Blog Post 12 of 12

My advice to writers in WSC 1 is to write often, and if given the opportunity, write what you like to write about. It is easy to crank out mindless junk and get away with it, but such a manufacturing stupor will not make you a better writer. Only by writing about things you enjoy can you discover how you write.

My second piece of advice is to only accept criticism after carefully evaluating it. You should listen to criticism, since it at least attempts to help you. Never nod eagerly after criticism, saying "yeah, ok, right" and looking like a thoughtless puppet. I always take time to consider criticism before inserting it in my own writing. Now, if you truly heeded my advice, you won't listen to a word I said.

Blog Post 11 of 12

I don't think the four-letter word projects qualify as writing. Writing is basically the act of inscribing letters onto a document. The four-letter word project was a composition, a piece that attempts to mimic writing or evoke the same thoughts that writing does, but this composition cannot be defined as writing. This does not mean the project had no value, but rather that it was a video or a slideshow that was compiled of all pictures and a single word, and this is not writing. I am writing currently, placing sequences of letters to form words, sentences, paragraphs and thoughts. Our projects were made in an attempt to replicate a verbal argument non-verbally, a proposition that had no option but to only partially succeed, and it could only partially succeed because the project was not made from writing.

Blog Post 10 of 12

Rodney Jones is arguing about the impulsive nature of humans and how we, as a species, tend to discard things that we value in fits of excessive emotion. It is the occasional  of people to behave in an irrational manner and blindly throw away the things that we enjoy. Jones then makes the point of the instant regret people have immediately after this discarding of the beloved. It is only when something is absent that we miss it. It ties in rather neatly with the idea of "you don't know what you have until it's gone."

Blog Post 9 of 12

When I put on text, I am generally quite oblivious to the possibility of people going through the process of reading my shirt. This mental detachment from my clothing occurs for a large spectrum of reasons, most of which can be traced back to my personality. I do not want to classify myself as a careless character who throws on whatever clothes are available, but I must admit that I do mindlessly pull on t-shirts while becalmed in the doldrums of a weekday morning. I am an inattentive person of fashion, conditioned by my own sleepiness to disregard clothing as anything but a fabric to prevent my arrest for public indecency, or a series of devices to preserve my own heat.

If I woke up like some people, bounding happily from my bed with an exuberant smile and a jaunty stride, perhaps I would consider my choices of clothing and their perspective texts. Instead, I curse loudly, stumble around and rub my eyes intermittently, and all thoughts of clothing are erased from my mind. So I apologize for my clothing dullness, but I just can't help myself.

Blog Post 8 of 12

Is it true that flexibility of voice leads to flexibility of all things?

Yes it does. You can relate to a more vast and diverse amount of people. (Drawing of a flower)

You can make them feel more comfortable by speaking like them and understanding them. (Smiley face)

It can grant you the eligibility to reach out to more people and appeal to more audiences.

Blog Post 7 of 12

It is very clear that this writer was influenced by her writing implement, the Crayon, (which along with Legos is the staple of all childlike instinct) and this influence is made distinct by a few casual drawings lightly littered in varying lilac tones across the page. She has drawn a flower and a smiley face to help emphasize her argument, and this increase in expressiveness makes her writing framed by happy images and actually changes the tone of the argument. In a feat that I could certainly not accomplish, the writer makes her argument lighter and gentler with the assistance of a few positive images. The writing is good because the writer hits a few solid points in the brief time she has. While simple, the language is straightforward and doesn't fiddle around with superfluous phrasing, making it both convincing and easy to read.

Blog Post 6 of 12

Twitter is populated by people who have a vague, unknown, or nonexistent audience. If I had a genuine twitter account I would probably not wonder about my audience too much, since I think that twitter is a kind of self-satisfying munching. I think twitter can be a viable tool in terms of arranging certain events for mass audiences. To be honest, I think the purpose of microblogging is to create a false aura of self-importance. This video is a bit harsh with its criticism, but the gist of the message remains the same with me.

Blog Post 5 of 12

The difference in rhetoric between presidents and poets can be identified through the audience each is addressing. Barack Obama is cognizant of his audience as an unimaginably enormous, general mass of laymen, professors and restaurant managers that are roped into the election regardless of their interest. A poet's audience is not a captive one, instead it is a group of followers and critics that are willingly viewing or listening to the material. It makes sense that the president generalizes his rhetoric into simpler, stronger, ironclad practices, since his audience may only be just learning his points or looking to pry open the rhetorical armor and tear him apart. A president's rhetoric will be founded upon basic repetitive statements and simple, muted transitions. A poet has the liberty to choose any language he wants, and address issues in a controversial, flamboyant, or even obscene, manner-certainly not the kind of enthusiastic outspoken technique a president wants to deliver.

Zadie Smith is advocating "tentatively" as she correctly puts it, that a president that is loosed from the doublespeak and blackwhite policies that pervade American politics can make an enormous difference. She actually wants a president to speak like a poet, freely and with impunity. A president that could express actual opinions could outline his actual desires in front of the public, to approval and disapproval. The relative transparency of the presidential would lend increase everyone's trust in government, regardless of political preference.

Blog Post 4 of 12

The author continuously slights being "an awkward, in-between thing" (pg. 181) and seems to favor being boldly on one side of the spectrum or the other. She praises Barack Obama for his duality of language but takes extreme care to point out that doubt is cast onto Obama from all sides. Would Zadie Smith agree with the idea of a genuinely happy medium?

The title of Smith's essay is "Speaking in Tongues", a biblical reference, yet she makes no mention of the many potential didactic stories that are found in the Bible. Is there something preventing Smith from tapping into the huge seam of biblical lore available to her?

Smith initiates part two of her essay with "but I haven't described Dream City" (pg. 184)- a bold insistence that seems nearly pushy, as if she's holding you from running out of the door.  Starting a sentence with "but" defies most writing convention and to begin an entire portion of a work with the word borders on audacious swagger. To me this move came off as a bit too edgy. It is also entirely possible I am missing something. Why does Smith kick off the second part of her essay in such noticeable fashion?

The author goes on a tangent about the dual nature of being black. She claims that "black reality has diversified . It's black people who talk like me, and black people who talk like Lil' Wayne" (pg. 188). Why does Smith acknowledge that by allowing for these contrasts, she is downplaying the duality of a black person and instead creating two different people who happen to be black? It seems to go against her general point.

Smith makes some imperative statements in her essay that she does not want to back up by herself, so she throws the reader and society into the mix as well. She insists that "we consider pragmatists to be weak. We consider men of balance naive fools" (pg. 191). I cannot help but notice that this incorporation of "we" occurs after she acknowledges Obama's use of the word, saying "he was also drawing us in with him" (184). Is she consciously using "we" in the hope of this tactic being noticed and appreciated, or is it incidental?

In the last paragraph Smith uses the word "hope" half a dozen times. Is she trying to make a connection to Obama's campaign?

Blog Post 3 of 12

What I really think about the writing space that twitter affords is that it is immensely frustrating. Intellectual luminaries like Joe Budden and Lindsay Lohan are only allowed to express opinions and brilliant insights in a mere 140 characters. Don't these people know I need more than that? Srsly.

Twitter is 2 writing wat a 4 yr old's best punch is 2 a Joe Frazier hook. They can b compared, but it wud be foolhardy 2 do so. Twitter does hav merits. It is a gr8 way 2 get information out about concerts, upcoming book signings, demonstrations and tv shows. Unfortunately, twitter is 2 often used as a digital podium 2 divulge hi-minded ideas to the groveling, inferior masses. I rlly think that there r better ways to rite and communicate. Twitter isn't a website from Hell, sent by demons 2 make ppl dumber. It is also not a grand gift to humanity. It is just a slightly annoying, slightly interesting website that does its job (uttering short blurbs of quick information to followers) very well.

Blog Post 2 of 12

I'm not sure why so many people wear texts on their clothing and on their skin. Perhaps they feel that such portable writing serves to express individuality or a particularly ardent belief. When a person wears a shirt declaring "Just Do It" or "Pain is Weakness Leaving the Body"it sends a certain signal about that person. I wear simple t-shirts for simple reasons. When I am wearing a shirt with the Boston Red Sox logo proudly emblazoned across the front, it exudes the rather obvious fact that I am a Red Sox fan. The sweatshirt I am wearing at this very instant says "Hofstra University" which makes some sense, since I am a Hofstra University student. People wear shirts for the same reasons ants use antennas-to glean information about their fellow creatures.

Tattoos and t-shirts are nearly limitless in their variety and this variety is dictated by the unique qualities that people have. Witty, crude, romantic, and meaningless text can all be expressed through clothing and ink, and I presume a person loves having the ability to declare his or herself as an individual without saying a word.