come to mind. When this occurs, the gift shopper ends up going to the Mall and buying a gift not only for their friend or family member but also for him or herself, because they perhaps got a great deal. From personal experience, my family members run to stores (not literally), when someone they know gets a great deal, whether it’s a clearance item or not. Its purposely set up, its not a mistake. Contrary to that, I know people go to the Mall out of convenience. My point is that people, just need to be more aware of their surroundings and the premeditated strategies of the shopping centers they’re visiting.

        In the end, the whole world suffers from the homogeneous Mall Syndrome, because of owners and intellectuals who intentionally perpetuate the desires of the dominant group. Working class people habitually accept the ideological view of the world presented over and over to them by the ruling class, which ultimately allows hegemony to perpetuate. The dominant group, general citizens, need to be aware of hegemony and it’s power. That said, it is hard to turn hegemony on its head, but that’s doesn’t mean we have to accept it and its alienation, because if we do, the cycle will just regenerate, and create a hostile environment.

Works Cited

Mastroiann, Dominic. "Hegemony in Antonio Gramsci." English.emory.edu. Emory University,     Fall 2002. Web. 29 Feb. 2012. http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/hegemony.html>.

Williams, Raymond. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Revised Edition. New     York: Oxford UP, 1985. 144-145. Print.

Lears, T.J. Jackson. “The Concept of Cultural Hegemony: Problems and Possibilites.” The     American Historical Review. Vol. 90, No. 3 (Jun 1985). 567-593. JSTOR. Web. 29 Feb     2012. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1860957>.

Portrait of a Hero

    The graphic novel Watchmen, created by writer Alan Moore and artist Dave Gibbons, with its rich language, its dense and interwoven themes, and its relationship between words and images, serve to question our notions of what is heroic. In short, the story is set in 1985 and accounts the alternative history of the United States where the U.S. moves alarmingly closer to nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Within this world exists regular individuals who, by motive or chance, decide to wear costumes, fight crime in New York City, and try to eliminate the catastrophes that could possibly strike the city. However, some of these characters, like Rorschach and the Comedian, often appear more violent than the criminals they battle, ultimately, correlating an idea of what constitutes justice, and whether a vigilante can really represent justice and an emblematic ‘hero.’

    The word ‘hero’ conjures up a very particular image in the mind of many readers: a Superman type figure, flying high, and performing heroic acts, ultimately, creating an individual regarded as a model or ideal. Many people, such as myself, have viewed superheroes in the traditional sense; individuals who supplement law enforcement efforts to fight crime by using their extraordinary ability to protect the public and the greater good. Whether one looks at Batman, Superman, or Spiderman, each one of these heroes stands for ideals greater than themselves. “All of these characters, despite their various powers and realms, have one thing in common - they are model visions of ‘the good guy,’” says Jamie A. Hughes, author of “’Who Watches the Watchmen?’: Ideology and ‘Real World’ Superheroes.” That is to say, many of these ‘heroes’ virtually fight crime and corruption in the name of perfect justice (Hughes 546). They use their fervor and determination to defy the odds and strive to make things better for the community around them, ultimately, making selflessness a key trait for a hero (Hughes 547). Contrary to that, can a character whose passion in life is geared towards benefiting the greater society, but who often appears more violent than the vigilantes he or she seizes, still be considered a ‘hero‘?

    While Watchmen follows the perspectives of several vigilantes, the most fascinating may be Walter Kovacs, or Rorschach; a man with a mysterious ink-blot mask and even more mysterious persona, who will go to any length to make sure justice is carried out, even if it means jeopardizing one’s well being. Every so often, characters such as Rorschach are criticized for their heroic display to eradicate the world of evil and corruption, because of the jeopardizing of other peoples’ well-being and legacy. In his view, criminals escape justice in its purest form, whether its because of failed police work or corruption, ultimately, causing him to hunt down these criminals himself. “Rorschach does not disregard the law, but works above it,” says Christian Gibney, student at University of Connecticut, and author of “Profile of a Hero: Rorschach” (1). In other words, society has established their morals in relationship to the laws developed; Rorschach, however, goes beyond that by praising good and punishing bad (Gibney 2). Undoubtedly, Rorschach’s heroism stems from his resistance from public corruption and opinion. Although, Rorschach’s enforcement for justice might at times seem cruel because of the way he hunts down vigilantes, he still maintains a passion in life geared towards benefiting the greater society.

    Throughout Watchmen, Rorschach, wanted by the police for his murder of several criminals, investigates the killing of another former vigilante, the Comedian. In chorus, Rorschach makes it his duty to warn several other fellow retired masked heroes that their lives may be in danger. Amongst these masked heroes are, the Nite Owl, Silk Specter, Dr. Manhattan, and Ozymandias. Unsurprisingly, the former superheroes do not take Rorschach’s warnings seriously. Thus, complicating matters further, because soon after this, an assassination attempt is made against Dr. Manhattan’s life, the novel’s only actual super-powered being and America’s main nuclear preventative. Afterwards, Dr. Manhattan decides to leave Earth for Mars after being suspected of causing the cancer of his old friends. Around this time Rorschach is set up for the murder of a retired villain and ends up getting arrested. Consequently, making him powerless, but still persistent on halting the havoc that could possibly hit the world. He resiliently ignores the corrupt authority and the criticism he receives from the public in order to do what he knows is right. Also, around this time, the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union mounts and nuclear war becomes more of a noticeable possibility. As a result, Nite Owl and Silk Specter decide to persist with Rorschach’s investigation and bust him out of prison. Furthermore, all three trace the web of conspiracy of the superhero killer to its center. By the end, the characters learn of Ozymandius’s plan to prevent nuclear war and create the world in his ideal way; therefore causing him to try to take out the Watchmen.

    In the midst of all this, Rorschach demonstrated how he would sacrifice the whole world if it meant punishing the actions of one wicked man: Ozymandius. In the end, although Rorschach had to make some dubious decisions and had to act violently, his concentration and determination were irrefutably geared towards the greater good. From the beginning of the story Rorschach makes his responsibility to warn the several other fellow retired masked heroes that not only their lives may be in danger, but the fate of New York. Within this, he works diligently to stop either from occurring, and because of this he encounters some difficulties, ultimately, causing him to associate his persistence with some violent forcefulness.

    Heroes will work tirelessly to improve the greater good even when it comes at a deadly cost to those that stand in their way, and throughout the graphic-novel; Rorschach embodies this trait of an emblematic hero. He is the person who, despite the circumstances, does not walk way from confrontation or the mystery of who is killing the Watchmen, but continues to find out. “While some other characters view him as a half crazed man who cares little for society, the reverse can be true” (Hughes 552). His persistence of saving the world from utter chaos, in a way, sacrifices his life, and for that idea it brings about his heroism.

    To fully understand Rorschach, it is essential to analyze the incident that turned him into the aggressive vigilante that he became. During the wee hours of March 13, 1964, Kitty Genovese was coming back from work when she unexpectedly ran into a killer on the street, a few feet from her apartment. She was repeatedly stabbed as she yelled out for help; but among the thirty-eight witnesses that viewed the event, not one did a thing to help her. Kitty Genovese died that night from her numerous injuries. In Watchmen, Rorschach asserts how he was enraged by the murder of Kitty Genovese, and the unresponsiveness and selfishness of the thirty-eight witnesses that watched her die (Gibney 2). How could there be thirty-eight witnesses to this ruthless murder and not one of them called for help? From that moment on, Rorschach pledged to bring criminals and those who allowed this chaos in society to justice. In this sense, although Rorschach often appears more violent than the criminals he battles, he isn’t simply just a character that is mentally ill, morally uncompromising, and filled with immoral behavior, but rather an unanticipated hero, who’s fighting for justice.

    To understand Rorschach’s view of the law; we must understand how law does not limit his moral boundaries, and how “morality supersedes law” (Gibney 4). In Rorschach’s eyes, if there is any type of wrongdoing, the wrongdoing, under any circumstances, must be punished. In today’s world, Rorschach would firmly disagree with the “innocent before proven guilt” laws; where possible offenders must be tried in court before a jury, and if there is not sufficient considerable evidence to prove them guilty, then they’re free. In Rorschach’s view this is ridiculous, if he knows someone has committed a crime, they must be subject to punishment. His mantra is best demonstrated as “there is good and there is evil, and evil must be punished. Even in the face of Armageddon I shall not compromise” (Moore Ch. 1 pg. 24). In essence, “if the law must be broken to preserve justice, then so be it” (Gibney 4). No crime can go unnoticed; therefore, Rorschach demonstrates how morality must supersede law, while maintaining the intentions for the greater society.

    Ultimately, heroes will fight for justice and will voluntarily risk their lives to protect all of those that justice protects, the good people in society; despite having to often act more violent than their enemies. A hero, such as Rorschach, will do the unpopular task in order to make sure justice prevails. Rather than going out in the world and trying to encapsulate “good,” Rorschach instead went out and made a change. He saw that something was wrong with the world, and decided to not succumb to the public corruption and the wrongness that the world encapsulated. Rorschach lived and died by his own rules; never compromising to the unjust political system whatsoever. While his sense of morality provoked his radical ideals, fighting for his ideas and risking his life brings about his heroism. Not only did he uphold his own freedoms, but he protected the rights of everyone who had been living in nearby harmony. “All of his motivations and intentions were directed for the good of society, which is the essence of heroism” (Gibney 7). In the end, Rorschach served to question our notions of what a hero really is, by often appearing more violent than the criminals he battled, but still keeping the interest of the rest of the world as his primary motive.

Works Cited:

Gibney, Christian. “Profile of a Hero: Rorschach.” University of Connecticut. 23 April 2012.     Web. <freshmanenglish.uconn.edu/student0s/10.Gibney.PDF>

Hughes, Jamie A. " ‘Who Watches the Watchmen?’: Ideology and ‘Real World’ Superheroes "     The Journal of Popular Culture 39.4 (2006): 546-57. Print.

Moore, Alan, and Dave Gibbons. Watchmen. New York: DC Comics, 1987. Print.

Project Text Homework One: Compare & Contrast - Book vs. Film Adaptation

In the graphic novel Watchmen, words on the page go so far in giving the characters personalities; as oppose to the version in the film seeming less nuanced, because the characters are missing bits of back story. The film version by Zack Snyder, is constantly in motion, and a lot of the subtleties get lost; especially considering the time constraints of the film. With that in mind, the Watchmen graphic novel, created by writer Alan Moore and artist Dave Gibbons, give more history, more complexity, and more of Moore’s patented insane cleverness. Ultimately, the Watchmen graphic novel, gives characters more of a personality, a tone, and an overall nature; while the version in the film removes the majority of the psychology, because of the lack of character background.

It’s said that Alan Moore, creator and writer of Watchmen, has distanced himself from watching any movie adaptations of his books, and specifically of Watchmen, because of his long-held assertion that it is impossible to make movies out of his work (Rose NP). When interviewed by Steve Rose, writer for The Guardian newspaper, Moore said that he designed Watchmen as a comic book to explore the medium, and that this would not translate to film (Rose NP). That, to my mind, says a lot, because he was perhaps right. Simply put, each character, from the sociopath Rorschach to the conflicted Nite Owl to the inhuman Dr. Manhattan, has such a detailed back story and course of action that any cuts would undermine from the characters. In essence, while the film adaptation did translate the story and images to the screen; it was not able to translate the ideas and depth quite as well.

For instance, the character of Rorschach, a violent anti-hero who wears a constantly shifting inkblot mask which he considers to be his true face, is modestly described and perhaps misunderstood in the film version. Throughout the film, someone new to Watchmen would feel that Rorschach is simply a character that is mentally ill, morally uncompromising, and filled with immoral behavior. Such as in the way he is awfully resourceful, adapting everyday household objects into tools or weapons, such as pepper spray to blind a police officer and the use of hairspray in combination with a match to set fire to a different police officer. He’s portrayed as a good for nothing, wreaking havoc criminal. In my opinion, he is made out to seem like a character whose actions couldn’t possibly be justified; because there’s a lack of his past background - which makes it seem unimportant. In the sense that the film doesn’t necessarily give a background story to why Rorschach turned out the way he is. Its quite difficult in the film to pinpoint why Rorschach has taken on the persona of Rorschach in every part of his life and hates being referred to by his birth name. Also, why he has profound levels of hatred for immoral behavior and is openly disapproving of any other vigilante who does not share his steadfast views. In the long run, the film was not able to translate the background, ideas, and depth quite as well.

In chorus, the graphic novel version of Watchmen, paints a clearer picture of Rorschach’s background, ideas, and depth quite well; as oppose to the film version. Throughout the book you get into Rorschach’s psychology, and why he considers his mask his true "face" and his unmasked persona to be his "disguise.” Also the explanation of Rorschach's life and his justifications for his uncompromising worldview in the book help explain a lot. From the film a viewer might get the impression that Rorschach has always been good for nothing, but reeking havoc. Contrary to that, during his childhood he was described as bright, and excelled in literature, mathematics, and religious education. In this sense, Rorschach must not be completely “mentally ill” as he’s portrayed, but moreover just isolated from the rest of society. Also, as a young boy his mother was frequently abusive and condescending towards him; perhaps initiating his low tolerance for immorality. It might have also in a way triggered the continuation of his one-man battle against crime long after superheroes have become both detested and illegal. His views on right and wrong are starkly black and white with no room for compromise or exception. Ultimately, he has taken on the persona of Rorschach in every part of his life and hates being referred to by his birth name for many reasons, which are near impossible to depict in film.

In the end, the book is complete with inside references that would never survive the book to film transition, and recurring themes that demand multiple readings that a three-hour film couldn’t possibly replicate. One must only consider an example like the one I stated above. Rorschach at times seems to be two different characters; whether you’re looking at him through the book or through the film. One could argue that the film version drags his name through a dark-mixture of mud, ultimately giving him a bad standing. In essence, the graphic novel version of Watchmen touched on ethics and human nature of characters that are seized in a subtle way, as oppose to the film version that loses some of the ethics and nature because of the lack of background that the book provides.

Works Cited:

Moore, Alan, and Dave Gibbons. Watchmen. New York: Warner Books, 1987. Print.

Rose, Steve. "Alan Moore: An Extraordinary Gentleman." The Guardian.co.uk. Guardian News and Media, 16 Mar. 2009. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. .

Watchmen. Dir. Zack Snyder. Prod. Lawrence Gordon, Lloyd Levin, and Deborah Snyder. Warner Bros., 2009. DVD.

Project Space: Essay Two

The Significance of Analyzing Front Yards and Their Function

Analyzing and being aware of front yards and porches around us can benefit us as individuals, because we can gain a better sense of how public and private spaces in certain neighborhoods are being created by residents for social interaction. In a larger scope of things, it can also benefit our larger society by filling some of the social voids of suburban America. Whether one looks at the well-orchestrated street life of East Los Angeles where people have created a receiving environment for local residents by using their front yards and porches. Whether it’s analyzing front yard fences that assert ownership, and or unexpectedly bring people together. The significance of the front porch and yard as both an architectural place and a social space, serve the essential function in allowing people to interact in a neutral area. In short, not having an outlook guided by scrutiny and awareness towards public and private space, such as a front yard, could harvest negative behaviors towards people and the ways in which they choose to occupy their space.

Traditionally, yards are considered the public area of the residence, where they enter and leave their homes but spend very little time in. The landscape also reflects something of the character of those who live there, serving as somewhat of a status symbol. For instance, if someone has healthy green grass on their lawn, people might think they’re financially stable and of high stature, because they’re spending money on something as simple as fertilizer. As oppose, to those people who have yellowish green grass on their lawn, could be viewed as lazy and poor. Ultimately, “The yard has two primary functions: presenting an attractive appearance to the neighborhood and getting people safely and easily from the street to the front door,” says Karen Ellersieck, professor of Plant Sciences at the University of Missouri, and author of “Landscaping Your Front Yard.” In other words, typically front yards are a very impersonal space, where no one really sits and no personal objects are left lying, ultimately ceasing the extension of home life towards the street. In chorus, front yards usually act as a psychological barrier separating the private space of the home from the public space of the street (Ellersieck NP). Having a well-maintained, traditional front yard that lacks social interaction has become the norm, yet not everyone goes along with it; by choosing to use their yards as a social statement with many societal ramifications (Ellersieck NP).

In order to see the benefits of analyzing nontraditional yards and the behaviors they yield, once must only view the well-orchestrated street life of East Los Angeles; where people walk, talk, water their grass, and play on their front lawns in a unrestricted manner. In this area, yards evolved into a new vernacular form as residents have made changes to suit their needs. As the Chicano urban planner James Rojas explains it in his article “The Enacted Environment: Examining the Streets and Yards of East Los Angeles,” “The streets and front yards were accessible at all time to us; they were the public spaces where we would gather daily to become part of the larger community” (276). It became a place where children could play, teenagers hang out, and the elderly watch. Since so many of the residents chose to extend their home life to their front yards, as oppose to the traditional form of using the backyard, a larger community was created. Ultimately, transforming the traditional landscape and serving as a social catalyst where people could roam around in a welcoming environment. In making this comment, Rojas urges us to see how Latinos in his neighborhood used their front yards, in a nontraditional form, but yet constructively formed a larger community. Since people occupied their yards in Rojas’s neighborhood, the yards didn’t act as psychological barriers separating the private space of the home from the public space of the street. In this sense, just because someone doesn’t have healthy green grass on their lawn, it doesn’t make them irresponsible, it just shows how people dictate their space in different forms. Thus, analyzing front yards can benefit individuals by helping them gain a clear understanding between traditional and nontraditional forms of yards, and the certain behaviors they yield.

In chorus, even something as simple as analyzing a front yard fence could tell you something about space and social interaction; which in some cases could be either good or bad. In general fences define borders between public and private space; they form secure spaces and predicate ownership (Rojas 282). However, if you take a trip around the Eastern part of Los Angeles, you would notice that fences also serve additional purposes, such as, a place to hang wet towels, dry clothes, and even to talk to neighbors. Fences ultimately serve as the problem solver of what is called “the problem of the front door.” When visitors cross an East Los Angeles front yard and reach the front door of a house, they have reached a pivotal part of the home. The front door marks a boundary between an open, public space and a closed inaccessible one. Thus, when a visitor and resident meet at the front door, there is this immense pressure of whether or not the visitor is going to get invited in. The fence solves this problem. Ultimately, the residents of the fenced home stay within the semiprivate comfort and security of their outdoor room. While visitors may feel more comfortable not having to walk up to the front door of the house, feeling concerned of whether or not they‘re going to get invited in. As a result, the fence can be used as a social catalyst, bringing people together, but that’s not what everyone thinks (Rojas 282).

On the contrary to the belief that fences can serve as a social catalyst, some people, such as myself at times might feel unwelcome by fences. Simply because fences in a peculiar, imaginative way yell out “stay out.“ In this case, I once believed that fences meant the owners of the house didn’t want people entering their space, let alone interacting with them. Simply put, I personally didn’t want to be somewhat of a nuisance knocking on someone’s door; making the owners feel obligated to let me in. In this sense, not understanding the exact use and meaning of the public space of the fence, could loosen ties with neighbors and local residents, simply because of the constraints a fence signifies and not feeling compelled to enter their space. Also, because ever since my inception, like many others, I’ve been taught that boundaries are not meant to be crossed, and when they are there‘s always negative consequences. In this case, that’s not necessarily true, people have created an upbeat social life by redefining the boundaries that once stood. In short, the fence is not only an identifier of private ownership, but also a social catalyst that could either strengthen your ties with people or weaken them, it all depends on your awareness and the circumstances on how you view a fence.

To understand the importance of awareness of porches, one must examine people as users and creators of a place through their behavior patterns, and as being suppliers of the urban landscape (Rojas 278). People are both users and creators of a place and thus become suppliers in the urban landscape. “A front porch is immediate and visible to neighbors, fostering interaction that is spontaneous, and allowing a community to come together in a casual way,” says Kendra Juskus, contributor of Flourish Magazine. In this sense, people utilize their porches to say something about their individual identity (Juskus).As a patriot – of East Los Angeles, where Rojas was raised, life indoors was dreary and indifferent compared to the outdoors and the vivacious street life manipulated by the community as they pleased (275). Since all the activity occurred in the front yard, the front porch became the focal point of the house (Rojas 281). In East Los Angeles, the front porch gained a new significance as residents enlarged and expand it for heavy use. Rojas himself writes, “people in east Los Angeles graciously extend their home life toward the street and bring the street’s party, work space, and conversation into the front yard” (281). For instance, the residents used their front yards and porches at times as a reflection of their struggles, conquests, and everyday values of the working class, by at times placing a statue of the Virgin Mary in the yard (Rojas 281). In this case, porches, reflect Mexican cultural values as applied to American suburban practice. Therefore, examining how people as users and creators adapt their cultural values in their front yards, could give you a better sense of how they can become thresholds for communities.

Although cultural values are often portrayed in front yards, it often gets tricky when people place sofas on their front porches, because from my personal experience sofas on front porches denote laziness and being “ghetto.” In this sense, the front entry sets the stage for your home.” First impressions make a huge difference in how your family, friends and neighbors view your home,” says Jackie Braitman, owner and principal of Braitman Design/Build, and author of “The Front Porch - An Extension of Your Living Room” (NP). From my personal experience, some people simply feel that a couch on a porch pushes people away. Although, the people that have told me that have never justified their opinion. I think they feel that way because its just not part of the norm to place a sofa on the porch. Also, a covered front porch, may turn away people from trying to socialize, catch up on the latest news or just relax and enjoy the company. (Braitman NP). For instance, if someone from a different neighborhood were to visit the area where porches are somewhat being used as storage rooms ,they might be puzzled why so many people are using porches in ways that are contrarily foreign to them, and perchance seems disorderly. Which might cause them to maybe avoid sticking up a casual conversation. I know I’d probably deliver uncalled for criticism, because I’d feel that it provides no opportunities welcoming to strangers (Juskus NP). Anyway, while life in these neighborhood streets might seem unordered and chaotic to outsiders, its systematic because the residents understand it (Rojas 276). In this sense, average pedestrians and the urban planners examining social issues and policies in areas similar to these might criticize the areas and feel the need for a transformation, without actually understanding the use of a porch by real people (Rojas 278).

In conclusion, analyzing and being aware of the front yards and porches around us can benefit us as individuals, and our greater society, because we can gain a better understanding of how public and private spaces in certain neighborhoods are being created by residents for social interaction, whether positively or negatively. In this fashion, the outdoor environment is a graceful place, composed of front yards and commercial streets, of private and public spaces unified by human behavior and ideas (Rojas 292). Lastly, it’s important to remember that observing and analyzing a space could often equipped you with the constraints and benefits of that particular space. While, many people still remain unaware of how these spaces function in our lives, its critical to understand that people have created something many veteran Americans desire: a vivacious street life, communal public spaces, and the sense of belonging to a community. To conclude, analyzing and being aware of how people tailor and occupy their space as they please can ultimately benefit you by telling you a bit about social interaction, as oppose to creating overriding assumptions pertaining to peoples’ lifestyle and occupation.

Works Cited:

Braitman, Jackie. "The Front Porch – An Extension of Your Living Room." Braitmandesign.com. Braitman Design/Build, 30 July 2010. Web. 27 Mar. 2012. .

Ellersieck, Karen. "Landscaping Your Front Yard." Extension.missouri.edu. University of Missouri, June 2006. Web. 27 Mar. 2012. .

Juskus, Kendra L. "Front Porch Revival: The Past, Present, and Possibility of a Neighborhood Mainstay." Flourishonline.org. Flourish Magazine, 10 Feb. 2010. Web. 27 Mar. 2012. .

Rojas, James. “The Enacted Environment: Examining the Streets and Yards of East Los Angeles.” Everyday America: Cultural Landscape Studies After J.B. Jackson. Eds. Chris Wilson and Paul Groth. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. 275-292. Print.

Project Space: Homework Three: Arguing Back

The use of public space by the public for whatever purposes a group desires should not be allowed, because from past and present occasions the space has been used in ways not intended by the creators of these spaces, usually in a disorderly manner. In theory, I think people forget that the word Public means everyone, including the government, therefore they have a say in changing the nature of a city and its people. Ultimately, political fever within a community, shouldn’t call for the modification of the way public space is intended to be used, because that may be just as insurmountable a challenge as dramatically changing the world financial system (Berg NP).

Protesters of the Occupy movement assert that the public use of public space is the right of the people, without considering the startling disconnect with government, which creates a quarrel between who has authority. In the article “The Occupy Movement and the New Public Space,” Nate Berg, staff writer at The Atlantic Cities, writes “Public means us, but it also means the government, and in the case of our public spaces, the two sphere in that Venn diagram have a nearly completely overlap.” In other words, he believes we are free to use public spaces, almost as we please, under certain circumstances (Berg NP). Here he makes an important point that public means us, but it also means the government. He goes on to discuss how many people have looked at the Occupy movement as participation in democracy - rallying together, in order to express frustration and desire for change. Berg is right that people are protesting in order to try to reclaim a voice and space they feel they’ve lost, but he seems on more dubious ground when he claims that, people need “a space empty, unowned and ungoverned but by the public that chooses to use it as needed or desired.” (NP). Calling for an entirely new kind of public space, calls to rethink the way the system works, it’s a different form of democracy, “a new form of city making” (Berg).

My view, contrary to what Berge argued, is that the legal state of affairs at many of the Occupy sites is unacceptable. The numerous arrests, numbering in the thousands of people across San Francisco, New York City, Boston, Chicago, San Diego, and many more cities is completely called for. Be sure, it is the conduct that has led to these mass arrests and dismantling of encampments, not the loss of public space that has caused this situation. Those arrested, have been charged with illegal encampment, violation of health codes, violation of city codes of conduct in public parks, violation of safety regulations, and many more.

The protesters are occupying spaces in inappropriate settings and are just rallying up together, violating laws and creating mayhem, in order to bring about dramatic changes to the system. Yet some readers may challenge my view by insisting that, these laws are being used to suppress our first amendment rights to gather for the purpose of peaceful public demonstration. Personally, I think people deplore the tendency that constitutional rights are guaranteed federally and must be respected above any local city code. Though I concede that first amendment rights are central, I still insist that protesters shouldn’t be petitioning themselves to police and law themselves, by hooting and hollering for new space, it’s unacceptable.

People from Middle East to Madison hotheadedly believe the public spaces where citizens rally to voice their discontent, show their power and ultimately articulate a new vision for their homelands, have been reduced by the interest of the government. In the article “From Middle East to Madison, Justice Depends on Public Spaces,“ author Jay Walljasper, makes an argument for public spaces being as powerful as social networking in making possible popular uprising, therefore being important (294). Though I concede a square or common to voice views as citizens is important, I still insist that there’s other modes of discussing the issues of the day. For instance, going on discussion forums online or having a get together at a home. In the long run, citizens shouldn’t blame their government for their disaffection, because they’re part of the public too.

In the end, the use of public space by the public for whatever purposes a group desires should not be allowed, because its usually used in a disorderly manner, thus creating further problems. Therefore, people need to remember that the word Public means everyone, including the government, therefore they have a say in changing the nature of a city and its people. Political fever within a community, shouldn’t call for the modification of the way public space is intended to be used, because we are only free to use spaces, under certain circumstances.

Works Cited

Walljasper, Jay. “From Middle East to Madison, Justice Depends on Public Spaces.” Reading Culture: Contexts for Critical Reading and Writing. Eds/ Diana George and John Trimbur. Boston: Pearson, 2012. 293-295. Print

Occcomm. "The Public Use of Public Space." Occupylosangeles.org. Occuply Los Angeles, 18 O
Oct. 2011. Web. 12 Mar. 2012. .

Berg, Nate. "The Occupy Movement and the New Public Space." Theatlanticcities.com. The
Atlantic Cities, 22 Nov. 2011. Web. 12 Mar. 2012.

In One’s Element (Project Space: Homework 1: Space, Place, and Identity)

A space that holds special meaning to me is my home; predominantly my nuclear family that occupies it, and who have helped define it a “home.” In the ordinary sense of the word, “home” is simply defined as a place where one lives, but to me “It is about the ties, the connections, the stories, the food, the rituals, the seasons, the minutiae that go into forming the family unit” (Ansa 276). The location and physical attributes of my home are not as imperative, as the objects and inhabitants (family) within it, because if my family wasn’t there with me, it would just be any other building structure.

“Like all of us, I carry my child hood with me,” I can move around from place to place, but the whereabouts of my family bond stays in the same “place.” Which is unquestionably why I find it unrepresentative to say that the actual “space” of my house is the most important. Personally, the activities that occur that within the space of my house, such as barbeques, birthday party celebrations or family dinners are the most important, because they remind me of different times in my life (Kron 34). The space of my nuclear family gives me a self-identity, because I often find myself mirroring my parents and sibling. Without them, I would perhaps have different beliefs, morals; that’s why I find it incredibly important to mention them.

The objects and decorations around my house, also hold sentimental value and imperative meaning. Contrary to that, I also believe my home holds special meaning to me, because of what’s in it, because possessions also harvest a degree of personal identity. Possessions play a role in creating, maintaining, and preserving the identity of individuals. “Our possessions give us a sense of security and stability” (Kron 130). For instance, in my bedroom, I have books, movies and records I’ve devotedly collected over the course of my life, and they mean a great deal to me, because of the arduous process I went through trying to acquire them. On one occasion, I really hankered after Japanese author, Jun'ichirō Tanizaki’s, rare personal diary Childhood Years: A Memoir, but could not find it anywhere. For months I kept searching, not really bothering to order over the web, because of the ridiculous prices; then finally I took a trip to Berkeley and unintentionally found it in a bookstore. In this sense, I feel the process in acquiring the book helped piece together a part of my “identity,” and not because I was seeking a particular status by obtaining this book; because I know for a fact, the average individual has no clue who Tanizaki is. That particular incident really showed me how devoted I could be to a particular “liking,” which I feel says a lot about my identity.

Over time, individuals develop a set of symbols which they believe represents the self-identity that they want to project as these material possessions are a part of one's identity. That said, I don’t fully agree that “every human being is a status seeker on one level or another - and a status reader.” I say that because I feel some people just have certain hobbies and interests and just enjoy collecting certain things, but technically, I wouldn’t disagree that it gives you a certain status.

On contrary to that, someone could make a case that, “things are cherished not because of the material comfort they provide but for the information they convey about the owner and his or her ties to other” (Kron 133). I myself often find myself believing this, because “without familiar things we feel disoriented. Our identities flickers and fade like ailing light bulbs” ( Kron 135). In order words, our possessions allow to distinct between ourselves and others.

My house and family for instance, gives me an identity that could only be created by having my family, which I personally feel is a special thing; or such as, the books I have collected and read over the years; I’m sure it would be quite rare to find someone with the same exact taste of books as me, considering the plethora of books out in the world. If I would’ve never encountered the space of books, I would probably be writing about something else, and would perhaps be a slightly a different “being.” In the end, whether it’s family, a home, or possessions, “We create environments that are extensions of ourselves, that serve to tell us who we are, and act as role models for what we can become” (Kron 36).

Works Cited

Ansa, Tina McElroy. “The Center of the Universe.” Reading Culture: Contexts for Critical Reading and Writing. Eds. Diana George and John Trimbur. Boston: Pearson, 2012. 274- 277. Print.

Kron, Joan. “The Semiotics of Home Décor.” Signs of Life in the USA: Reading on Popular Culture for Writers. Eds. Sonia Maasik and Jack Solomon. Boston: Bedford-St. Martins, 2012. 128-137. Print

What About Connectivity?

People often change their use of technology to facilitate their creation of a desired social reality, but could this be creating a false sense of community and connection? The internet as a tool for communications can harvest both positive and negative effects, a significant bulk of technology specialists, examiners, and myself, say it improves social relations and will continue to do so (Pewresearch NP). While others believe we are “tethered” to our personal technology, to extent that we may be physically present but absent emotionally. The medium of the Internet creates an abundance of tools for people to help themselves attain their real-life aspirations, so rather than creating a false sense of “community.” wouldn’t it make more sense that people are thinking and behaving the way they always have, just with different mediums of communication? (Gopnik 41).

This raises the question, “what is a social reality?” “If biological reality, is created by nature, social reality, on the other hand is created by humans through social interaction” and “it involves somewhere along the line a negotiation between speech partners” (Bockting 25). The internet serves as the stepping stone in which people communicate in this day and age, so it holds a vast significance. The penetration of the Internet has virtually established itself in every sphere of social life. From companionship and dating to economic, political, and cultural, from social networking to virtual conferencing, no aspect of life as we knew and understood has lingered unaffected. In this sense , it can be supposed that the Internet is no longer just another tool that people use, but an atmosphere within which people function and live their desired social reality.

“Both robots and the Web will have a profound, and bad, effect on human psychology”, says Sherry Turkle, the Abby Rockefeller Mauze Professor of the Social Studies of Science and Technology at MIT and author of “Always On.” Turkle believes technology will lead to devalued and alienated lives rather than enriched ones. In other words, technology creates a new state of the self, which she calls “tethered and marked absent” (38). People use the Internet and technology as this “new state of the self” and create what Turkle feels are false identities and false communities (37). My view, however, contrary to what Turkle has argued, is that people aren’t necessarily creating a new “self” but rather just applying themselves to the abundance of communication technology, in order to create a desired social life. For example, the Internet erases “geography” as a problem in social relationships, which I personally feel is great, because distance often kills the best of intentions. In other words, the Internet allows people to stay “connected” to an atmosphere that feels comfortable for them, which ultimately creates, in my opinion, stronger relationships and communities.

Turkle goes on to say, "We are witnessing a new form of sociality in which the isolation of our physical bodies does not indicate a lack of connectedness but may be its precondition” and “The connectedness that ‘matters’ is determined by our distance from available communications technology" (39). I can not attest to this because personally, I feel she is forgetting about the people who consciously separate both physical life and what we do or say in a text or email. Throughout my busy weekday schedule, I often find myself yearning to create a desired social life with my friends and family by using the medium of the Internet. In using the Internet, or any form communicational technology for that matter, I’m still fully aware of the “outside world.” Turkle makes an overriding assumption that just because someone uses communication technology, their entrenched in the “isolation” of technology. I fully endorse that people use the Internet to help themselves attain their real-life aspirations, which in my case, is to spend more time with my family and friends. In this sense, I use technology to facilitate the creation of a desired social reality, in order to sustain personal relationships. Ultimately, I don’t think Turkle considers how people often have incompatible schedules, so in order for them to feel connected to their loved ones they use the medium of the Internet.

On one occasion, Turkle encountered a student at MIT, who explained to her how technology made him feel like a new person. The student even when on to admit that he had “become” his device. (Turkle 36). In other words, the student felt he could function a lot better with his device in hand. He goes on to say, “I feel invincible, sociable, better prepared. I am naked without it. With it, I‘m a better person.”(Turkle 36). In this sense, according to Turkle, “we all are cyborgs now;” in which she describes as being “always wirelessly connected to the Internet, always online, free from desks and cables.” The guy she talked to was remarkably insightful, but she fails to recognize that the effects of technology are thin on the ground. By focusing on the amount of time people spend digitally connected, Turkle fails to see Internet life cannot stand on itself without real-life. Research shows that people sooner or later convert their cyber contacts into more traditional face-to-face, the same as I do (PewresearchNP). For instance, I speak to my cousins from Chicago every week, but when I see them every six months or so, we don’t spend time talking about little details since we already discussed those things over the Web. Ultimately, we‘re better prepared, which I would say makes me feel the exact opposite of “naked,“ which ultimately helps us create a closer-knit relationship. In this case, the has Internet helped us build a more concrete and connected relationship, but does not necessarily makes us feel like new people or having “become” our devices.

From personal experience the ease of electronic communication has never lead to
weaker social ties, it’s actually done the opposite. Many people I’ve encountered often feel so “tethered” to technology because it’s a place where they vent out their emotions. Since the primary use of the Internet is communication, some people might reason that the Internet will have positive social consequences in peoples’ everyday lives because it increases the frequency and quality of interpersonal communications among people. Personally, easy access to others makes me feel better connected and more strongly supported by others, which ultimately leads to happiness and commitment in families, organizations, communities, and society in general.

In opposition to Turkle, Alison Gopnik, a professor of psychology at the University of California - Berkeley and the author of “Diagnosing the Digital Revolution: Why It’s So Hard to Tell Whether It’s Really Changing Us” comments, “she can give us an excellent picture of what people think about the effects of technology. The trouble is that it doesn’t tell us what those effects actually are” (41). Gopnik states that people think and behave as they always have, just with different forms of communications. I agree that people are just habitually adapting to their surroundings during the Internet age, a point that needs emphasizing since so many people still believe technology is some bizarre form of indoctrination to a specific template of community and connection. Computers are certainly intriguing and captivating, and the Internet is most assuredly alluring with its research and communicative capacities, but the characteristics and effects of technology are at a standstill and unidentified.

In the end, our society maybe be “tethered” to personal technology, but not to the extent that we may be physically present but absent emotionally. People have behaved as they always have, just with different forms of communication and connections, so people shouldn’t feel utterly alone or absent. Ultimately, as with many things in life, it seems that moderation and steadiness are key to amplifying an element’s positive effects, especially the Internet‘s. The essences of my argument is that moderation is creating a new form of socializing and empathizing with others, but with the same token, still understanding the importance of face-to-face conversations. People use the Internet, to help themselves attain their real-life aspirations and to facilitate their creation of a desired social reality that the tyranny of daily life does not allow.

Works Cited

"The Future of Online Socializing." pewresearch.org. PewResearchCenterPublications, 02 July 2010. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. .

Bockting, Ineke. “The Literary Character: Between Life and Linguistic Sign.” Character and Personality in the Novels of William Faulkner: A Study in Psychostylistics. Lanham, Maryland: University of America, 1995. 25. Print.

Gopnik, Alison. “Diagnosing the Digital Revolution: Why It’s So Hard To Tell Whether It’s Really Changing Us.” Reading Culture: Contexts for Critical Reading and Writing. Eds. Diana George and John Trimbur. Boston, Pearson, 2012. 35-40. Print.

Turkle, Sherry. “Always On.“ Reading Culture: Contexts for Critical Reading and Writing. Eds. Diana George and John Trimbur. Boston, Pearson, 2012. 35-40. Print

Project Web: Homework #3 - Modes of Attention (Writing Workshop: Building Paragraphs)

Having a low tolerance for extended focus times could perhaps be because of the constant use of the Internet and other forms of media. In the article “Is Google Making Us Stupid,” Nicholas Carr claims that the way we “read” on the Internet makes us less capable of deeply focusing for long periods of time, or of critically evaluating what we are reading. In the article, Carr describes how some of his friends who used to immerse themselves in a book or a lengthy article very easily, who now find themselves’ losing concentration after two or three pages (2). I can completely attest to this; most of my friends often tell me similar stories about how particular websites have made them passive readers. A couple of my friends, who were born and raised with the Internet, often tell me how difficult it is for them to read pages of text, because they’re so used to reading, or more over skimming through sort passages/messages, such as texts. They simply “get fidgety, lose the thread, and begin looking for something else to do” (2). The friends’ stories Carr and I have experienced wholly endorse the idea that what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away the capacity for concentration and contemplation (2).

Personally, I feel the appreciation of beautiful, rich literature, such as classic literature and academic articles have been undergoing rigorous scrutiny because of the way we “read” on the Internet. If we read in this fashion, known as hyper attention, we’re unconsciously choosing to become “skimmers” and “bouncers.” In Carr’s view the more we use the web, the more we have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing; which I think is true. The majority of my friends, who religiously use the web, are the friends who lose their concentration while reading lengthy material. My friends have become part of the nation of “skimmers” and “bouncers.” The web “puts ‘efficiency’ and ‘immediacy’ above all else” (3), which seems to be what people are hungry for nowadays. In other words, speed seems to be the number one priority in reading on the web, comprehending the material is now a secondary issue.

“The shift in cognitive styles can be seen in the contrast between deep attention and hyper attention, “ says N. Katherine Hayles, a literary and social critic and the author of “Hyper and Deep Attention: The Generational Divide in Cognitive Modes” (28). One must first understand the meaning of both “deep attention” and “hyper attention” in order to understand the shift Hayles acknowledges. Deep attention, the cognitive style predominately described as having a high tolerance for extended focus times (Hayles 28). On the other hand, hyper attention is described as switching focus rapidly between different tasks and seeking a rather high level of stimulation. (Hayles 28). According to Hayles, the increasing role of media in the everyday environment has shifted younger people to the cognitive style of hyper attention (29). In other words, media has in a way made people more prone to multi-tasking, and constantly seeking higher levels of stimulation.

The essence of both Hayle’s and Carr’s research and claims is that the Internet makes us less capable of deeply focusing for long periods of time, or of critically assessing what we are reading. Although, I agree with Hayles to a point, I cannot accept her overriding assumption that, “children growing up in the media-rich environments literally have brains wired differently than humans who did not come to maturity in such conditions” (32). Though I concede that peoples’ attitudes respond to their environment, I still insist people change in order to strengthen and grow; similarly to anyone who didn’t grow up in a media-rich environment. I think everybody is wired the same when it comes down to approaching the Internet; it makes us less capable of deeply focusing for long periods of time, or of critically evaluating what we are reading. In this sense, people who were born and raised with the internet are just adapting to their surroundings; they aren’t necessarily “wired” differently.

Project Web: Homework #2

The Era of Conspicuous Web Consumption

There doesn’t seem to be a brighter future out there for the “visibility” of our presence on the internet, and how that affects our writing, our interactions with others, and our power relations within the online community. Writing has been transformed to a more open virtual world, with a profounder kind of agency; where people can say anything about whoever and whatever. Our interactions with others has perhaps negatively shifted, simply because people have disciplined themselves to live a somewhat “virtual world” and burst out slander about anyone and anything. Personally, it seems that the internet has become a scapegoat to avoid “damage” in their daily lives because of their opinions. Our power relations within the online community has made everyone news gatherers, in the sense that people feel disciplined to report events or opinions they consider extraordinary, even when it‘s under an alias or pseudonym.

Generations raised with communication technology are now spending the majority of their lives on chatrooms, YouTube, cell phones and music devices. The article “I Tweet, Therefore I Am,” by Andrew Lam, observes how social media is spreading like a wild fire around the world, and is playing a considerable role in how we interact with one another and the world around us. Lam himself writes, “As humans, we are beginning to believe that we do not fully exist without some sort of electronic imprint in the virtual world, a digital projection of ourselves“(25). In other words, Lam suggests that people nowadays feel so habitually glued to the Internet that they completely dismiss the outside world: reality. In this sense, people are being conditioned or even disciplined to devote the vastness of their emotional life in the virtual world, or in other words, people have “learned to split their attention, with one eye on the electronic mirror, and the other on reality” (25).

I agree that people have come to believe they don’t fully exist without some sort of imprint in the virtual world, a point that needs emphasizing since so many people believe they have to report their news to the world. Self-tracking has become a terribly vital and significant part in this day and age. As Lam stated, “Diaries, once hidden under mattresses are now online in the form of blogs and vlogs” (25). People are now investing their emotional lives online for all to see, obscuring the boundary between public and private.

The article “The Growing Cowardice of Online Anonymity” by Richard Bernstein, by the same token as Lam; describes how communication technology was created to enhance our daily lives, but something has dramatically shifted, especially with anonymity over the web, According to Bernstein, “anonymity is also a tremendous aid to the resentful, the scandalous and cowardly.” Bernstein’s point is that the internet provides a shield sort of protection for anybody who wants to say anything about anybody else, which ultimately, affects the way people interact with each other. In this sense, the anonymity over the web can be seen as “morally deformed exploitation” (350).

The internet has created a new form of discipline; a large proportion of people’s lives are being dedicated to the virtual world. In the writing piece “Panopticism” Michel Foucault, describes discipline as, “neither with an institution nor with an apparatus; it is a type of power, a modality for its exercise, comprising a whole set of instruments, techniques, procedures, levels of application, targets” (206). Foucault definition of “discipline” can be applied to how people use the internet and the power of anonymity today. It can be seen today that “more and more, we are changing our lives to cater to the digital world” (Lam 24). Personally, I feel that the digital world opens the threshold to the power of discipline.

People now get their news from online resources such as Facebook, Twitter, or other social networking sites, rather than from a physical copy of a newspaper, such as the Los Angeles Times or New York Times. Even the way in which people stay in touch has completely shifted. People have completely sold they soul to cater to the digital world, the real world doesn’t seem to be important anymore. Although, I know sending an e-mail or text can be completely suitable and rapid, I cannot help thinking that some people discipline themselves to feel that sending a text or e–mail could substitute the presences of brisk face-to-face esoteric conversations.

Works Cited

Bernstein, Richard. “The Growing Cowardice of Online Anonymity.” The Norton Sampler 7th Edition: Short Essays for Composition. Thomas Cooley. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2010. 349-353. Print.

Foucault, Michel. “Panopticism.” The Foucault Reader. Ed. Paul Rabinow. New York: Vintage Books, 2010. 206-213. Print.

Lam, Andrew. “I Tweet, Therefore I Am.” Reading Culture: Contexts for Critical Reading and Writing. Eds. Diana George and John Trimbur. Boston: Pearson, 2012. 24-26. Print.

Project Web: Homework 1

The article “I Tweet, Therefor I Am,” by Andrew Lam, emphasizes how social media is spreading like a wild fire around the world, and is playing a considerable role in how we interact with one another and the world around us. Generations raised with communication technology are now spending the majority of their lives in chatrooms, YouTube, cell phones and music devices.

Lam himself writes, “As humans, we are beginning to believe that we do not fully exist without some sort of electronic imprint in the virtual world, a digital projection of ourselves“(25). In other words, Lam believes that people nowadays feel so habitually glued to the Internet that they completely dismiss the outside world, reality. In this sense, people are being conditioned to devote the vastness of their emotional life in the virtual world. Lam now believes that people have, “learned to split their attention, with one eye on the electronic mirror, and the other on reality” (25).

I agree that people have come to believe they don’t fully exist without some sort imprint in the virtual world, a point that needs emphasizing since so many people believe they have to report their news to the world. Self-tracking has become a terribly vital and significant part in this day and age. As Lam stated, “Diaries, once hidden under mattresses are now online in the form of blogs and vlogs” (25). People are now investing their emotional lives online for all to see, obscuring the boundary between public and private.

A large proportion of people’s lives are being dedicated to the virtual world. People now get their news from online resources such as Facebook, Twitter, or other social networking sites, rather than from a physical copy of a newspaper, such as the Los Angeles Times or New York Times. Even the way in which people stay in touch has completely shifted. Although, I know sending an e-mail or text can be completely suitable and rapid, I cannot help thinking that some people might feel that sending a text or e–mail could substitute the presences of brisk face-to-face esoteric conversations.

As seen today, the evolution and future of communication technology is swiftly proliferating, but I still believe there’s an infallible foundation of face-to-face conversation that communication technology will never be able to contest with.