I also found our discussion pertaining to the footage interesting. The footage is certainly something of importance to the frequenters of the F:F:F forum. The people on the forum admire the footage, and people, such as Cayce, desperately try to protect it from the masses. Essentially, if the footage gains popularity it will produce money becoming a commodity and therefore, it will be tampered with. When and if the masses tamper with the footage, it will lose its aesthetically pleasing quality. I was able to form an interesting connection based off of the idea that the masses are capable of tampering with art, the footage. I am doing my final paper on the Oprah Winfrey book club and what it does to the literary community. Typically, I am a fan of Oprah. In addition, prior to reading the Fitzpatrick article for class this semester, I felt that there was nothing wrong with Oprah’s book club. I have read books that Oprah has recognized on her show, and I always enjoyed her reading suggestions. After I read the Fitzpatrick article and we discussed the Oprah book club in class, however, I began to feel differently on the matter. The Fitzpatrick article recognized a particular author who turned down Oprah’s seal of approval, for he didn’t want his work to be reduced by the masses. At first, I felt that this was pretentious, but my feelings have changed since researching for my paper. Oprah’s book club recognizes Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye, which is a book that I really enjoy. A branch of Oprah’s website is dedicated to the book club, so I checked out the link that featured message boards and discussion questions pertaining to Morrison’s novel. I have to admit that I was alarmed and somewhat nauseated with what I found. An entire section of the site was dedicated to being both a mother and a writer! Okay, Toni Morrison is a mother, I get it, but what in the world do her maternal skills have to do with The Bluest Eye?! It then occurred to me, however, that motherhood is discussed on the site, because Oprah is trying to appeal to her audience; Oprah isn’t a stupid woman, she realizes that a majority of her viewers have children, therefore, she is trying to appeal to the masses. After navigating Oprah’s site, I completely understand why authors wouldn’t want the Winfrey seal of approval on their covers. I think I feel similar to these apprehensive writers, for I too value books and I certainly don’t want them being tampered with. Essentially, I don’t want Toni Morrison to be recognized for being a mother above her writing. For me, Gibson’s footage is comparable to my favorite books and I understand why Casey and other frequenters of the F:F:F form don’t want their art being tampered with. After all, isn’t “art” one of the only facets of society that isn’t completely poisoned by the media?

]]> http://cassieeee.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/and-the-rant-begins-in-54321/feed/ 0 cassieeee http://cassieeee.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/william-gibsons-pattern-recognition/ http://cassieeee.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/william-gibsons-pattern-recognition/#comments Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:49:43 +0000 cassieeee http://cassieeee.wordpress.com/?p=22 ]]> At the beginning of the semester, the entire class mapped out the difference between reading verse navigating the web. The discussion showed that for the most part the class viewed reading as a solitary experience while navigating the web was seen as communal in nature. In my opinion, Gibson’s text affirms this belief. I think Gibson’s novel shows that although in actuality navigating the web is not a communal experience, it is seen as one by its participants. The World Wide Web is seen as communal, because it promotes discourse. For instance, Cayce can’t help herself from visiting her favorite forum F:F:F in order to discuss the latest footage. Cayce even goes as far as saying that the online forum is her second home, a place she feels comfortable to freely express herself. The idea of spoilers is also mentioned in the text by Cayce, and this simply shows another aspect of the convergence culture. More or less, individuals are so invested in the footage that they actively search for answers before they are willingly given up by the show’s producer. I find it interesting how Cayce differentiates the different bloggers on F:F:F. She seems to separate them into two different groups, the completists and the progressives. According to Cayce, Parkaboy is seen as a progressive; this is because he feels that the footage consists of fragments of a work in progress, something unfinished and still being generated by its maker (46). Mama Anarchia, on the other hand, is seen as a completist, for she is convinced that the footage is comprised of snippets from a finished work, one whose maker chooses to expose its piecemeal and in nonsequential order (47). I’m not sure if I am reading too far into this, but in my opinion the progressives represent the new while the completists represent the old. Essentially, Parkaboy believes that the fragments of footage represent an original creation. More or less, Parkaboy is under the impression that the maker of the footage is creating something out of scratch, and as a result of this, snippets are shown to viewers once they are completed. Mama Anarchia, on the other hand, believes that the footage reflects an already finished work. Cayce also mentions that Parkaboy hates how Mama Anarchia incorporates theory, such as Baudrillard, into her posts. As a result of this, I couldn’t help but view Mama Anarchia as the traditional literary canon. This is because Mama Anarchia, similar to other completists, operates under the notion that contemporary artists merely mimic the work of the classics. In addition, due to the fact that Mama Anarchia holds theory in high esteem, she believes that theory is keeping the arts alive.

The idea of copying the original is also seen in Cayce’s descriptions of her surroundings. Cayce suggests on multiple occasions that she is living in a mirror-like universe, where everything is a reflection of the past. I read this as Cayce implying that nothing is real, because the world has been tainted by extreme capitalism/consumerism. On Cayce’s second day in London, when she meets the group of men selling the grenades, she tells her audience that she is in desperate need of coffee. She wants Starbucks, but it is still closed. One of the men selling the grenades, however, takes her to buy what she describes as the “white” coffee. Cayce finds the “white” coffee disgusting, and she ends up throwing it away in order to buy a Starbucks coffee. She then describes the Starbucks coffee as being a mere replica of the original “white” coffee. It seems as if everything in Cayce’s world is label intensive, and all of the small businesses and industries have been dominated by the larger monopolies, such as Starbucks. As a result of this, everything in Cayce’s world possesses hints of what came before, but the large institutions of power have taken full control.

Last, I find it really interesting how Gibson writes Pattern Recognition in the present tense. This is a fiction writing technique that I do not often see, and I admire it. I find myself reading Gibson’s words extremely closely, because I am monitoring his text in order to see if there are any slip ups in tense. I am not yet done reading the text, but it seems that thus far Gibson has done an excellent job of maintaining his tense.

Well that’s all for now, see everyone tomorrow!

]]> http://cassieeee.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/william-gibsons-pattern-recognition/feed/ 2 cassieeee http://cassieeee.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/annotated-bibliography/ http://cassieeee.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/annotated-bibliography/#comments Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:34:56 +0000 cassieeee http://cassieeee.wordpress.com/?p=21 ]]> Hey everyone! I’m using one of the MACS at work, and I am a miscrosoft user, so I have no idea how to get the book titles underlined. I wanted to post in time, but when I get home I will update things. Sometimes I really hate technology!

Annotated Bibliography

Eco, Umberto.  The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. 
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1979.

When discussing the literature that appears on Oprah’s booklist, Winfrey place a great deal of emphasis on the role of the author.  By placing a great deal of emphasis on the author, Winfrey blurs the difference between fiction and nonfiction.  I use Eco’s text in order to discuss the role of the author as a way of showing that Oprah is not removing the writer far enough from the work of fiction. 

Fick, Thomas H.  “Toni Morrison’s ‘Allegory of the Cave’: Movies, Consumption, and
Platonic Realism in The Bluest Eye.”  The Journal of the Midwest Modern
Language Association.  22.1 (1989): 10-22. 

In my paper, I discuss how the reading of Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye differs depending on who is approaching the text.  In order to show the difference between the readings of the literary scholar verse the average audience member, I compared the popular themes discussed in scholarly journals to the popular themes discussed on the Oprah Winfrey website.  Fick’s article is one of the journals that I used to prove my claim that Oprah’s audience members leave the texts suggested on the Winfrey site with superficial readings. 

Fitzpatrick, Kathleen.  The Anxiety of Obsolescence: The American Novel in the Age of
Television.  Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2006.

I focused on one particular chapter of Fitzpatrick’s text to establish my argument.  Fitzpatrick’s text suggests that writers who agree to accept the Oprah Winfrey stamp of approval place their work at the risk of being reduced by the masses.  I agree with Fitzpatrick’s claim, and use my entire paper to back it up.   

Harpo Productions, Inc.  Oprah.  4 April 2008.  27 March 2008 http://www.oprah.com.

I use the Winfrey website to show the typical reading experience of Oprah’s audience members.  The website includes author biographies, interviews, discussion questions, and online forums where readers can go to have conversations about the text.  I strictly focused my attention on Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye, and the site showed me the aspects of the text that Oprah and her staff find of importance.  

Harris, Jennifer and Watson, Elwood, eds.  The Oprah Phenomenon.  Studio: University
Press of Kentucky, 2007.

The following text examines the origins of Oprah’s public image and its substantial influence on politics, entertainment, and popular opinion.  I hope to use this text in order to prove that Winfrey has become a household name, and people turn to her daytime television show for guidance.  In addition, I want to show that Winfrey uses her public popularity in order to promote the ruling ideas, so that she remains a dominant force in society. 

Johnson, Nan.  “Reader-Response and the Pathos Principle.”  Rhetoric Review.  6.2
(1988): 152-166. 

Oprah’s website places the greatest emphasis on what readers gain from the text.  Although Oprah does not classify this at reader-response theory, her site makes it clear that this is what she, as well as her staff, views as important.  I use Johnson’s article in my paper, to show the similarity between the claims Oprah and her audience members make on the site and the definition of reader-response theory and the pathos principle. 

Kuenz, Jane.  “The Bluest Eye: Notes on History, Community, and Black Female
Subjectivity.”  African American Review.  27.3 (1993): 421-431.

In my paper, I discuss how the reading of Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye differs depending on who is approaching the text.  In order to show the difference between the readings of the literary scholar verse the average audience member, I compared the popular themes discussed in scholarly journals to the popular themes discussed on the Oprah Winfrey website.  Kuenz’s article is one of the journals that I used to prove my claim that Oprah’s audience members leave the texts suggested on the Winfrey site with superficial readings. 

Marx, Karl.  “Capital.”  Literary Theory: An Anthology.  Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael
Ryan.  2nd ed.  Massachusetts: Blackwell, 2004.  665-672.

I plan on using Karl Marx’s take on the Bourgeois and the Proletariat to explain Winfrey’s influence on the general public.  I want to show how Winfrey uses her empire in order to secure her place as a dominant force in the society.  By promoting her empire, Winfrey is getting her audience members to adhere to the ruling ideas.  Winfrey’s audience members adhere to these ideas, for they view Winfrey as a “mother-like” figure that they can trust.  In addition, I want to show that Winfrey transmits the ruling ideas through the repetition of images that appear in the media –the television and the internet, etc. 

Morrison, Toni.  The Bluest Eye. New York: Plume, 1970. 

My entire paper suggests that when writers allow Oprah to stamp the cover of their texts with the Winfrey seal of approval, some of the texts meaning may be lost in translation and/or reduced by the masses.  In order to prove my argument, I compare the reading of literary scholars to the reading of Oprah’s audience members.  In order to narrow down my research, I selected one book in particular that is featured on the Oprah Winfrey book list.  I decided on Morrison’s The Bluest Eye, because she is a respected author and her work is studied in many of today’s classrooms at both the high school and college level. 

Tannen, Deborah.  “The Time 100.”  Time.  Ed. Time Inc.  1 April 2008 .

This particular article, which appeared in Time magazine, discusses the influence Oprah Winfrey has over the general public.  The article pays close attention to the influence Winfrey has on the female public, and how female audience members strive to be like this American icon.  In addition, in the article Winfrey discusses her book club and she suggests on more than one occasion that the books on her list directly correlate to her life; in other words, she feels as though she is the main characters of these texts, and the author is speaking directly to her.  I plan on using this article to show how problematic Winfrey’s take on literature is, for it reduces the overall meaning of the texts appearing on her list. 

As many of you know, I didn’t really enjoy this week’s reading.  I’m not sure I’m a fan of the hypertext, and at first I thought that it wasn’t worth my time.  After discussing Patchwork Girl and Filmtext in class, however, I feel differently.  I think I have negative feelings for the hypertext, because I don’t understand it and I’m not used to it.  I’m used to the standard text, for it’s what I’ve grown to love.  As a result of this, when I see something different it makes me nervous and I want to revert back to my old ways.  I think this is narrow-minded of me, however.  I hope to be a writer, among many other things, in the future.  I am well aware that it is difficult to become a professional writer, and in order to get published one must do something different.  With this being said, I feel like I should be looking at hypertexts for inspirations; after all, Shelly Jackson and Mark Amerika are certainly doing something different with their work.  I think it is important that as time progresses old mediums become re-established, not re-created.  In other words, I don’t think the hypertext is ever going to take over, but I think it does add and will continue to add a little something extra to the standard world of literature that we have all come to love, and is that really that bad? 

Well that’s all for now, paper time!

At the end of class we discussed how Stephenson may possibly be posing the argument that the book has revolutionary potential of letting one bring down cultural hegemony.  I agree with this statement, because I feel that literature is capable of causing a revolution.  I completed my undergraduate work at Oneonta, and while there I had a series of literature courses with a professor from South Africa.  This particular professor left South Africa, because of the extreme segregation between races.  One evening, this particular professor told my class his experiences when returning to South Africa to teach college courses.  At this particular time certain books were banned, but my professor taught the words of these banned texts to his students.  His students then memorized these words and used them against their aggressors.  I think this scenario shows the importance of the texts, and how books can be used to stage a revolution; so in this respect, I feel Stephenson is right with his assumption. 

Overall, Stephenson’s The Diamond Age, really made me think and I can appreciate this quality of the text –even if I typically despise science fiction. 

Another aspect of part two that I find interesting is seen on page 245, when Miranda describes the colorful Coke ads and descriptions of blue plate specials that she is able to see by looking outside of her window.  I read this particular section in two ways.  First, the Coke ads and blue plate specials indicate to the reader that Miranda is operating in a capitalistic society.  Second, the Coke ads and blue plate specials can be seen as signs dictating the society’s reality.  But is it really reality that they dictate?  After reading this section, I thought of Baudrillard and how he believes that signs are used to distance people from actual reality.  Are the Coke ads and blue plate specials simply used to cover up the fact that Miranda’s world is entirely fabricated? 

Near the beginning of part two, Nell offers the reader a detailed description of the mediatrons in Constable Moore’s home: “In one of the cine feeds, a man was lying on the ground, his dusty uniform almost the same color as the dirt.  Suddenly this image moved; the feed had not been frozen like the others” (P 251).  Nell’s description caused me to view Moore’s mediatron/ cine feeds as surveillance systems.  Maybe Stephenson is posing the argument that today’s television will one day advance to the mediatrons and cine feeds in the text.  Stephenson is most likely over dramatizing, but I’m not sure this is that much of a stretch considering that today’s televisions, like the mediatrons and cine feeds in the book, operate as surveillance systems for institutions in power.  Everything that is seen on the television has been approved by the institutions of power, and in some way the messages being presented to the viewer dictate the ruling ideas.  For instance, popular makeover shows are everywhere these days, and on these reality shows viewers are told, through the repetition of images, that in order to be successful in today’s society they must look a certain way.  Viewers then internalize this message and buy popular items that are seen on the show, so that they too can advance in life.  By purchasing certain items, the economy is kept afloat and the institutions possessing massive amounts of power remain on top.  I think the mediatrons and cine feeds in the text work similarly to the television, because they watch individuals to ensure that they are operating according to the proper protocol. 

During last class, we spent a decent amount of time discussing the argument that Stephenson is making about education in the text.  One page 255, Constable Moore explains to Nell that life is more complicated than the primer.  Moore also suggests that in order to be considered intelligent, one must be exposed to life and education.  I took this to mean that in order to educate future generations, literature from the canon needs to be tailored to individual students.  Essentially, supplemental materials are needed.  I am not done with part two yet, but I am assuming that the primer will fail a great deal of the female children, because it is teaching them lessons they will not understand how to use in their real life.  For instance, Nell is taught martial arts, but she is not taught how to successfully protect herself in an actual fight out in the real world. 

The second topic that interests me is whether or not the world of entertainment is ruining the world of literature.  As many of you know, I am a fan of Oprah.  When I need a good book to read, I will often browse her book club.  I never saw a problem with this, until recently, because Oprah’s book club has always made good reading suggestions to me.  In class a few weeks ago, however, many people mentioned that they are concerned with what Oprah’s book club is doing to the world of literature.  More or less, Oprah’s book club is making reading suggestions to the masses, which is both negative and positive.  It is positive, because it is promoting book sales of the writer.  It is negative, however, because Oprah’s book club is promoting superficial readings.  A large portion of society is reading the books that have Oprah’s stamp of approval and are leaving the reading process by making comments, such as “I enjoyed reading this text, because I can totally relate to the main character.”  This scenario makes me consider the following questions: Are sources of entertainment robbing current literature of its value?  What is Oprah’s criterion for including a book on her infamous list?  Is Oprah’s book club encouraging superficial readings?  If so, is literary theory becoming less and less prevalent resulting in the eventual death of the novel? 

My thoughts are kind of all over the place, but I’m focused on these two topics.  Feedback is greatly appreciated!

I really dislike science fiction, so I found it extremely difficult to invest myself in Stephenson’s novel.  I tried to look at the positive aspects of the text, however, and the one thing I did like was Stephenson’s use of crosscutting.  I never got too restless while reading the text, because Stephenson jumps around from situation to situation.  This writing style kept me on my toes as a reader.  On the flip side, however, I strongly disliked the way in which Stephenson summarizes each section.  The brief summaries caused me to lose interest, because Stephenson always told me, as the reader, what was going to take place before it actually did. 

One central theme in Stephenson’s The Diamond Age is certainly the role of technology in a society.  More or less, characters in the text, such as Hackworth, define themselves through the technology they interact with on a daily basis.  For me, one quote that summarizes the idea of technology being a defining source in a society appears on page 48.  In this particular extract, Harv is answering Nell’s question of how many threads compose thing, that Nell confuses as a mite, that he is secretly working on in bed.  He responds by saying, “You got it all wrong.  It’s not that the thing has threads in it –it is threads.”  I’m not sure if this is a misreading, but I took this to mean on a larger scale that in the setting of this particular text, technology is not a part of society, it in itself is society. 

Another issue that Stephenson introduces in the text is hierarchy and social structure.  Near the beginning of the text, Bud is fearful for his wellbeing after he realizes that he shot and mugged an Ashanti.  Bud realizes that the only way he can protect himself from danger is by becoming a member of a recognized organization.  In the end, Bud is unable to do so and because of this he ends up losing his rights and standing a trial.  More or less, similar to the role of technology in the text, categories define people.  Essentially, the characters in the text define themselves by the groups that they belong to.  I feel that the categories function similar to self-fulfilling prophecies in the sense that once you belong to a certain group you no longer are eligible to advance.  This is of course not the case when Nell, a character who is a member of the poor class, is given access to Hackworth’s infamous book. 

Another extract of the text that really interests me appears on page sixty two.  In this particular section, Hackworth is describing his surroundings as he visits Dr. X.  When describing his surroundings, Hackworth makes the following remark: “Hackworth had enjoyed San Francisco and was hardly immune to its charm, but Atlantis/Shanghai had imbued him with the sense that all the old cities of the world were doomed, except possibly as theme parks…”  According to Baudrillard, amusement parks are meant to show members of society what is real verses what is not.  More or less, a person who goes to an amusement park is meant to realize that what he or she is experiencing is a source of entertainment, a fantasy; it is in no way real.  Amusement parks are key to a society, because they are used to convince individuals that if Disney Land is not reality everything outside of Disney Land must be reality.  I think this theory applies to this particular extract in the text, because Hackworth is implying that the old cities that have not been taken over by technology are simply not real.  More or less, this implies that an abundance of technology is what defines a society as a branch of reality. 

Well that’s all I have for now.  I confess that Stephenson’s The Diamond Age reminded me of why I so strongly hate science fiction novels haha.  See everyone in class!

Powers definitely blurs the line between reality and fiction in the text.  On page 155, Powers suggests that “life is metonymy,” or the part represent the whole.  We discussed this in class, and came to the conclusion that Powers is suggesting that the interval or space between two pitches is the meaning or truth.  Essentially, meaning is derived from the space between two things.  I’m not completely sure of what this exactly means, but it made me think of the notion that the signifier and the signified work to form the sign.  The signified, according to Roland Barthes, is the actual concept, such as the literary canon.  The signifier is the ambiguous meaning that is attached to the actual concept; therefore, the signifier is the mental image that is triggered after hearing the concept, the literary canon.  The sign is then the meaning that is derived from the combination of the signified, the actual concept, and the signifier, the ambiguous associated meaning.  I think that Powers is making the point in his novel that a computer will never outsmart the human, because computers are only exposed to the signified, or concept, when forming meaning. 

We also discussed the names and purpose of the characters a great deal in class.  As I mentioned in my previous post, as well as in class, I didn’t like the fact that Powers did not refer to his characters by name.  I found the way in which Powers refers to his characters by solitary letters to be impersonal.  I think that Powers avoids connecting too much with his characters, because to him they are merely pawns in his life.  Similar to Shakespeare using the characters in his plays as game-like pieces, I think Powers is showing that that he is manipulating the individuals in his text in order to form a narrative.  More or less, the characters themselves are not important they are simply the parts that work to form the whole -numbers in the overall equation. 

Okay that’s all I have for now.  I hope everyone has a nice break!!!