The Writer | Reader | Writer Cycle of Fluidity

As I read Christian Kohl et al, I could not help but to start connecting the discussion of authors/readers (who can also be authors to the same text) to our very own blogger hierarchical writings. My blog, for example, is merely an extension of my analytical readings of theory for the week and I post at the top of writer/reader/writer chain. After my post has been submitted, the other students (reader/writers) analyze my analysis and make their own analysis on the subject. Their comments then become a further extension of what I had originally wrote. Thus, they have placed themselves in a position within the hierarchical writer/reader/writer formation. If a good discussion were to occur and each further submission to the chain were also extensions of previous comments, we will see a somewhat similar formation to that of Wiki documents (I will later introduce an experiment to see how this process works on Blogger under certain constraints); Kohl explains that “in principle all users have the same right to write to read” (Kohl 169).

As we progress further down the chain of literary events (in our class blogger assignments), the original content is absorbed and then transformed by each subsequent reader/writer. Kohl says, “[the] collaborative process of writing dissolve[s] the central intention of the author” (174)  Generally, these submissions transformations are not the intent of the original author, but the writing merits new directions and ways of thinking. In The Database and the Essay, Johndan Johnson talks about these transformations of ideas; he says, “like language… people can attempt to forge new connections in certain situations; they can connect objects together in various ways to shift meanings” (202).

The strange thing about this process is that it has a “cycle of literary life” when used in our Blogger assignments; the original writer becomes the reader (when reading other people’s comments) and can eventually become the writer again, but only under the pretense of a lower position of the literary hierarchy that was originally held by the original author. In other words, the original writer’s concepts have been repurposed (retaining some fragments of the original) by a new writer (the reader turned writer). The original author has to succumb to the new writer’s direction if he/she wishes to continue off of the new writer’s ideas. This process leaves traces of each writer’s contribution to the discussion as an author and as a reader. Kohl says that “the writing must function in absence of author and reader. The text as a unit carries the traces of all authors” (174). With this in mind, the hierarchy constantly renews itself as long as there are continued contributions to the ideas through writing comments.

I would like to take this idea and apply it to the comments to this post. The experiment will require multiple comments and would require each comment to feed off the previous one. In other words, there should be only one original comment and the subsequent comments should be replies to the previous one. In this experiment, I will comment more than once through the chain, but I am required (as I hope everyone else will abide by) to only repurpose the comment I have just read by rethinking and re-contributing to the chain. Think of it as a literary game of “telephone” and enjoy the comment string!

Infographic

Looking for a NRA handgun course? Click here!
The Infographic is up!

Ehh... Graphic Qoutes

I feel like I should direct everyone to the blog I wrote last week.  Solomon was published; so, apparently, I was on to something (just saying).  However, I think it should stay in last week. I would like to dissect how the graphics are incorporated into the writing.  In Martin Solomon’s piece there are more graphics than text (thanks Doug)!  But what we are really seeing here is a form of critical photo essay. Specifically, I like how Solomon still uses graphics to display the quotes for his argument. He shows us two different styles of graphic quotes.

The first one (figure 6) is large and easy to read. With a quick cast of the eyes, the quote and the graphic are understood; this style can be best utilized with shorter “quicker” quotes that are quickly recognizable to the reader. What is important to note is how the quote steals your attention being placed inside a rectangular box. We can consider a quote a form of graphic that we use constantly within writing, but this style develops is a multi-layered eye catcher that extends its rhetorical effect. It seems more prominent; it commands more attention; it forces you to undeniably acknowledge the quote. This is the biggest stylistic lesson that I will take away from Solomon’s format.

 The second graphic quote is radically different in style. I acknowledge that this was not his intent, but regardless the style is present. The graphic (figure 7) has a much more cluttered feel to it. There are to large bold number figures that draw your eyes away from the quote originally. The quote itself is smaller and condensed within yet another layer (designated by the line just above the quote, and the line just below it). This graphic requires much more of our attention. Not only are there multiple, overpowering distractions, we are forced to focus closer on the text. I believe this technique can be used to draw the reader into “deeper” more involved quotes.

Excuse me. What's the question? Questions about ?.

In what ways does the font size and style of question marks affect our reading? Does the style of the font placed with a question mark effect the rhetorical way the question is asked? In what ways do our eyes subconsciously discern from a multiple layers that question marks can underlie?

You may have not noticed (I’m hoping you didn’t) that all of the above question marks are in a different font. If you did, thank you for your close reading interest! However, I would venture to guess that most of you scanned right passed the question mark already knowing the structure of the sentence is interrogative.  What if I had expanded the question marks in font size?

In what ways does the font size and style of question marks affect our reading? Does the style of the font placed with a question mark effect the rhetorical way the question is asked? In what ways do our eyes subconsciously discern from a multiple layers that question marks can underlie?

? (The forth question mark used (next to size))…

Before, the question marks just represented a grammatically functioning symbol. Now, however, we can easily discern the different Identities of the question marks. We have removed the veil of obscurity into a new truth; the question marks are unique. To answer part of the first question, (as the ladies already know) size does matter. And I am willing to bet that the font styles also matter and can have a rhetorical function also (question 2).

First, I will observe what the font style of different question marks look like to me. I encourage everyone to make their own observations as to what the question mark may represent for them. The first,?, is Plantegent Cherokee and resembles a cartoonish format to me (the question mark only). I see it springing off the pages in the Sunday cartoons section of the newspaper with an enthusiastic, !, jumping off the page with it. Second, we have a Times New Roman question mark: ?. Although this question mark is from a generic formal font style, the look of the question mark feels out of place in a formal writing environment. It has an early 1900s newspaper headline look or how Sherlock Holmes would style his question mark: British. The final two question marks are from remarkably similar font styles: Calibri (body), ?, and Calibri Light (header), ?. The basic form of these two question marks is almost identical, but the Calibri Light is (you guessed it) lighter! I, however, see both of the question marks as more of a formal styled symbol. The line to the period mark is mechanically straight and the semi-circle is nearly perfectly round. Could these small, almost unnoticeable, stylistic variations serve a rhetorical purpose?

I believe changing their size and style relation to the main text could serve to imply different kinds of questions. The comical question mark could represent a sarcastic question. The professional question mark could represent a very serious question.

I ask; will you consider using your question marks as a form of stylistic representation? Even if I asked using the personal handwriting font?

?Calibri (body) ?Plantegent Cherokee ?Times New Roman ?Times New Roman ?Calibri (body) ?Calibri Light (header)  ?freestyle script

Pilots, Drones, and Simulations

Wolf’s points on not being able to see outside the lens of cameras and the correlation of simulations versus real time/life develop a few questions and some interesting insights. Wolf talks about the simulations (training for real-world situations) and their possible disconnect with reality; the first thing that came to mind was drone pilots. The simulation for a drone pilot is almost exactly the same as the actual act of flying a drone. The drone displays live streaming video to the pilot, half-way around the world, flying it. The experience then becomes a synchronized act. Pilots develop the muscle-memory necessary to pilot these expensive machines through simulation alone. However, the stress of knowing you are flying a real drone with a hefty price tag can affect the pilot’s performance; this stress cannot be recreated in a simulation.

Recently there have been other claims of stress that effect drone operators. Some have talked about the indifference the job enforces on them. The missile strike on a target appears to feel like a video game. This “feel” is easy for the public to digest but it left a sour taste in some of the pilot’s mouths. They did not know who they were killing, but they knew it was a real life human being. The transmission of the video to the pilot does not take away from its real world implications. So Wolf’s claim that simulations can’t recreate real world situations is both true and false. In many ways it can create the experience and the necessary muscle-memory to successful operate in real-time; a simulator, on the other hand cannot yet fully recreate the stresses associated with the real world. I believe that this experience may one day be harnessed to its full potential, though.

Another interesting faucet is the loss of the peripheral when using a camera lens. The “big picture” may not always be realized by those viewing the square piece of the puzzle. Paradoxically, a drone is perceived to “see all,” but in reality is grounded by the same principle as my camera phone—we can’t see everywhere at once. This can play a rather grim role in the drone pilots’ distaste for the feel of indiscriminant killing. What if these people are innocent bystanders mistaken for threats in a gun battle? The drone operators are not always capable of choosing targets, sometimes they are given targets. Their peripheral picture can be lost and reduced to a square viewing of a target.

On a lighter note, Mishra’s speak about graphic interpretations and Wolf’s talk of plane instruments brought me once again back to drone pilots. The instruments represent certain mathematics and wind dynamics that the user doesn’t have to have P.H.D. level knowledge on to understand how to read it. Of course, there is a learning curve to know how to read it as Mishra talks about. Once the basic knowledge has been obtained to operate it, the user need not bother with the sciences behind the technology.