Figured it out

This is what I'm doing for my final project.

Copyright law is extremely intrinsic, complicated, and situational. Due to technological advancements, not just songs, but sections - mere seconds or single notes at times - can be sampled and taken from other songs in order to embellish a song or to create a new one entirely. Being able to really determine as to wether a song was stolen from someone else, a part was borrowed, or someone simply created a song that sounded similar to another is nearly impossible. In other words, it is all grey area. Thats what this documentary will explore. The grey area that is overtaking that black and white in terms of song and idea ownership.

In order to do this, a five people will be interviewed. Three musicians, a lawyer, and a studio producer/engineer. All five have years of experience in the music industry or the court house and have dealt with the law in terms of music. The questions will be derived from past court cases, but it will not be entirely Q & A format. There will be a set of pre-determined questions to initially ask the interviewees, but as the interviews progress, most question will most likely be off-the-cuff.

The Questions will have to be from both sides of the spectrum - from those who are pro-copyright and those who are anti-copyright. If both spectrums are explored, hopefully, an argument can be made for both. If an argument is made for both, then it will challenge the viewer to make a choice or to realize that the extent to which a song is borrowed or copied is situational.

Machinimals

I started watching a few of the machinima shorts on You Tube and a few thoughts hit me all at once.

I thought "this is interesting." In the New York Times article "The XBox Auteurs," tries to make machinima look like a budding art-form. Taking characters that are fixed in a certain way, and making them do what isn't natural to their designed purpose (In this case, making violent characters non-violent and giving them a personality), is definitely a different approach to to the medium of video games. However, considering it to be "art" is a bit of a stretch. There is humor, yes, but humor needs wit and constantly changing dynamics in order to have artistic merit.

For example, the creators of Family Guy has been nominated for and has won countless Emmy and Annie awards. The one aspect of the show, however, is that they also won Emmies (sp?) for Outstanding Music and Lyrics. I don't mean to strap myself over a barrel for this show, but my point is that it has depth beyond just trying to be funny. The show, much like the Simpsons and South Park (Both of which have also won many awards for more than comical aspects) tackles issues of society out-right and with colorful, smart banter. Machinima just seems to be banter. "Red vs. Blue" came out in 2003, and to be honest, it seems to have dropped off the map. It may have pioneered a wave of Machinima, but I would be hard pressed to find anyone who a) knows that that word even means, and b) who would find it as intriguing as on of the previously mentioned cartoons.

Ok, you know when you're writing about something and then you realize that you're half wrong or completely wrong? I'm the former of the two. I can't completely discredit Machinima. It is good for a laugh, and it has inspired many to create their own short films. Hell, there's even a film festival for them now. I guess the problem I have with it is calling it "art." I see it more as just a funny take on a video game once a group of kids become bored with doing the same thing over and over again.

This begs the question as to what art actually is. Especially now, when there are so many mediums and ways to create, haw can we sift out the mundane and monotonous from the vivid and original? Can time tell? The Simpsons have been on the air for 20 years and it is still going strong. But will Red v. Blue? What about all the short sketches on College Humor?Its too early to tell, but if I my kids want the DVD box set of Rooster Teeth Productions, then I'll bite my tongue.

That Faceless Costume.

I haven't really been inspired to post like this so it may take a while. I apologize.

The one quote that struck home during the readings this week was from the New York Magazine article by Emily Nussbaum - "Kids, the Internet, and the End of Privacy." It went as such:

"When it is more important to be seen than to be talented, it is hardly surprising that the less gifted among us are willing to fart our way into the spotlight"

I can't type the amount of excitement I feel when I read this. I can try, but

&*#^&*^*&@**&!!!!!!!!!GUYGGHJHFGUIYR&^T

I&**&Y&*$T*GDUYgr78y8fhyguygasdujfgahjksgdfuy

iagyuwgf78gf

is the only thing that comes out. So, I'm going to take a breath, and a muscle relaxer (ok, not really) and start my post.

Being involved in music and playing live since I was 15 (I am now 22), I have played most of the larger venues in Detroit and have opened up for very prominent acts. The band I played in during high school was making quite a few waves at the time and most friday and saturday nights of my late high school career were spent in dingy Detroit bars butting heads with record executives and (now) famous musicians. I missed many a high school dance and am damn glad that I did. It got to a point where we had bands contacting us from out of state asking to play shows with us - they were usually in their late 20s early 30s. And we were 17.

I don't want to name drop, and I apologize for trying to sound like a 17 year old rock-god, but my point is this: We didn't get to do all those things by simply looking the part. Or talking the part. Or having flashy gear. We rehearsed like hell and we played live almost every weekend for the better part of 3 years. We devoured all types of music, and we got our hands on different instruments (i.e. our guitar player bought a Theremin) and tried to create new sounds. And this is the point of my post - It's easy to look like you know what you're doing, but when the lights come on and the curtain is pulled back, you'd better be able to throw the fuck down. Facades are easy to make. Its easy to say something; like "I play guitar well." I've heard many, many people say this, but they play the same, monotonous, unoriginal garbage that most can imagine.

That is what my problem with the Internet is. Making one's self seem like something they're not. Look at those wiener emo-kids walking around. Sure, they may look like original hipsters, but there's a 99% chance they are just regurgitating the same bullshit that their friends are. It's easy to look original. Hell, just Google "Walt Whitman" and put his quotes up in the status updates on Facebook or Twitter everyday and people will think you're an intellectual. Go to Urban Outfitters and grab some $80 pre-ripped skinny jeans. It is so easy to seem original, unique, and talented, that most put portray themselves on the web to seem so. I know I'm leaning heavily on stereotypes to make a point, and I apologize.

To be more specific, my qualm is that more time is spent making the illusion to the person someone wants to be rather than actually practicing and becoming that thing they wish to be. But in reality, after the web pages come down, can they play the song? Have they rehearsed enough to play it note for note? And not just play it, but really play it? Its easy to fart into the spotlight. But once the people who put them in the spotlight realize they're just shitting their pants, they just move right along.

I used to play World of Warcraft, on and off for about 2 years (laugh all you want. It's probably the most fun game I've ever played), and in the game there is a general chat box in the bottom left corner of the screen. Depending on what city you were in, or if you were in a guild or a party (don't ask - that game has a language all its own) you could chat to hundreds if not thousands of people. The most disturbing aspect of this, however, was that many, many people playing the game were very abrasive, rude, racist, and downright insecure. Usually, these players had characters who were very advanced and had obviously been playing for quite some time. (If none of you know much about WoW, it takes a very long time to get a character to the max level and another very long time to get all the powerful gear and reputations to excel at the game. Basically, it never ends, and many of those who play it, play often and too much.) These players, who do nothing but threaten other players, are most likely insecure, 30-somethings playing on their computers in their mother's basements. On saturday nights. Sorry to go on a tangent, but this example of cowering in the glow of a computer screen is what makes me weep at the world. Not owning up to who you are as a person only seems to be perpetuated by the internet.

I hate to generalize but I think thats what it all comes down to. The internet can be just another drug that dulls the pain and gives us the ability to create an image that we wish ourselves to be.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to deactivate my Facebook account. Then start it up again in 4 days to check out the photos from wednesday night. And harvest my crops on Farmville.

In the red corner...

The issue of paper vs. computers is a simple one. Computers keep everything simple, ecologically friendly, and easily archival. Paper is a great brainstorming technique and mind-mapping tool. The biggest question I have is why? Why doesn't the technology we have today just completely take over? Gladwell, in his article explains paper as "This idea that paper facilitates a highly specialized cognitive and social process is a far cry from the way we have historically thought about the stuff." In other words, and I know that the quote didn't flow well into the sentence, paper is a tangible thing. We can feel it, move it, see it, smell it, and in some strange cases, taste it. Although computers can't really hold that aesthetic value, they are extremely organized. For example, my mac automatically downloads all the documents for this class into a "downloads" folder. Then, by simply clicking and dragging the icons, i can move them into a folder labeled, "ENG 5080," and then everything is there. I dont have to print out the articles an waste paper. If the article can be transfered to Microsoft Word, I can annotate using that program. If not... well then i have my notebook.

Im not trying to make a case for the computer, I'm simply admiring the changes that are occurring and eagerly biting my nails in the anticipation of a digital world. My dad is a computer engineer so I've grown up with gadgets and electronics my whole life. However, the idea of paper and the value that it holds as a simple, simple tool is all to hard to ignore.

If we take the previous example and turn the digital files into real paper, then the process to organize takes much much longer. It is not a simple click and drag process, it becomes a print-it-out, walk-it-to-the-file-cabinet, dig-to-organize-it ordeal. Ok, "ordeal" may be an overstatement but the process becomes something of seconds to minutes. Paper, as voluminous as it may be, is still the simpler tool. To takes notes on a computer would require a plug in a wall, turning the damned thing on, hoping it doesn't crash, break, or light on fire, opening up the note-taking program, and then finally taking notes. With a piece of paper and a pencil, the hassle is almost non-existent.

The case can go both ways. Personally, I usually have my notebook right along side my laptop.

Smile :)

Currency as a form of cultural reflection isn't exactly the first thing that comes to mind. When I think of America I don't think of a pyramid with one eye on the top of it. But when I see a bald eagle holding 13 arrows in one claw and an olive branch with 13 leaves on it, you better damn well believe I think of Ameri-cuh. The back of the dollar bill has the number 13 repeated on it multiple times. I pulled this from a website:

They say that the number 13 is an unlucky number. This is almost a worldwide belief. You will usually never see a room numbered 13, or any hotels or motels with a 13th floor. But, think about this: 13 original colonies, 13 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 13 stripes on our flag, 13 steps on the Pyramid, 13 letters in the Latin above, 13 letters in "E Pluribus Unum", 13 stars above the Eagle, 13 plumes of feathers on each span of the Eagle's wing, 13 bars on that shield, 13 leaves on the olive branch, 13 fruits, and if you look closely, 13 arrows.

(http://www.munic.state.ct.us/BURLINGTON/us_one_dollar_bill/us_one_dollar_bill.htm)

The number 13 is so significant in our history, the original designers of it had a field day with the unlucky digits. On the front of the dollar bill we memorialize our past presidents; except for the 100 dollar bill - Benny was never president. The culture thats embedded into our currency reflects our heritage and the ideals of the founding fathers. "E pluribus Unum" and "Novo ordo seclorum" mean "Out of many; one" and "A new Order has Begun" respectively. These statements are fairly general, but to the designers of the greenback, the sayings meant something.

The arabic currency that was discussed in the lecture today was both similar and different. There were historic figures, unifying statements in arabic, and symbolic representations of the countries histories. The kicker, however, is that the reverse side of the dollar bills had images representing the countries as plentiful, modern, and accompanied by english or french languages. These weren't symbolic representations. They were stark, literal images that were purposely meant for the tourist to see. I'm not implying that the currency is propaganda, but those images are meant to convey a positive light on the countries.

Here are the examples.

1) On a Syrian 500 Lira note, the front side had a picture of Queen Zenobia. She came to power due to political issues. This image is accompanied by a crescent moon and arabic writing. The numbers in the corners of the bill are also of traditional arabic numbers. The reverse side had images of modern machinery, English writing, and scenes of modern machinery, farming and blatant picture of a pomegranate, which in most cultures represents abundance and bounty.

2) A Tunisian 10 pound note has a picture of Dido who was a 3rd century B.C. queen who expelled the Romans from a large area of the middle east. She also founded Carthage which was a major ancient city in present day Tunisia. Her image is accompanied by a satellite dish and roman ruins. So there is a sense of modern day technology, ancient culture and pride in heritage on this note.

The main puzzling feature of all these bills - and this is what the lecture focused on - was that most of people depicted on the money were women. Not only that, but the women all seemed to be smiling. This is puzzling because other than the prominent women, as mentioned before, the only other women pictured were working in fields. Cotton fields to be specific. But they were smiling. From what I've heard about working in cotton fields, its nothing to smile about.

The speaker ran out of time before she could further her explanation as to why these women were smiling but from what I understood, it is an attempt to make the countries seem hospitable and inviting. Coupled with the other images of historical and modern significance, putting them on currency is like a travel channel advertisement. Currency is one of the first things needed when traveling in another country, and because everyone needs it, why not put something to make the country seem modern, proud and steeped in tradition? Thats what Ameri-cuh does.

Can you help me work this thing?

I work at a wine shop that has been around for about 50 some-odd years and my one cousin who is part-owner if it has been working there for 30 of them. This shop only uses a computer to send and receive e-mails for orders from all around the country. Everything else - sales, discounts, pricing, checking in shipments, returns, you name it - is done by hand. Currently, we are undergoing a renovation, so things are about to change, but the part-owner is deathly afraid of bringing in a computer to just the cash register, much less the whole store. She constantly growls in her pack-a-day voice that "I don't even know how to turn the damned things on" or "ask my grandkids, they can work them better than I can." We've all (and by "all" I mean all 10 of us that work there) offered to help her out, but she refuses without even hearing us out.

But the lady can count. She can add up two bottles of wine that cost $9.83 a bottle and add tax on without a calculator. There is also no automatic change calculator on the cash register. Everything is done in her head. Honestly, I've never seen a mind work like that except for those kids on the national spelling bee.

That (you guessed it) literacy is something I will probably never be able to do. But thats how she grew up. When her dad (my father's cousin) opened the store, she was running the thing by the time she was 16. She's 60 now and that language of numbers is so imbedded in her that to make it easier with the use of computers makes her scared that things in the store will change.

Literacy, like most things, is a blessing and a curse. From music, law, numbers, chemistry, social interaction, internet lingo, World of Warcraft lingo, history, how to interact with your girlfriends/boyfriends parents, how to make cheese, how to milk a cow, how to converse with a celebrity, how to by converse shoes, how to buy shit in general, wine, and the inner workings of a city's infrastructure all have individual vocabularies, linguistics and actions associated with afore mentioned fields. For example, saying "can I milk this?" and pointing to your significant other's mom is not appropriate. However, if you were on a milk farm, different story. Saying that you have a critical hit ratio of 20% and you have all T6 gear for your level 80 orc death knight isn't exactly a conversation topic in the middle of a football game. In World of Warcraft, you would be a deity.

The difference is where and how we get this vocabulary and how we use it. It's in how we're raised and what our environment is composed of. Different strokes... you know the rest.

Ah damn, I don't even know where to begin. I haven't given this much thought until I remembered what I had to blog about, so Im just going to type out some Ideas and hopefully they'll make sense. I apologize in advance if I sound like a farce. Plus I'm tired and cranky so i apologize again in case this may be verbose.

Idea Number One: Im a huge fan of typography and if I knew how to work Adobe After Effects, I would do something similar to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HePWBNcugf8

Please watch that link.

With this animation I'd probably focus on how different mediums effect the way we take in information ad process it. Specifically, the digital medium and what graphics and the manipulation of fonts and words do to that way masses process information. For example, the Nike slogan of "Just do it." This is in big, bold, letters usually accompanied by some douche-bag model decked out in over-priced tennis shoes and sweat bands that some poor kid in Indonesia made for two grains of rice and half a penny (Sorry. Im tired). But we still look at those advertisements knowing all this, and we want those products. Those words have more to do with wanting those goods than first perceived. If any of you take the time to watch a commercial, say for laundry detergent, and this commercial is comparing two brands, look at where they put the "bad", cheap brand. On the left side of the screen. The good brand that cleans clothes well is on the right hand side. In Western culture, we read from - you guessed it - left to right. So we see this brand of detergent that doesn't clean very well on the left, and then, due to the way we simply read from left to right, we glance over at the supposedly better brand and say "Fuck. I'm gong to buy some Downy." So thats Idea #1 - how/why the digitization of type and book culture has such an influence on how we process information.

Idea Number One and a Half: Instead of doing afore-mentioned idea in Typography because, well, i have not the slightest clue how to use After Effects (which, by the way, is a program by Adobe that makes all those bad-ass images seen in the link above) I will simply write a paper on the topic. Call me what you will, but make sure you call me boring.

Idea Number Two: Write a creative sardonic short play/story about a band trying to release an album but cant due to copyright law. With this idea I would have to dig into the bowels of the law library and dig out what I could on copyright law. Due to the fact that there is a bunch of legal jargon I can't interpret for the life of me I would need to find ways of getting all that translated and put into the characters and plot of the play. Think Spinal Tap meets A Few Good Men. Except without Tom Cruise. Unless its Tom Cruise from Top Gun. So think Spinal Tap/A Few Good Men w/Top Gun-Tom Cruise.

Idea Number Three: The difference in gleaning information from books and computers. Specifically, on the idea that with books, time is taken, whereas with the internet, it is like a newspaper and headlines can be glanced over. This is similar to Idea #1 in that it deals with the medium. However the difference is in how the information is presented and can determine how much information we do or do not absorb.

I hope these make sense. Please, criticize these, or ask me to elaborate. Tomorrow preferably.

I just downloaded every single Metallica album.

While sitting in class this past thursday all I could really think was "where do I even start with copyright infringement?" Being a musician this hits close to home, but, I'm all for it.

When Copyright is defined as "an exclusive right," it just doesn't sound right. An idea on an object (for example a song on a CD) is a complex thing to get credit for, much less sell. When the CD is sold, whatever is on it is sold as well. BUT, according to John Feather and copyright laws, "ownership of the object does not confer ownership of the content." Simply put, just because someone buys the CD does not mean they own the rights to song. This is simple, but the use of the song other than personal enjoyment can be complicated. If Jane goes to buy something, and hands over the proper amount of money for it, doesn't she get ownership? Is Jane allowed to learn songs that are recorded on the CD that she bought? Yes she is. Can she mangle the song on the CD to represent her view of the world/ideas in her head? Technically, she can, but lawfully... well, lets look at a scenario: Lets say Jane records said song and makes some money off of it. However, if Jane's song sounds too much like the song that inspired her to pick up a guitar in the first place, well then, Jane will most likely have legal action levied against her. That inspirational song is owned by someone. In today's age, it is owned by many people. Now, being inspired begets a lawsuit.

If something is directly stolen - the CD that Jane bought for example - then it is understandable that charges can be pressed. But the idea? the song itself? Songs, music, lyrics, are all expressions of a writer. Ideas put down on paper or played on an instrument. The definition of an idea is "A concept or mental impression/A suggestion as to a possible course of action/an opinion or belief/a feeling that something is possible or probable." Suggestions, mental ideas, opinions, beliefs, and feelings are not tangible things. Therefore ideas are not physical, however, they can become a reality. When ideas become a reality - the manifestation of a song, for example - the only physical representation of that song is sheet music and the medium of recording (i.e. vinyl, CD, cassette tape, 8-track). Sound can't be grabbed, but it can be made. Ideas can be expressed, but not owned.

But can ideas be credited? Is there a difference between ownership and credit? Its a vast, grey cloudy plane of the unknown. Granted, Ideas can't be owned but, for example, a song can have an author, and that author can have credit for making it. Say Bob writes a song. Then Jim takes that exact same song and plays it note-for-note and claims it to be hi own song. That is unfair. But if Jim acknowledges that the song was originally Bob's or if Jim alters the song to make his own version of it, then that should be fair game.

All these fine lines and shades of grey are confusing. I honestly don't know where to go from here. If i think of anything else to say, I'll post before monday, but for the mean-time I'm going to pirate some movies.

EDIT: Lars Ulrich is a bitch.

Thirteen (hundredmilllionthousdand) ways of looking at a Blackbird.

This website is the perfect example of how literature is seen and objectified by a certain individual. It is also a perfect example of how the interpreter’s view can reach a vast, wide audience by simply making a website. The poem was written in 1917 but due to the Internet it can now be interpreted, translated, and visualized. So although the poem is very abstract in nature, it’s availability on the internet makes it easy to garner individual views as to the meaning of the poem. It also allows those views to be published and seen by millions as well.

Thirteen ways of looking at a blackbird is a poem written by Wallace Stevens that talks about, obviously, a blackbird. It is slightly abstract in that it jumps from specific images and ideas to broad, general notions and depictions – “Among twenty snowy mountains/ the only moving thing/ was the eye of the blackbird.” This first verse gives an image of large, sweeping mountains, then it zooms in on a very small, miniscule dot of a blackbird’s eye. This is the general feel of the poem. It gives a vivid, wide description, of a landscape or person and soon delves into a mind or focuses in on an object usually within a stanza. The motion of this poem makes the reader think, and stretch their minds to figure out what exactly it is that Stevens is trying to say. Some of the imagery is obvious but the movement between these images is what keeps the poem in an ambivalent state.

For example, stanza four is stated as such: “A man and woman are one/A man and a woman and a blackbird are one.” The first part is easy to visualize. But throw in a blackbird in the second phrase and that third party throws off the previous phrase by adding an element that is out of place. A man and a woman are a natural pair. The one needs the other to procreate, so naturally, that pairing is easy to imagine. However, the thought of the blackbird in that equation does not naturally compute. Not because it doesn’t fit into the idea of procreation but because it isn’t the first thing that is thought of when a man and a woman are associated together. Man, woman, blackbird isn’t a common inclination, so by putting the image of a blackbird next to the Adam and Eve image makes the reader stretch his or her mind to see if and how all three can fit together. Therefore, the abstractedness of this poem as illustrated by the previously mentioned verse ultimately makes it objective to the reader. The phrases are general enough to where anyone can read them and obtain an image in their minds, but each reader will have a different image. The scenes portrayed in the poem are general, and specific at the same time, but still oddly linked together. It then lies upon the reader to see how it all connects. This is where the website comes into play, and the portrayal of the poem as seen by the web master.

The person who designed the website notes that

“The idea for this version of Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird came to me a couple of years ago, when I was working on my own one Saturday and there was a heavy fall of snow. In the middle of the afternoon, whilst waiting for the kettle to boil for my umpteenth cup of coffee, I happened to glance out of the window. In the carpark outside grows a crab-apple tree, which bears very bright red fruit in winter, and because of the snow the apples were looking particularly vivid. On one branch of the tree perched a blackbird - a startling contrast with both the white snow and the red fruit. Pretentious soul that I am, I was immediately reminded of Wallace Stevens' poem, and almost as immediately it occurred to me that the crab-apple tree would make an excellent interface for a new media version, with the bright red apples acting as buttons to call up the different sections.”

He specifically mentions a “new media version” of the poem meaning that he had

thought of a new way to display the poem. His version is interactive – the crab apples on the tree can be clicked, and each stanza can be viewed independently of each other – and this in itself creates a whole new way of looking at the poem. When each stanza is taken out of context with the rest of poem, the connotations and undertones of the poem can change quite drastically. For example, verse two and verse four are similar in that they relate three different things. Verse two relates the mind of the author to the three minds of three blackbirds. Verse four relates a man, a woman and a blackbird. Yet if these two were taken out of the context of the poem, they would most likely mean something entirely different on their own. Verse two is contemplating the likeness of his mind with that of the blackbirds. If it were possible to read and view this on its own – which it is – the poem could be thought of as the author trying to relate to the blackbird. But verse four could be seen as the author trying to relate the blackbird to humanity and not just his mind. Both verses could mean different things altogether, especially when viewed with graphics and in a non-linear fashion. This is the beauty of technology and interactive media. Poems that were written almost one hundred years ago can still have new meaning and a different voice.

This website has become a perfect example of how new mediums can have an impact on how we view and read literature. It is not just the pretty pictures that accompany the text that makes it different; it is the way in which the content is literally accessed and displayed that makes the reader interpret the prose in a different way. In a similar fashion to the way the printing press spread knowledge, the Internet is now able to spread not just knowledge but interpretation as well. And not just from scholars and learned people, but from individuals sitting at a computer with something to say.

Preaching to a deaf choir

In writing about writing, Trihemius sounds like he is reciting a sermon, but his stipulations, like "Printed books will never be the equivalent of handwritten codices, especially since printed books are often deficient in spelling an appearance" are not supported with any proof. Its just a statement with hopes of sounding convincing in order to garner support.

Johannes Trithemius (JT we'll call him for short), makes a point: that to write is to be closer to God; as a matter of fact, he states that "The scribe, distinguished by his devotion, is a herald of God." A "herald," as define by Webster, is "an official messenger bringing news." If these scribes are "official messengers" then they have to have some affiliation with the "office" that they come from. If that office is "God" then they are in direct communication with Him/Her/It, and bring his good news. By copying other books. Over and over again. However this point is flawed simply due to his insinuations and lack of support for what he states.

Obviously, there is a problem here. Heralds, first off, are supposed to travel with news. They are messengers, and messengers move from one place to another. The physical locale of these monks prohibits this action somewhat. If they are locked in cells for hours upon hours, there is no going to and from and delivering news. There is simply copying.

Secondly, monks are responsible for keeping libraries, yes, but aren't they responsible for getting the Word (as in the Bible) out there as well? Being in a room copying a book prevents this from really taking place. I know that somewhere in the Bible there is a passage saying something along the lines of "proclaim the Lord's name so that all nations may hear it." Or something like that. If a monk is supposed to be hidden away, how then can he do this if he is so devout? They are supposed to followers of Jesus, who walked for miles around the eastern coast of the Mediterranean, teaching and preaching, but instead JT insists on keeping hands busy with a recluse-like lifestyle to prevent any wrong from happening.

Experiences make humans grow and understand what is going on around them. That is what Jesus did - the one who these monks are supposed to follow - yet they do the exact opposite. Does it make sense? Not really.

stone, clay, papyrus, Microsoft word

While discussing different types of writing surfaces in class, it occurred to me that everything from cave walls to an iPhone are simply mediums meant to convey ideas. What i mean by this, is that we use words, pictures, and our voices to tell something; a story, idea, or simple information, and as a result we need mediums to convey and carry these symbols and noises that somehow mean something to us. When it is all broken down, it is a little abstract. What is a word? And on a more basic level, what is a letter? It is a symbol that represents a sound, and when many of those sounds are put together, a word is formed. So a group of symbols, with sounds relating to those symbols, are joined together to create a bigger, longer symbol with a bigger, longer sound which ultimately relates to an object or idea.

Get it?

My point is that as arbitrary as words and their associated sounds are, they still mean something. And as long as they mean something to someone, they will have a purpose and an action. And now that we have mediums to type, print, text, photocopy, paint, and scan these words on, ideas and information can travel that much faster. Words may only be symbols, but now they are fast-moving and potent. When literacy ceased being the issue, speed of information became the new challenge and now that is being overcome.

Origin/al/s

With folklore having no written record in europe or africa, the stories passed on are essentially the same but differ with time and culture. As mentioned in class, when the game "telephone" would be played in grade school, once the story or sentence got to the end of the line, it would usually be highly skewed from the original variation. However, certain elements of the original statement can still be heard. For example the same amount of syllables and words can exist at the beginning as the end, or key words that stick out can still exist in the phrase at the end of the telephone line.

With this in mind we can start to see how folk tales evolved but shifted with time. For example, in the Darton reading, the first "little red riding hood" story, the girl wasn't even called little red riding hood, she was just called "a little girl." So obviously, the title of "little red riding hood" had to come from somewhere as the story was told throughout the years. Additionally, the gruesomeness of the tale has also been toned down. Riding hood's grandmother doesn't get chopped up and cannibalized by her granddaughter, but instead she and red riding hood are saved by the huntsman. Granted, he kills the wolf and both women pop out of its stomach undigested and un-mutilated (I'm not sure if "un-mutilated" is a word; forgive me), but that version is less vivd than "He killed the grandmother, pored her blood into a bottle and sliced her flesh onto a platter." In modern day terms, it would be equivalent to comparing a "Saw" movie to a "Harry Potter" movie. Yes there is death in both, but one is stark, gruesome, and bloody whereas the other acknowledges death but doesn't show the brutal reality of how a body can come apart.

So the question then arises as to the reason for these changes. Why tone down the gore? Why hold back? The answer, frankly, is arbitrary. These tales have evolved for hundreds of years through the dark ages, the renaissance, the victorian age and into modern day culture. Movies showing epic battles, unrelenting love, and odysseys are common place and repeated time and time again but with different characters and settings. So as times change, so does the perception of culture and humanity, and ultimately, our own reflections on these points as displayed through film/text/sound.

Technology helps???

Last winter semester I found myself forgetting to print out assignments and readings for class. I was so busy with other non-scholarly activities (work, music, family, rugby, etc...) that i would show up to my classes, usually late, and out of breath. As I embarrassingly squeezed my way to my seat, with many a "sorry" and "excuse me" i would look around and see most, if not all, of my classmates pouring over (or in some cases staring blankly at) a sheet of paper printed off of the internet. "Fudge" I would think, as i kicked myself in the ass, for not reading the syllabus. So i would then pull out my iPod touch, sign on to the internet, go to Blackboard, and proceed to look up and enlarge the the forgotten text. I would then sit in class and hunch over the five by two inch plastic device and follow along.

The beautiful thing about technology is that it is right there, at your fingertips, whenever it is needed. Books are wonderful, and the aesthetic of holding and reading a book will never wear off. However a Kindle, Laptop or iPod can now hold and access, literally, thousands of books, magazines, periodicals, films, essays, blogs, etc... from all corners of the planet. This means that whoever is using one of these devices can expand their knowledge of a topic exponentially with the simple click of a button. Books are useful, but to be able to access multiple books at once without being in a library is something that can expand a mind rapidly.

Unfortunately, the downside to these advancements is the speed and the resulting language that comes with excess information. Being able to read anything anywhere is great, but time is still needed to actually read. What i mean by this, is that like books, anything found electronically still has to be deciphered and read by a person's two eyes and deduced in their own brain. But because of the speed in which we can absorb all this information, shortened "AIM" speak has been steadily integrated into society so that communication - not necessarily language and text in general - can be quicker, read faster, and absorbed easier. Does this mean we are dumbing down, even though we have more ready information that ever before? In my humble opinion, yes and no. When it all comes down to a single point, it is what we want to gain from that technology that makes us more or less cognoscente of what is going on around us - wether it is considering world affairs or reading about a Paris Hilton nipple-slip.