Wednesday, May 25, 2011
What Does it Mean to Write in the 21st Century
Revisit and “update” your version of your theory of composing to include the role of technology. Think about all our authors. Remember what Johnson said in his chapter "Text," "I'm a typer not a writer." What does it mean to write in all the digital spaces that are available to us? And, what does it change about who we are as a writer?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Theory of composing deals with actual text, visual rhetoric and the use of technology. As I talked about it in my last two blogs about theory of composing I first only talked about text, and then added visual rhetoric in as well. Technology also gives visual rhetoric, but everything can be digital. Technology can be composed in many different ways. For example, a powerpoint presentation, a pressie, and a video blog.
ReplyDeleteTechnology now a day does wonders on the world. Where would we be today without it? How increasingly fast we are learning technology, it keeps growing. We are infinitively learning new things about technology, which is amazing. I personally think that always having something new to learn everyday is a good thing, but it can get annoying. For instance, there is a commercial on television that shows people buying a new phone or the 3D television and then right away the new “version” comes out. That’s technology for you though, it keeps developing and composing new ideas.
When Yanser used in her article, “A picture is worth a thousand words” I felt like technology also had a strong correlation with that. Technology can make anything worth a thousand words just how it can be composed. To make a website be seen in proper format, the information is all text. Composing a website isn’t about placing pictures everywhere, it is about knowing how to type a certain way to make the picture fit in a certain place. Technology is harder to compose in my opinion because it is a different language to most of us that we can’t understand.
A video on YouTube is also considered a composition of technology. In class when we watched the video “Shift Happens”, it put a realization on how fast everything in the world is moving. Technology made those facts feel more real than just reading them on a piece of paper. There was music and pictures that showed us more information as well. Technology gives us a way to tell our feelings not by just using major detail when writing a story or paper; with technology you can actually show it.
When I learn, I am a more visual person. Technology has helped me learn easier when it comes to school because I can see the picture more clearly. Technology gives the seeing eye more. Unlike a text with pictures it can add music, which makes you remember something better. I am glad that technology has grown to what we have now, and I am excited to see what it will compose in the future.
My theory of composition is that there are many different facets of composition.What you can do with pen and paper is almost the same as digital text, apart from the fact that there are more options given to you in the digital sphere.
ReplyDeleteTo me, typing IS writing, just a different method of doing so. It's somewhat akin to one driving stick shift in a vehicle and another driving automatic. With stick shift there is a very precise order in which to do something, much like there is with 'manual' composition. With automatic, that is digital composition, many more options are available to you because the computer can make the shift for you.
To write in all the digital spaces available means you constantly have to adapt and shift your style (yes, another car reference). For instance: a Powerpoint has to be edited and audio has to be added if you want to change it into a video. A blog has to be severely edited and cut down and pictures added if you want to turn it into a Prezi. Not only that, but you have to be knowledgeable of all the constraints that each individual medium presents.
As a writer, while it may not change how we write in terms of the words we string together, digital spaces change how we present those sentences. The varying methods of digital composition mean we can change our message to a different medium (i.e. Powerpoint, blog, vlog, etc) in order to appeal to a wide variety of audiences. Due to the shift one has to make when transposing one medium to another, allowances can be made to transform it into something that will catch the eye of a different audience with the same affect as its predecessor.
For me, personally, I find digital composition to be easier. I'm the kind of writer that needs background noise when I write or else I begin to feel a little insane. Due to digital composition, I can have a movie or music playing as well as the ability to surf the internet for facts, inspiration or the quick mental cleanse with Rage Comics before going back to writing. Not only that, but as a vlogger I can make a quick video, edit it in my computer and post it within an hour (depending on what my vlog topic is).
It's exciting and daunting to have so many different mediums of digital composition available to us, with more coming as time goes on; but I look forward to broadening my composition horizons to better get whatever I have to say across to whatever audience will listen.
Certainly, the questions posed here are, in a word, great. While developing a theory of composing, it is surely of significant value—rather, of utmost importance—to consider the role that digital spaces play in how one actually composes in the world today. No doubt it can only help to solidify one’s theory of composing if they are to consider whether the mediums of digital space available today actually change the way in which one writes. To be sure, the seemingly infinite options through which one can conduct research, arrange, deliver and edit a work, or even invent one, must be acknowledged as huge potential influences to the style, content and general execution of a composition. However, the more I reflect on what I consider to be my “theory of composing”, the more I circle back to my deeply-held belief that the fundamental elements of composition (of intelligent and effective composition, most importantly…) exist and thrive independent of any technological efficacy; that what it “is” to compose various greatly from “how” it is that one composes. In other words, by composing in any or all of the digital spaces available today, one does not alter the essence of composing. Digital space is essentially the means through which one composes. While I do agree the level of skill one has with digital technology can absolutely shape one’s style, or perhaps improve the ethos, pathos or logos of their work. However, if we are looking to articulate a general theory of composing, I don’t believe the role of technology need be considered.
ReplyDelete[insert probable "what are you, nuts?" sentiment, here]
Regarding Johnson’s claim that he’s “a typer, not a writer”... I will admit, I find it to be an interesting/intriguing claim. It actually gave me notable pause when I read it. Still, honestly—and especially if we are talking about composition as it relates purely to text, as he is here—um...I beg to differ. You are a “typer”, because our species invented the typewriter (garsh, how we rock), and you have elected, like most educated, financially-stable mortals, to use it. But I'm sorry, if we are to define someone as a writer, we must not confuse the crucial attributes of writing with the means by which someone writes! Okay, okay...I get that he is trying to convey how the rapid speed of typing, the visual clarity that's offered by typing onto a screen and the relative means by which one can readily edit/move/juxtapose content can all-together greatly influence the way in which someone composes. But again, for me, to influence is not to DEFINE!! Try as it might (NOTE: even "it" here fundamentally reflects "we" as human mortals who compose and create!) the typewriter/computer cannot consider such crucial elements to writing as personal values or opinions, data, point of view, life experience, works and teachings of revered authors, innate personality, clarity of thought, arrangement, emotion, etc... Sure, it can consider (or, "it" can try to consider) grammar and spelling – but it can do so ONLY AS RELATED TO THE WORDS AND SENTENCES THAT AN INDIVIDUAL COMPOSER MINDFULLY ELECTS!!!
*ahem*
I'm just sayin". No judgments. I'm down with Johnson.*
And so, hey look at that I do believe I can now move onward with a sharper focus towards articulating my theory of composing. As well as my argument regarding the role technology should or shouldn’t, or kinda should, play in the classroom.
And now, back to our regularly scheduled cookie.
*capitalization reflects subtle undercurrent of judgment
Post script:
ReplyDeleteThere are a few key grammar/spelling errors in my above post. The word "various" in my first paragraph should be "varies" ("what it is to compose *varies* greatly from..."), and the last two sentences were meant to be one conjunction. Apologies!
Sincerely,
Your Humble Theorizing Composer
“Theory of Composing”: our theory that keeps arising. In my first blog I talked about my theory of composing and how it only relates to writing or composing. I mentioned the things that I believed were essential for composing and I left out those things that I felt are not really important when composing.
ReplyDeleteNext, after digesting some of the reading about visual rhetoric and how it plays a role in composing I rethought about my own theory and made necessary changes. I noticed how visual rhetoric was important and added how visual rhetoric should complement the text. Everything stated about composing stayed the same I just added more in about visuals. Now we have technology. In my opinion technology enhances your composition. Without technology one is not able to do scholarly research to enhance their composition. Okay, I take that back. We still have access to library and books, but what’s the probability of you going to the library when you have access to information at your finger tips? I’m not saying go overboard with technology because it is there, but use it to your advantages and learn all that you can about the tech field. You never know when you may be fired from one job and your technology abilities can come into play at the next.
When Johnson says “I’m a typer not a writer” in his article, I would beg to differ. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and how they feel about themselves. But when it comes to me, I feel like I am a writer regardless of the genre or space I choose to compose in. To me writing or composing is about putting your thoughts, ideas and/or feelings into some form of media that can be read or used by someone else. Writing does not have to only do with a piece of paper and a pen or pencil. I personally feel that if you can compose in any digital space, whether it is blogs, PowerPoint presentations, etc. it makes you a better composer. In the society that we live in today technology is advancing and you must be well rounded. It will be very hard for someone to get a job who is only good at one thing. The job market needs a lot of tech savvy individuals. Employers like well rounded individuals that can adapt to changes. I feel that being able to compose in all these multimodal literacies make us an even better writer. One is not sticking to the script. We are going beyond the call of duties and the norm. Also, some writers may even be better at composing with the use of technology. It is much easier to edit a composition or even enhance it with different visual elements compared to no technology.
My theory on composing seems to be ever changing while I gain new knowledge from the various authors and essays we read in class. My first attempt at composing a theory consisted only from the view point of text. My next attempt included the impact of visual rhetoric on composing. While I make my third attempt at creating my theory on composing, I would like to include the three components of text, visual rhetoric and technology. I still believe composing consists of having your voice and style be shown through text, learning of the impact of visual rhetoric gives us on understanding that some mediums leave differing impacts and trigger various psychological responses. This makes choosing a medium when composing more difficult. Adding the impact that technology has had on composing, we enter a whole new category of theorizing. Technology has certainly broadened composing, and has enlarged our options when choosing what type of outlet that will suit the message we are trying to deliver best.
ReplyDeleteTechnology has not only changed the way in which our message is delivered but has also altered our thinking process. We discussed how our process of composing on paper is wildly different from the process of composing on a computer while typing. Our formation of sentences and paragraphs are an active process, we delete, add, and switch sentences and words around unlike when composing written work. Usually while writing with pen and paper we have to think out the structure of our sentences and paragraphs before we begin writing them, unlike we do while typing. To write in a digital space allows for continuous editing.
Technology has introduced to us new outlets and given us the realization of the ever changing state that composing is in. While Wooten discusses that she believes rhetoric is everything and everywhere, I hold a similar belief when it comes to composing. We can use a video, a paper, a pamphlet or several other options when choosing to deliver some kind of information. Composing like technology is vastly changing and altering to keep up with the latest inventions. So while my theory of composing is changing with each article I read I hold true to the belief that composing is an active process that can be found in multiple mediums and can involve several components at the same time.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWe write everyday. Perhaps we are not adding chapters to the next great American novel, but writing is still taking place. Rather than picking up the nearest pencil and notebook, we are accessing our computers, cell phones, and ipads. We send out text messages complete with miniature anecdotes and expressions. We hold complete conversations over facebook chat and cell phones. We ask questions and propose answers over blogs and discussion boards. Our letters are sent through email, and notes are left through social networking wall posts. We write constantly. Although now, we use technology.
ReplyDeleteHowever, is typing blocks of words across a backlit screen and pressing enter the only thing considered composing in this digitally saturated world? Visuals, I believe, should not be forgotten either. Technology is practically based on the visual aspect. Colors, video, pictures, fonts, placement, they are all included and assist as aesthetic appeal as well as promote critical analysis on their own and together. What about sound? Music? Speech? Wouldn’t these be considered composition also? And then we have the ability to mesh all of the features together. Images, sounds, and writing are all supporting one another in technology. The digital age has brought the term “multimodal,” to an extreme state, a fact we cannot ignore.
Being so, this means that technology has forced writing to take a different form. We write and think differently. Johnson states, “ I’m a typer not a writer,” as a way to emphasize the differences he has noticed between the switch from handwriting to writing with technology. He talks of the mind formulating phrases in a continuous stream of thought, which we type immediately, halting only for revision. Writing on paper makes us revise in our head. This allows for precision and neatness. Sentences on paper therefore are shorter, while sentences composed on a computer can be lengthier and more complicated. This allows for more diverse sentence structure and thought.
Writing in the digital age also changes the way we perceive and present our work. The text we have recently typed up has the ability to be used in a variety of formats. The words can be read as they were written in a simple blog form, or in color perhaps. Maybe the words would convey their ideas more effectively if they were split up, placed within certain links or running across a moving screen. Or the addition of a picture may be needed. Technology creates a dizzying amount of choices, however it is our place to figure out which to use as a means to most accurately benefit our “composition.” This is a writer’s purpose. A writer composes.
In my blogs on composition I mainly discussed composition in the area of writing and text. After learning about how technology impacts every aspect thus far, I can see how text and print compositions are merely a baby step in what technology can accomplish. Technology allows so many diverse outlets to access its audience that is can be used by the author and have a great impact among the viewers. Digital technology can seriously grab an audiences attention and help shed a new light on our theories of composition.
ReplyDeleteJohnson discusses how our writing changes depending on which method we use, whether it be hand writing or typing. I believe this to be true, because when you are hand writing a composition there tends to be more stress to depict what you mean on paper the first time around, as opposed to using a word processor where you can simply backspace and re-direct your words. Another advancement of technology and composing is that now a days you can accomplish almost any task on your computer with out laying a hand on a pen and paper. It is astonishing how much technology runs our every day lives. This major effect on our thinking process is definitely changing the way we write, adding sentences and deleting, copy pasting etc. takes only a matter of seconds. I believe the use of technology is efficient and is more than beneficial to the creative process.
Even though the format of your text and thought process may be a bit jumbled during typing rather than writing. I believe you can still express your words and thoughts in the same tone as you could if you were writing it. There are many authors that hand write and type and they seem to accomplish the same goal using both methods. In my own writing, I feel like my typing greatly improves my compositions. I enjoy the idea of being able to type, edit and recompose in a few simple clicks. It is a lot less stressful then planning, writing and re-writing until perfected.
Technology is moving so fast and it is only a matter of time when everything we do will be completely technological. The video we viewed in class "Shift Happens" shows in very explicit detail how far the United States will eventually go in comparison to China and India. It also shows a great example of how reading facts like those displayed through a digital presentation are way more entertaining than to read on paper. I know if I were reading those facts in a textbook I would most likely scan through them and pay them no attention. But when used in a digital presentation with the use of images and correlating sound effects it grabbed my attention and kept me intrigued.
Writing has not changed all that much from the time that people first doodled in the ground outside of a cave. The main difference is where the scripts are being viewed. In my eyes, it doesn’t matter whether or not someone writes on paper, on a computer, or on the ground, it is still a form of composition. As far as the primitives of our past, even their pictures were a form of composing since it was their way of communicating with one another. As a briefly mentioned, the only thing that has changed is where we are applying our words. A tweet or a status update on facebook is still someone taking their time, no matter how little it is, to write something and send it off for people to read. A text is still a form of writing, but it is less public than anything online. Still, I don’t see why some people try to separate the two “different” forms of composing. If someone prefers writing on a computer over pencil and paper, let them. It is still writing regardless of where it is. I wasn’t around when they first came out, but was there a big up roar over the typewriter when it was first introduced? It is still writing, and it is still on paper, but there is no pencil or pen involved. I simply believe that people need to take a step back from this subject and realize that there are both benefits and disadvantages to technology, but the good out weighs the bad. Books can now be published much quicker because it is easier for the author to send an email to the publisher rather than mailing in a hard copy. Books can now be viewed online for free in some cases. Is this not the same thing as reading? I just look at it as no matter how we write, it is still writing regardless of where it was written.
ReplyDeleteIn a way, I guess I am somewhat repeating what Wootten said about her blind horse. Nothing has really changed, but in this case it is the format of writing that has advanced, not the writing itself. Similar to Palfrey and his deal, it seems like the previous generation is confused and almost afraid of the current one because of the technologic changes. This is similar to how rock ’n roll frightened the elder generation when it first came out. It was something new that they were not used to. In many cases people are afraid of change. It makes them feel like all they learned has gone to waste because of the advances. As I put in my digital project, I don’t see why these advances are hurting the current group of students in school because a portion of the elder generation refuses to adapt to the new items.
Originally, my theory of composing was based greatly on style. A person's own style is extremely necessary when composing any kind of writing. But a persons style can sometimes be greatly effected by what kind of medium a person is using to write. Many, like Johnson and Selfe, believe that the presence of technology in writing can greatly effect a persons writing process and style. It can sometimes alter their way of writing completely.
ReplyDeleteI also feel that technology changes the way we write. When we write with a pen on paper, we carefully plan out a sentence in our head before we write it down. But with a computer, we can just blurt out anything we want onto a page and change it at our leisure. If we want to use a different word, we can click into a vast thesaurus and change our sentence completely. We can sound like a different, more educated writer. And who would not want to benefit their writing by using richer words and better sentence structure? Technology changing the way we write is inevitable.
My theory of composing amplifies through the use of technology. More than anything, technology is transportation. With the use of technology we amplify what we are composing. Technology lets a magazine be in many formats and views: In Ipads, in Computers, and on print. Ever since humans started recording their oral compositions, we’ve seen how the numbers of ways we consume information expand. From the invention of paper, to the invention of the Internet, technology has allowed us to diversify our mediums dissemination of information. In a way, the print world was technology on its right. Once the digital arrived however, we decided to separate both terms. Now, it is true that the digital should be considered separate from the print, having said that, we should remember that the print is the base for the digital, especially because what we are trying to do whether a facebook message or a power point presentation is based on something that came before. The digital has evolution as the base of its revolution.
ReplyDeleteThe revolution of the digital comes from its ubiquity. Its ability to keep us connected no matter where we go. The evolutionary side comes from being based on the essential beliefs when it comes to composing. We are still writing in our laptops, and we are still writing in our notebooks, and that’s when the similarities end.
The digital space is quite an exciting one. It is a space of constant change. Fuel by innovation and curiosity, it strives to deliver the same message print does. At the same time it strives for immediate and constantly expanding. It asks for the individual to constantly look for new ways of advancing the message. Whether is a power point presentation, or a video uploaded to Youtube, the message ought to remain the same and remember its limitations and its advantages.
Now, when Johnson says “I’m a typer, not a writer,” I wonder if he chose the wrong words. I believe it is the exact opposite. When we write in a typewriter, it might lack the availability of an internet article, but that is for us to decide. To write is to type, because at the end our thoughts is what we type, our thoughts don’t come from our fingerers, it comes from our heads.
For closing thoughts, I would say that technology is everything. It’s our notebooks, and is our laptops. The only real difference comes from our previous thoughts. Technology is mostly here to enhance what we want it to say. Because at the end, it’s about the message, not the messenger.