Reading the text

When seeing the previous performance written, I could actually see the words, and the diction the poet had.  I felt that reading it helped make all of the points more clear, however it was not the same effect of actually seeing the poet performing.

Hearing the Poet Speak...

The poet captured my attention right away through his tone, diction and overall use of rhetoric.  He mocked today's society and the speaking patterns we use when trying to not sound smart and thus, sound cool.  He delivered this by actually speaking in this type of pattern.  He thew a question mark at the end of every sentence, and would attach phrases like "you know?" or "like totally".  At the end of his performance he started speaking how we should speak, using definitive statements free of the question mark.  I was paying close attention to his entire performance, because not only was his tone of voice enticing, but his movements and facial expressions were as well.

Man vs. Machine...Who is using who?

   The web is an always changing medium, that in a way makes us think not differently, but more efficiently because there is always room for revision.  We now write shorter, more elusively and informally because the internet is really just a giant blog.  Many believe that the computer's capabilities will soon trump those of the human brain.  However, we must ask ourselves, who is behind the computer?  A human.  This reminds me of the Wizard of Oz, where Dorothy discovers that there is not really an all knowing wizard, but just the man behind a curtain.  Isn't that really all the internet is?  We feed it so much information about ourselves such as the music we listen to, movies we want to see, fonts we use and social networking accounts.  So in reality, we are the "man behind the curtain", we are the machine.  Welsh argues that the machine can be using us, however we are the machine.

Ink Shedding: A rapid fire production of first thoughts on a topic.

        Gopnik presents his argument into three categories, : The Never-Betters, the Better-Nevers and the Never-Wasers.  This allows Gopnik to hide his own opinion behind three separate doors of thought.  The Never-Betters love this constant output of technology, the Better-Nevers hate it and have a feeling of nostalgia for holding a paperback book and lastly the Never-Wasers believe that it is not the machine or the human's fault but just a cyclic pattern of evolution.
        Gopnik addresses all different types of people and their reaction to the technological era, and in this we get a view of how these types of people perceive it.  We can pin ages and personality types to these groups just by assuming.  For example, the Never-Betters are most likely people from the younger or digital generations who feel somewhat enthusiastic about this new era.  In addition to this, Gopnik speaks about how it is changing how we go about life.
        On the Ever-Waser's side of the argument these inovations in technology have always been around.  Socrates, the famous Greek philosopher, believed that writing anything down would be detrimental to human development.  He believed that once we put the info down on paper our minds wouldn't need to remember it.  This argument is very similar to the internet debate that is so popular today.

Questions on Peer Reviews: The reader in the text

• Readers can participate in the making of meaning of a text by taking it apart.  In order for a reader to actually hear the writer's "voice", she must analyze the text using scrutiny and criticism. 
•  I find that I am a very active reader.  If I don't read a text with my multi-colored highlighters and a stack of post-its, I won't entirely understand its meaning.  
• I -- as a reader, completely belongs in the text.  Without the scrutiny of the reader, the writer's work becomes lost.  The reader is the one who can base an opinion off the text, while the reader just presents his thoughts on a subject.  The reader is the one who can argue the writer's points, both negatively and positively. 

Materialities of Writing

1.      While I was writing my response in crayon, it was definitely different that writing in either in pen or typing.  I found the poem to be deep and intriguing, and normally I would feel overwhelmed about writing my analysis.  However, the writing utensil of a crayon calmed me down as a feeling of nostalgia came over me; for it has been a very long time since I have used crayon. 
2. Out of the 21 drafts hanging on the wall, I noticed a few similarities and many differences.  For example: in number 12 I found simplistic due to the yellow construction paper and the different colored crayons therefore I felt at ease while reading it.  On the other hand, number 11's draft was not really a draft at all.  This person's paper was not attractive by face value due to the page filled with text that bombarded me as the reader.  However this person must have really connected to the poem and understood its true meaning. 
3. If there was a culture with crayons as the only writing implements, that given culture would be much more simplistic and relaxed than ours.  People would take pride in artistic abilities such as color, expression and texture.  Writing would be much more selective and controlled because there would be no eraser, therefore writing would not be repetitive but direct.  
4. After taking part in the crayon exercise, I observed that some people seem to be more at ease when writing with crayon because of the elementary feel it has, while it has no effect on others.  Throughout high school and higher education professors have drilled into my mind what a "good" essay is compiled of.  Not even a crayon could break the habit of having numerous drafts for an essay, so I feel that I was not effected by using crayon.  However, I observed that some people's reaction papers were much shorter than mine, and even included some picture or word art.  These were the people that were effected by using the crayon.  Using different writing implements can change a person's form and even style of writing. 

Analysis of the Pantene commercial

            The Pantene commercial showcased a deaf asian girl who played the violin.  The girl was constantly bullied and put down by others because she was disabled, therefore she felt discouraged to play. At one point in the commercial another girl smashed the deaf girl's violin, thus silencing the deaf girl even more.  The violin literally smashed to pieces, so the audience would infer that the deaf girl will not ever be capable of making music on her instrument again.  However, at the classical music competition the deaf girl plays "Pachabell's Cannon in D major" once more, yet the audience can observe that her broken violin is taped.  As a violin player, I know that it is impossible to make a pleasant sound out of a taped up instrument, so I ask myself, "Why is the audience clapping after her performance?"
       
             After watching the commercial, the four minutes of what I thought was a touching story of passion ended up being a commercial for Pantene hair products.  So perhaps the deaf girl was not really playing at all during the classical music competition, because how could she on a taped up violin.  Maybe the audience was so taken-aback by her luscious locks of hair, and not her actual violin performance.  This commercial is definitely abstract, but if it weren't for these minute observations one would totally misconceive Pantene's message.