the strange Delegrange…

http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/14.1/inventio/delagrange/index.html

The Disambiguation section of Susan Delagrange’s article “When Revision is Redesign: Key Questions for Digital Scholarship” (see link above) is highly concerned with the interactive relationship(s) between image and text. Her argument begins with the problem concerning an ambiguous relationship between the two realms. The scholarly article needs to reach to new levels of lucidity in regards to how the image on a page relates to the text it’s placed near. She provides an example for an article on “Metaphor/Metonymy/Synecdoche” in which she places two .gif’s, a man riding a horse and a flower’s life-cycle represented on a street sign. Delegrange’s article is highly supportive of scholarly articles employing a clear and cohesive connection between their presented subject matter and the images that lay alongside the text.

I think an excellent example of a scholarly webpage that does exactly this the hypermedia archive, Rossetti: http://www.rossettiarchive.org/index.html. This specific page exhibits a fine-toothed disambiguation altogether. Not only does the image and text exist simultaneously and seamlessly, but the actual color-coding in regards to the font is very consistent as well.

 

A “Spooky” tidbit

“…to make us remember that we are warm-blooded mammals, and that the cold information we generate is a product of our desires, and manifests some deep elements of our being.”

First of all, I really like the way Spooky describes humans, computer-users per se, as warm-blooded and alive, meanwhile the computers we interact with on a daily basis are cold. The fact that while we are alive we enjoy tampering with inherently “dead” things, such as the internet which is a tangible, un-breathing object. The most intriguing factor of this metaphor is the idea that we as users breathe life into the computer. If the computer does indeed reflect its corporeal user, it reflects the life that it doesn’t have. If someone doesn’t flip the switch and turn the computer on, it remains dead and unchanging, but we have the power to give life in this aspect. We give life to this medium, while it returns our dark desires of “cold information”.

happy hallowmeme!

To Tweet or Not to Tweet

That is the question. Whether ’tis nobler to tweet? I couldn’t tell you. As of October 26, 2009 I have not become part of the twitter-rific phenomena. According to Dana Oshiro, this translates into meaning I’m a hermit crab. And I quote: “And it seems at this point, if you haven’t gotten involved you’ve been living under a rock.” Evidently she’s all pumped up and excited about Twitter.com giving it’s layout a…you ready? Makeover! That’s right boys and girls, as if Twitter wasn’t awesome before when you could just tell everyone what you were doing when you were doing it, now it’s SUPER awesome because you can do that AND network. WOW. Okay, sorry. I laid on the sarcasm a little too thick on that. Phew. Okay.

In case you’re wondering what the hell I’m ranting about:

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/twitter_redesigns_as_streaming_trends_site.php

Maybe there’s something wrong with me, but I can’t seem to grasp this inherent awesomeness that everyone (well, mostly everyone) else sees in Twitter. I mean, yeah, streaming is cool and all. So is being updated on world news. But do we really need to know when Ashton Kutcher takes a leak? Or when Mario Lopez gets a wax? Where do you draw the line between TMI and useful knowledge? Am I wrong for not wanting to tweet my tweeting life away?

I like the angry whale that eats all the users in the Twittersphere much better.

Turn up your Radi Os!

Remember how in one of my previous posts I discussed the French-developed writing style of Oulipo, which is basically a form of constrained writing or writing that implies a specific set of restraining factors on whatever it is their working on? Or has all that browser-history-nonsense got your short-term memory all jacked up? You know you want to laugh, maybe chuckle a bit? Anyway. I wanted to bring a specific work and author to the table of discussion, and I feel that the Oulipo style has great resonance with it. Here it is: Ronald Johnson”s Radi Os. He utilizes a technique refered to as Erasure Poetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasure_poetry) and discovered his own poem within John Milton’s Paradise Lost (books 1-4). He spent many years, marking through transcript after transcript, using the scribbles of his dark ink to cover up and simultaneously rediscover something new within Milton’s epic work. The outcome of such a tedious and time-consuming process is strikingly Postmodern, with fragmentation written all in the blank spaces. I think it ties in nicely with the Oulipo-ean works, because he placed extreme thematic constraints on what he physically omitted from the original work. It wasn’t randomized or meaningless, he marks away God and Satan, leaving behind a very different view of the human, the Adam and the Fall of Man in itself.

From the afterword of the 1977 Flood Edition, Guy Davenport writes:

“Radi os is a meditation, first of all, on grace. It finds in Milton’s poems those clusters of words which were originally a molecular intuition of the complex harmony of nature whereby eyesight loops back to its source in the sun, the earth, the tree, our cousin animals, the spiralling galaxies, and mysteriously to the inhuman black of empty space.”

 

From http://culturalsociety.org/RADIOS, Jon Curley states:

“This cycle, as original as it emulative, risks parody in its invocation of the original while willing itself to another kind of passage. Johnson did not merely extrapolate at whim. He surveyed the Miltonic pattern and culled from its treasure trove a parcel of incandescent meaning. Man is a creation of folly, but so too the circumstances that wrought his appearance.”

 

Another blog that mentions Radi Os:

http://kulturindustrie.blogspot.com/2005/07/ronald-johnson-radi-os.html

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Another random interesting thought I had was centered around the way in which Johnson entitled his work. Paradise Lost. He turned a “paradise” into a physical piece of technology. Granted actual radios themselves are going extinct these days with satellite radio and live feeds via web browsers, I still think it’s interesting that even back in the 70s, whether Johnson consciously meant to make this comparison or not, he transformed the Garden of Eden into a piece of junk with wires in it. This is what McCluhen was trying to warn us about! Plato would be rolling over in his grave! Turning the truthful and beautiful into such ridiculous physical matters. The blasphemy of it all! (But it’s still some wholesome, calorie-ridden food for thought).

Ctrl. + Memory + Del.

The way our friend Cookie Monster is reacting to the idea of deleting his cookies is the same way I feel about the idea of deleting my memory: absolutely appalled, confused, and disgusted. So let’s consider this idea for a moment…what do we do via the internet that affects are memory; something that disables our usage of our memory? Hmmm…how about browser history? Ding, ding, ding! You have won today’s trivia game. Let’s just say, this is my own version of Nicholas Carr’s blog “Is Google Making us Stupid?”. (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google)

Okay, seriously. What’s up with this browser history stuff? Fellow Mozilla Fox users know exactly what I speak of. That tool in your browser bar that requires only a snip-it (be a letter or number) of a web address, site title, name, etc. to locate the exact page said-internet-user is looking for. It can also be associated with the same option that allows you to remember log-in information (such as user names and passwords) so that you don’t have to. While this appears to be a very helpful and useful device that your everyday Joe uses everyday without even realizing it half the time, there is bound to be a setback. I think that by using different forms of browser history to remember simple site names and user  name information replaces a person’s natural memory. We are all born with a brain exhibiting plasticity and the ability to retain bits of knowledge. By not using the retrieval process on a more regular basis, and employing our own short-term memory itself, we are slowly deteriorating these procedures our brain was created to act upon. And when I say “by not using the retrieval process on a more regular basis”, I mean:

Here are some stats I found on:

http://www.podcastingnews.com/2008/02/25/podcasting-statistics-television/

 

• The Internet is the medium on which online users spend the most time (32.7 hours/week). This is equivalent to almost half of the total time spent each week using all media (70.6 hours).
• People spend twice as much time on the Internet as they spend watching television (16.4 hours).
• People spend eight times as much time on the Internet as they spentd reading newspapers and magazines (3.9 hours).

So not only do we spend exceedingly large amounts of time out of our daily lives on the internet, we spend a good percentage of that time not using our memory. Personally, I’ve noticed that I’ve had a more difficult time remembering simple things ie, items on a grocery list, an address, a phone number, an important date. Although it sounds mundane, I think browsing history has definitely had something to do with my failing short-term memory. My friends have mentioned similar problems, and based on family history–none of them really have had a family member portraying any mental problems affecting memory, including Alzheimer’s disease. Thus, after giving it some thought, I have decided to disable all features on my browsers that “remember” anything for me. I’m hoping my experiment will prove my theory right: by disabling all Web-related mediums that exercise my memory for me, thus allowing me to use my natural memory more fervently, there will be a noticeable improvement in my cognition and retrieval-process. In a month’s time, I will update you guys on any improvements or side-affects worth noting.

 

Don't let browsing history delete your memory!

 

 

Stake me, already!

Classically speaking, rhetoric is defined as how an act of speech can impact an audience. Unlike Aristotle’s time, we’re no longer employing rhetoric as a means to defend or protest Democracy or any other political implication. Present-day definitions of rhetoric have been broadened by the scope of technology–specifically, the internet.

As Garth from Wayne’s World teaches us: “LIVE IN THE NOW, MAN!”

So now rhetoric is also defined by not only text, but images and other forms of media as well. Affordances have now become a quantifiable aspect of a person’s everyday life. Rhetoric has now surpassed the point of existing as a physical entity. It”s everywhere, because through the means of the Web, we are everywhere (so-to-speak). If it’s all around us, then it’s bound to have a massive impact on us, right? As of 2009, it has gotten to the point where rhetoric reshapes what it fundamentally means to be a human being. This scares the hell out of me, personally.

With rhetoric encompassing so much power, what are the stakes?

For example:

http://www.wordcircuits.com/gallery/sandsoot/

Click the link above and check out this poem, The Ballad of Sand and Harry Soot. This specific “online poem” is what I’m analyzing for a rhetorical web project.

The particular stake that I feel holds the most leverage for me in regards to this website is (generally speaking) the way it redefines what poetry is. By way of representing a poetic work  through a fundamentally HTML based site with embedded images, it dramatically alters the means by which most individuals view poetry. I’m not saying there isn’t good and bad aspects to this. Some (more, new wave-web-savvy) folks might, in fact, prefer this new means of representing poetry. Personally, I’m not too sure about it.

In this new online format, the poem is no longer a “spontaneous overflow of feeling” as William Wordsworth stated in his Preface to Lyrical Ballads. The poem exists as something deliberate and prepared. Especially in regards to the detailed color-coding assigned to each page and layout–there was much time and consideration put into this piece.

This may sound like a contradiction, but it leads to my other point. Does all the details of the page itself, the codes, the decorum–does it take away from the actual meaning of the poem itself? Do all the colors, images, linking-system deny the poem of any deeper meaning? Or does it ultimately further the meaning? I suppose there’s a fine line between  showing metaphor and intricately weaving metaphor between your words. I plan to discuss this further in a much longer and much more detailed blog post.

If anyone out there has an opinion they would like to share on this topic of discussion, I would gladly accept it. After all, all this rhetorical business doesn’t just affect the parts, but the whole.

Je n’aime pas le mot “the”

I’ll be nice and save you the trip to a free translator. (Title: I don’t like the word “the”).

Oulipo, an acronym for Ouvroir de littérature potentielle, is a very intriguing writing technique that was developed in the early 60s. It combines a very distinct mathematical form with an equally attentive process. If a writer chooses to compose in this style, they must place very specific constraints on the actual writing process itself. The options are unlimited—whether they want to avoid a distinct letter, word, etc.—they have the ability to do so (with much patience). The patience part is what interests me the most. In order to compose a work in this manner would be a tedious, time-consuming process. Instead of rambling on and on about the actual theory of Oulipo, I’m going to put my own writing skills to the test and see if I can pour out a short example for your viewing pleasure:

I am a proud owner of a free-spirited calico cat named Peanut Butter. I named her that because of her distinct markings and color schemes, most of which remind me of a chocolate, creamy texture you’d find in a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup.  She has an extraordinarily unique personality and tons of energy. She brings much love and companionship to my home life. One thing I think is very interesting about her is  that she loves to play fetch. Personally, I’ve never seen a cat play fetch like a dog does, but she enjoys retrieving random things for hours on end.

In the above paragraph, I attempted to establish a Oulipo-themed style of writing. The restriction I placed on myself was the absence of the word “the”. As writers of the English language, we use the word “the” more times than we realize, so forcing myself to NOT use it was more difficult than I imagined it would be. This gives me a greater perspective on the subject, because now I have a stronger sense of respect for writers that decide to portray this form of composition. Could you imagine writing an ENTIRE novel without using the word “the”? I sure as hell couldn’t. I used the word “the” 12 times in this short post alone. Sheesh.

Peanut Butter

Stop memeing around

A meme is derivative of the Greek mimema, meaning “something imitated”. Existing as a cultural entity, memes are particular elements that are transmitted through society from one mind to another. They are an immense technological phenomenon that many theorists debate over. Continuing with my preexisting topic of vampires, I thought I would share a few vampire-related memes I’ve come across lately.

Feed off of my weakness

Vampires provided a perfect mirror of the worst fears of the  pious and perfect. Vampires were dangerous, sexually rampant, enormously powerful, absolutely unconcerned about  human dignity and preservation of the soul, and finally…dead. And it was this last aspect of their nature that made them the most fascinating to legend-makers. -Dunn Mascetti, Manuela. Vampires: The Complete Guide to the World of the Undead

So we’ve established that vampires are bloodsucking, undead creatures. Not only are they immensely powerful and fast, they exhibit extraordinary attractive physical traits (from pale skin to beyond beautiful eyes) as well.  As if all these traits combined weren’t enough, most portrayals of vampires show them with a pair of sharp, seething fangs. One thing I haven’t brought to the table of discussion is a vampire’s strengths and weaknesses. What extra “powers” does a vamp have to further their lethality? What are the loopholes in the vampire’s strengths; can you kill something that’s already dead?

Vampires are immortal beings; upon completing the transformation required to become vampire, one will discover the ability to live forever young. There are, however, a few aspects that can halt a vampire’s immortality sooner than expected. For example, in typical representations of vampires, the sunlight is a big no-no.  In Interview with the Vampire, Louis’ daughter for all intensive purposes is assassinated in an open chamber by mere sunlight alone.

Claudia, a vampire from Interview with the Vampire, is literally turned to ash and soot by the sun's rays.

In Twilight, however, the sun doesn’t have a such a detrimental impact on the vampires. It exists solely as something that can reveal their identity because instead of bursting into flames, they sparkle as if they have millions of diamonds embedded in their pores. On the other hand, True Blood shares the negative view of the sun. The biggest contrast between Interview and True Blood is the fact that the sun instantly kills Claudia, while Bill Compton regenerates from his run-in with the sun. This is why vamps in these stories either sleep in sealed coffins or underground during the day to prevent all interaction with the sun.

Chargrilled vampire Bill.

Another weakness of the vampires in Anne Rice and HBO’s versions is a stake to the heart. The effect varies from one vamp to the next, but the outcome is the same: eternal rest. The vampires in Twilight only have one true weakness: other supernatural beings. Not many things can break the marble skin of Meyer’s vamps—only other vampire teeth or shape-shifter teeth.

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

As a side note, here are some special powers specific vampires exhibit:

• Interview with the Vampire- Louis’ special attribute/curse: extreme humanity & compassion. ;Lestat: mindreading
• Twilight- Edward: telepathy, high running speed ; Alice: ability to see the future/current path a particular mind is on; Carlisle: extreme abstinence of thirst, working as a doctor; Bella: can create a shield with her mind; Jasper-ability to control the emotions of those he’s around.
• True Blood- the ability to glamour. (Glamouring is a type of hypnosis that allows the vampire that’s employing it to control the mind of his/her victim. They glamour to feed, to erase memory, and to protect themselves.)