Researching vs. Reading

I'm a huge Tolkien fan. In case you didn't realize, I absolutely adore LOTR and The Hobbit.

I can quote whole conversations from both the LOTR trilogy and the new Hobbit trilogy films. I can spout out random facts no one but other Tolkien fans care to hear. It's intense and I don't regret my obsession one bit.

Does this mean I've read every shred of text Tolkien had written and was later dug up and edited by his son? . . .  No. I'm ashamed to say but also a little uncaring to claim that I've only read two of Tolkien's works: The Hobbit and The Silmarillion. The first most people have at least heard, the second, not so much. Part of the reason being The Hobbit and LOTR are the only truly completed works of Tolkien set in Middle Earth. Everything else was published posthumously and by his son, who edited and tried his best to piece together chunks of text that his father had left behind. The other bit of reason being that Tolkien couldn't make up his mind about certain characters and plot points; he changed the backstories of some characters several times, leaving them unfinished when he died in 1973.

Okay, there's my lecture on Tolkien for the day. See what obsession does? Anyways, I have not read The Lord of the Rings books. I grew up with Peter Jackson's magnificent films; I loved them ever since I was a kid and I am determined to have my nieces and nephew love them too. I still watch them on a regular basis. I dreamed and made up stories where I was the main character in Middle Earth as a kid. You would think this love of LOTR and Middle Earth would have gotten me to read the books as soon as I was able, and I did try. I was in the seventh grade, and did not fully understand LOTR. I didn't really begin to understand the epic until I entered high school. So, when I was twelve or whatever age you are in the seventh grade, I didn't even get through the first book of the trilogy.

And I've a tried a few times since. I never get past the first few chapters of The Fellowship. Why? For one, have you seen the actual books? They're mini bibles in shape and detail. That's another reason: detail. Tolkien writes detail like nothing you've ever seen. He spends several paragraphs and/or even several pages describing one scene and or thing. Info dumps everywhere. I appreciate this a lot more as a young adult than as a kid; a twelve year old cares more about the action than the masterfully crafted sentences and beautiful prose. Despite this new appreciation, I find myself regarding the trilogy and other Tolkien works with caution.

The main reason is not the thick plotline, size of the books (even though I've read HUGE books before), or lack of understanding. It's laziness. That may seem shocking, since I've obviously put a lot and time and effort to participating and learning about Middle Earth.

 

But the medium I've used to learn so much about Middle Earth, its inhabitants and its stories is the Internet.

 

I'm not here to rant against the web; I might in another post, but not here. Even so, I can't ignore the fact that the internet and the infinite amount of information it makes accessible has a huge impact on my reading life. With the internet, I can delve deeper into a fictional world and join others. With the internet, I can discover things I never would have otherwise. Still, all that information found in Tolkien's books can be found online. On several sites. By many people who are more obsessed than I am (no, seriously). Anything I wanted to know about The Hobbit and The Silmarillion can be found on the web. If there were things I wanted to know more about or needed clarified from those two books, I searched it in Google, Youtube, and specific Tolkien websites.

 

I already know quite a bit about Tolkien's other works; I've spoiled myself silly. And I feel kind of guilty, especially when I get with other Tolkien enthusiasts. Does this mean I'll disconnect the web and read the five or so other works by Tolkien before I connect it again?

 

 

I am going to continue to obsess over and learn about Middle Earth with the internet, but I'm determined to pick up more of Tolkien's works. I hope I succeed in reading all of LOTR, I really do, but the internet may prove just too easy for me to ignore. 



All Tweets Tell a Story

I'm not sure what I just read. Jennifer Egan's Twitter story called Black Box seems, at least in my opinion, a spy thriller that took place in an alternative 1950s America. Not sure why, but from how the status of women was described, i.e. they were doing it all for their husbands and country, it sounds like something from the fifties or WWII. And the several beauties with their "Designated Mate" (I really hate that) sounds like a harem. From what I understand, it seems like they got a bunch of brave, patriotic housewives and trained them to be minimal undercover agents posing as mistresses. I guess the reason for this squad is to infiltrate a network of cruel and powerful men who are doing things that the US does not like by having them be playthings for the cruel and powerful men.

I have mixed feelings about this. It's hard to tell what the world is actually like since Egan didn't give much details. She couldn't because the story would have gone on and on for months. Formatting the story as tweets was rather genius; except that there's a lot of white space that isn't filled in. We can't know for sure what the world this woman is in. I wrote above that I believe its an alternative USA in the 1950s, but who knows? It could be a future US where the country is no longer a superpower. Tweeting the story leaves room for many different interpretations and a lot of head-scratching as to what the in and outs of the world are.

What I really enjoyed about the tweets was that they were short. Sometimes, it's nice to read something naked of detail instead of having to process all the information of description. Granted, the space between each sentence and amidst sentences when a new tweet has to be made was a tad annoying. On the other hand, the simplicity of the format made it quick to read and with the lack of detail, I didn't feel bogged down. The tweets also gave the ability to easily share and comment on specific parts of the story. Thanks to the digital age, fans can connect with authors in ways never before seen. Still, it's hard to comment and discuss with others the exact quote of a story unless you all have the same exact copies.

I liked the story; it was thought-provoking. The tweeting format was refreshing, albeit a little strange.

Sharing is Caring

Lately, and for no reason in particular, I've been thinking about how the social media thing is possible. I know, pretty deep. But seriously, how is it possible? Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Tumblr, Reddit, YouTube, and other social media sites wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for one thing: sharing.

We're social creatures: from time immemorial we have been more successful in a group than alone. Why do TV characters freak out when their friends leave them in an unknown land? Because the character know he/she could easily be a snack for a hungry animal.

 



When our ancestors weren't running away from saber-toothed tigers or other human beings of different clans, they were sharing with each other. The only way people can learn things is from others. And the only way others can teach us is through sharing. Teaching is sharing knowledge. Our ancestors shared knowledge with one another, thus helping us evolve from living with only a thatched roof between our head and the sky to living in skyscrapers fully equipped with running water, plumbing, heating and air conditioning, and internet--which was made by and for the military, not the public. We wouldn't have the internet and any social media without the military (another thing to thank them for!). Because they let entrepreneurs and engineers develop it, we have the internet we know today (that's not a great summary of the history of the internet, but you get it).

But why is social media so damn popular?  As I said before I went off on a tangent, we are social creatures. We want to know and care about others, but even more so, we want to be known and cared about in return. 

Social media has made sharing and caring about others a hell of a lot easier than ever before. I wasn't alive in World War II, but I'd venture to say that Americans didn't care too much about the rest of the world's issues until the issues were shoved into America's face via Pearl Harbor. I'm not saying nobody cared or that 1940s Americans were heartless, but its hard to really care when the information isn't readily accessible. Before the internet, the world was still a relatively large place that had to be explored and shared slowly. Long-distance communication was primarily letters. Its hard to be upset about a country being invaded when you're an ocean away. Today, millions of people can care about a single kid with cancer more quickly and honestly with one click of a button.

It is the sharing that makes social media. There's no point in having an account on Twitter or Facebook if you're not going to use it. Using it means following others and being followed. It means sharing bits of your life with the hope someone will care; it's the hope that someone will have something grand or interesting to say so you can join in. It's the hope that maybe we aren't as boring and insignificant in this wide world to another person as we think ourselves to be.

The Best I Have

Recently in class we were asked to blog about our favorite piece of writing that we were most proud of. Since I came to writing in my last year of high school, I do not have a lot of complete papers--that's actually a poor excuse but anyways . . . I had to think about what my favorite piece of writing is; the one that elicits a lot of preening on my part when I think about it.

Eventually, I came to a short essay that I had to write for a British Lit class. It was supposed to be based on Wordsworth's concept of "spots of time", or memories that had a huge impact on a person's life. It took a little bit at the time to decide on a spot of time, considering lots of things can impact a life. But I finally settled on the memory that occurred overseas, in the mountains of Germany.

The summer before I turned seventeen, I went to Germany with my parents. Though I have many fond memories of the experience, one stuck with me particularly. I wrote about my day and a half in a tiny town in the middle of the Black Forest on top of a massive and steep hill. I had just finished a very rough year in high school and was relieved to not just be out of the school, but away from it all with an ocean between. It was gorgeous on top of that hill (I can't remember the town's name). Since I love to walk, I got up early and took a long stroll all through the town and the walking path that zig-zagged all over it.

Since my writing was supposed to reflect Wordsworth, who lives up to his name and uses very flowery, dreamy language with tons of imagery, I had to conjure up as many details as I could. I remembered a lot from that walk, but some I did elaborate. We also had to write how the memory impacted our life, and my explanation was honest and about mental health. It was not cheesy, but like most writers, I doubted myself. I couldn't help but feel it was kind of pathetic when I turned it in.

I never believed it was bad; just not great. When my professor handed it back a week later, I was shocked and thrilled from my toes to the top of my head to see an A. She wrote that I really understood Wordsworth and my writing reflected his very well. I was ecstatic! I have always done well on papers, but for some reason that was the best experience I have ever had. Perhaps it had to do with the fact that someone found my personal writing interesting and actually well-crafted that thrilled me so much. I hadn't ever had someone hint I was a good writer because I simply wrote about a personal experience and did so by imitating a famous poet. I mean, come on, what writer doesn't want to be able to write similarly and well to a famous author?

The essays sits in my folder quietly now. I pull it out when I need to smile or a boost of confidence. I bet another piece will replace it eventually, but for now it's the best I have.

Facebook Breakup

In Chapter Ten of Baron's A Better Pencil, it is stated that "Facebook and Myspace remain the go-to sites for a full service meet and greet" (183). This was published in 2008, when I believe Twitter was still relatively new. Things have changed--at least in my opinion.

Facebook is not as popular as it once was just a few years ago. The four years I was in high school were definitely recorded and talked about on Facebook. I didn't do that as much as my peers, but I got Facebook because all of my friends had it. A few years later I discovered Twitter, and quite honestly, I like it much, much better than Facebook. I've come to the point where I am seriously considering a breakup with the site.

I never thought I would. Believe me: I have spent countless hours browsing Facebook when I could actually be doing something productive. Since entering college and growing up a little, I've realized I don't like wasting time on Facebook anymore. I don't like spending hours on any website anymore. Most sites I spend two hours at the very most on. The least can range from five to fifteen minutes.

Another reason I want to breakup with Facebook is that, quite frankly, I am sick and tired of reading about and seeing people's life stories, their issues, their opinions that no one asked for, and their private/intimate lives that few people truly care about.

Hate me and call me cynical, but in all honesty your opinion about how something is wrong and the whole world is going to crap because of it is just clogging my feed and making my eyes twitch.

 

Sorry, I just got a little ranty. My apologies. And I am aware that my opinion could be seen as hypocritical since I have Twitter and this blog. Let me explain myself.

 

Blogs are meant to be long-winded and kind of personal. Not who you're sleeping with or why you hate so-and-so, but personal as in you give general, nonspecific info about your life. Most blogs are made because the blogger believes he/she has something to say; most people who read blogs want to hear what the author has to say. (If you want to promote a charity or inspiring story on Facebook, that's way different and I don't find that irritating.)Twitter, on the other hand, is supposed to be personable but in a different way. You can only give snippets of your thoughts and life story. If you write ten tweets describing your issue, no one is going to care; no one is going to scroll scroll scroll to read ten different tweets.

 

And that is why I like Twitter more. If I really want to know about someone's life, I can look him/her up on Facebook or his/her website. I do not feel like I am being forced to read something. I want snippets, not full-fledge stories--I read novels for those. I know I can unfollow people, but if I did that I wouldn't really have anything on my feed. Which sounds like my goal, but if I delete my Facebook, I know I will lose contact with several friends I do not see more than once a year and I will be left out in the cold for get-together and events; mass texts to plan a movie night etc is just a pain and greatly inefficient. See my dilemma?

 

I suppose I could look up as many friends as I can on Twitter, but so far when I ask my friends for their Twitter, they ignore me or say "Oh, I never go on there." Even with the direct messaging, my social group is way more into Instagram and Facebook than Twitter--it's super frustrating!

 

The only reason I am still on Facebook is for the reasons above: I need some way to know what is happening and where I should be and what time on a Friday night. In reality, I just want to abandon Facebook and never look back. Will I? Probably not. My consolation is that I cannot be the only one who wants to abandon a social media site but feels the irritating need to remain for her social life.

Games Are Not My Thing

In Jenkins article about media education (I think everyone knows what I'm talking about by now), he states "Gamers may be acquiring some of these distributed cognition skills through their participation in squadron-based video game" (37). After watching a TED talk about how gaming can improve the world and develop the next leaders of the world, and reading in Jenkin's distributed cognition section, I can certainly believe that games can be beneficial to the world. There's just one problem:

I don't play video games.

 

I did not grow up playing video games or even computer games a lot. When it comes to playing either one, I am super incompetent.

 

I've tried, believe me, I've tried but I just end up embarrassing myself and those playing with me. It could be my lack of experience--and natural talent-- but I'm just not good at video games. To avoid mortification, I just don't play them.

 

 

Yes, yes, I know. It's the coward's way out. I should pick myself up and force myself to learn. But games are expensive and truthfully, I don't have the motivation to spend time to learn them--no offense to gamers. I admire your skill, I really do. Still, I think there are other ways to gain the skills distributed cognition has to offer. For example, learning how to build websites, participating in online writing communities, collaborating with a friend on a blog, networking over social media, and utilizing as much technology as possible provided in your workplace or school.

 

Those are just my thoughts. This was a quickie because my week has been a wreck and I don't know what else to say. So, game on gamers and be creative nongamers. Good luck all!



I Was Born This Way . . . Maybe

In the article, Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century, Henry Jenkins discusses the several skills that educators have deemed important in order for students to understand media and how to use it. My classmates and I were all assigned a skill; mine is distributed cognition. At first hearing, it sounded super complicated and scholarly-- something I could handle but didn't want to. When I read about it in Jenkins article, I discovered it is quite interesting and isn't very complicated at all. Professor, sorry for doubting you.

Distributed cognition is "the ability to interact meaningfully with tools that expand our mental capacities" (Jenkins 37). In other words, it is using the tools we have in our lives, such as computers, calculators, refrigerators, etc. to expand our knowledge and intelligence. Jenkins cites a few educators who emphasize that technologies can help out our brains instead of hinder them; he writes that since they claim that technologies are actually a part of our thinking process, then "it makes no sense to “factor out" what the human brain is doing as the “real” part of thinking, and to view what the technology is doing as a “cheat” or “crutch"" (37).  Take that grade school math teachers who said I couldn't use a calculator!

There was one thing in this article that really got my attention. Jenkins cites Pea, who wrote that "intelligence is accomplished rather than possessed" (37). I believed it from the beginning, but then I really got to thinking:

 

We're raised to believe that the amount of smart in our brains that we're born with is what we get for life. But . . . what if that isn't true? Think about it. We know very little when we're born; in fact, we don't know much about the world until we get to the high school, and even then we still have a LOT to figure out. We aren't labelled "dumb", "smart", "intelligent", or "genius" until we're in school. And we only get labelled one of those until information is put before us and we are required to learn it. From what Jenkins writes, it sounds like intelligence is our ability to learn something new-- that's also what Google says when I searched for its definition. If we catch on quickly and retain that info, then we are smart. If we struggle or fail completely to grasp something, then we are dumb.

 

This can be expanded into how we speak of technology literacy. It is a new skill unique to the 21st century. Never before has literacy of new technology and media been so essential to living in the modern world. Never before has there been a difference between someone being just "smart" and "computer smart". There are many, many people (mainly of older generations) that are technologically illiterate or at least struggle to understand and utilize it when otherwise they are extremely intelligent and even border on genius.

 

I think we're beginning to associate intelligence with how well you can work technology and how much you can do with it. I don't believe that's good. Perhaps not the most terrible thing in the world, but not great, either We could miss out on a lot of incredibly intelligent people in our businesses, school, government, and culture if we disregard someone just because they don't understand Tumblr.

 

Should we encourage these struggling computer readers? Yes! As Jenkins writes, "a classroom designed to foster distributed cognition encourages students to participate with a range of people, artifacts, and devices" (39) is one way to begin with young generations. With older users, it might just be sitting down with them and going over how this or that functions until they get it. You know what they say, anyways: you don't really know something until you've taught it to someone else.

 

I do believe that we are born with a certain amount of intelligence, but it is expanded and developed throughout our lives depending on what we learn and what we do or do not apply.

 

Bibliography: Jenkins, Henry. "Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century." (2006): 37-39. Web. 4 Nov. 2015.