URL change!!!

Hey all! I have just changed my URL to http://languageartsandcrafts.blogspot.com/. Considering that is the title of my blog, I thought it would be more convenient for web surfers across the globe.

Sup? Nmu? Nm. Aight ttyl.

Recently, I was exploring the world wide web and blogosphere in search of ideas for my blog. My quest was momentarily interrupted by an instant message on Facebook sent by one of my friends. It read: sup dood, howd the test go 2day? ugh i effing hate dat class... * I was absolutely appalled at his abuse of the English language. Haha, only kidding. Truthfully, I talk like that all the time over the internet. However, this is the first time that I've ever wondered about the ramafications of chat-speak.

After some perusing (if you haven't noticed from my past posts, I like that word a lot), I found this little number: Social Criticisms of Chat Rooms and Texting Language. One of the major concerns brought up in the article is how writing is changing as it aquires "some of the functions and figures of speech." The critics fear that this new branch of hybrid-English made up of slang words and abbreviations is gradually taking over common grammar. Adolescents, the most egregious offenders, are "changing the face of literacy" worldwide.

Now, for my big two questions:
Is this a bad thing?

What are the implications of this phenomenon?

I decided to write this blog because of my appreciation for language. I love to see how writers use language to convey emotions, to make us think and to capture the beauty of the world we live in. So, my initial reaction to this chat-speak takeover was negative. Can you imagine Hamlet starting with 2 b or not 2 b: that is the Q...? I really don't see the beauty in that. It's hard enough (some may say impossible) to adiquately capture emotions and the human experience using complete words. I cannot envision chat-speak even coming close to expressing those complexities.

Despite this, I cannot say that I am vehimently opposed to chat-speak. It's convenience is unmatched, (especially on my old, keyboard-less phone). In fact, it is very probable, perhaps inevitable, that I will continue to use slang words and abbreviations. In today's world where time is money, it pays to be quick. The world is becoming faster-paced each day as technology advances. Young people are simply adapting to what they are given and in doing so, they have become innovators in many fields including communication and lanuage.

I find that a similar connection can be made to the evolution of music. As technology has advanced, the sound of music (no pun intended) has changed dramatically. From the electric guitar to the 808 drum machine to music computer programs that autotune sounds, music has progressed over time. Young people of each generation have adapted to these technological developments and changed the way we listen to music. Now, y music-language metaphor is not perfect and eventually breaks down. It is easy enough to continue listening to music from the past. Not as easy to speak in a language from the past. But, this metaphor has helped me keep an open mind to chat-speak. I like music from many time periods and appreciate the different styles and genres. If music can go through such significant transformations and still be "good" (very subjective), then I think it's possible that language can as well.

Feel free to COMMENT with your view on the evolution of the English language regarding chat-speak

Also, I stumbled across Peter Lee Johnson on Youtube.com. He is an extraordinary violinist in the Popular Music Performance Program at USC. In his videos, he takes a traditionally classical instrument and improvises over pop songs, creating something incredible.

Evolution and adaptation at their finest:

*I'm going to be completely honest. I made up that message entirely because I couldn't remember any of my recent instant message conversations. However, a message like that could have easily been sent by one of my friends; of that I am certain.

Why Memoir?

If you have been keeping up with my blog, then you'll know that I am currently reading a memoir entitled Reading Lolita in Tehran for my English class. Now, I have not had a ton of experience with memoir, so I set off to learn a little more about it. As I was perusing the blogosphere, I came across the blog of one of my classmates: Style and Structure: The Art of Writing (it's a quality blog that I suggest you check out in addition to mine). She had written a nice post about what makes a good memoir. It seemed to me that what makes a good memoir is almost the same as what makes a good novel: the story must not be too mundane, it must have structure along with developed characters and should include "situations with high-stakes circumstances." The question I still have though, is why memoir?

Throughout RLiT, Nafisi praises fiction and novels to the highest degree. Perhaps she is a little biased being an English professor, but I tend to agree with her when she discusses the power of great novels including their ablity to make us question reality. I don't want to dishonor her by paraphrasing so I'll just list a few choice quotes where her affinity for fiction is apparent...

• "Every fairy tale offers the potential to surpass present limits, so in a sense the fair tale offers you freedoms that reality denies."
• "There is an affirmation of life [which] lies in the way the author takes control of reality by retelling it in his own way, thus creating a new world."
• "The perfection and beauty of form rebels against the ugliness and shabbiness of the subject matter"
• "This other world that is only attainable through fiction...becomes their refuge in a life that is constantly brutal."

I think Nafisi's passion for fiction is awesome. But, the question of "why memoir?" is bouncing around my head even more now. If she truly believes in the power of fiction, then why write a memoir? Why not a novel? Isn't it easier to get your message across if you can manipulate the story and the characters? I'm sure at some point in writing RLiT, Nafisi wished she could tweak something or write in a few fabricated details.

I guess the obvious answer to "why memoir?" is that memoirs do not allow the reader to dismiss the story if it makes him/her uncomfortable. The reader cannot merely brush it aside by labeling it made-up or pretend. Memoirs force you to acknowledge the reality of the story being told. But, I felt like there was something more. So I typed in "why memoir?" into google, and this blog post showed up right away: Why Memoir? by Louise DeSalvo on Writingalife's Blog.

Despite the typo in the first paragraph ;), it gives some quality insight into the benefits of memoir. DeSalvo, asserts that memoir is about revealing the experience of life through memory. Memoir creates an intimate connection between the author and reader. Because the author is writing from their own memory, the reader sees everything the author sees, feels everything the author feels. The reader of a good memoir will get to know the author, empathize with them and become a witness to their story. This direct connection to the reader is what allows the author to effectively "transmit to humankind the memory of what we endured in body and soul." Empathy and connection to characters are big parts of fiction as well, but I believe that the level of intimacy between author and reader is unique to memoir and Nafisi probably realized this when deciding how to best tell her story.

Perspective

In class, we have just begun reading the book Reading Lolita in Tehran (quick summary) by Azar Nafisi. Initially, I was not too excited about reading this one. A memoir about an Iranian woman professor holding secret book club discussions about literature is generally not my cup of tea. To my surprise, it has held my interest for the most part thus far. I am only 77 pages in, but Nafisi is doing a great job keeping me engaged and thinking about some of the insights she and her class have made and parallels they've drawn.
Reading Reading Lolita in Tehran (haha reading x2) is different from reading other novels. In the book, the women are analyzing literature and making connections and tracking themes and all that good stuff. However, as I read the novel, I am making annotations and drawing conclusions of my own. So, I find that a lot of the time I am analyzing the analyses of all the different women. DOUBLE ANALYSIS! Yeah, pretty crazy. All of these unique perspectives, as well as some of the literary analysis in Reading Lolita in Tehran (RLiT) have inspired me to write this post.

The first section of RLiT is entitled Lolita and discusses the reaction of the women to reading works of literature by Vladimir Nabokov. The two they focus on are Lolita (obvi) and Invitation to a Beheading. One of the themes throughout the section focuses on imprisonment and identity. In Lolita, a twelve-year-old girl (Lolita) is seduced by a middle aged man named Humbert Humbert. He turns Lolita into his fantasy and in that process, confiscates her life. Her identity is relient upon him. She is his prisoner. The book is written from Humbert's perspective, so the readers image of Lolita is inextricably linked to that of Humbert. Quoting Nafisi, "Lolita on her own has no meaning; she can only come to life through her prison bars." Her own self image and perspective is through the lens of Humbert, which is incredibly sad (at least I think so).

Craft-wise, Nabokov has triumphed in choosing Humbert as his narrator. By, seeing the story through his eyes, we are able to understand the degree of Lolita's imprisonment and its implications. A while ago in class, we briefly discussed "personal narratives," identity and the way we view ourselves. In terms of Lolita, it is almost as if Humbert has robbed her of the ability to formulate her own personal narrative and he is writing it for her, where she is his mistress in his sick fantasy. And that's all she is. Here, we can see how the choice of perspective gives some quality insight into the relationship between the characters. In the case of Lolita, it shows the twisted intimacy between victim and jailer.

Link

Last Friday, I went to see three presenters from the organization LiNK (Liberty in North Korea) come and speak at school. While I was not able to stay for the entire presentation, I got to see their latest documentary film, Hiding. It followed this man and his team who went to China to rescue North Korean refugees that were constantly living in hiding for fear of being repatriated to North Korea. The film was really well done and extremely powerful. It did an excellent job showing the difficulty of leaving behind your family, your home, your country. Still, it is hard to imagine what it is really like to be forced to break the links you have with your homeland and loved ones.
Link is the word I want to focus on in my blog today. Our links - our relationships, our thoughts, our connections - are essential pieces of our humanity. Links to other people, especially family and close friends, can have a huge impact on a person's identity. Who we associate with, who we admire, who we love shapes who we are and how we view the world. In the realm of lanuage, links have a profound impact on our worldview as well. The way we see things is greatly dependent on our thought linkage. A big method of linking our ideas and thoughts is through metaphor. We have been discussing this recently in English class and it is becoming more and more evident that a large part of our conceptual system is metaphorical. Some quick evidence includes the convential metaphors linking Argument + War, Love + Flame and Immigration + Dangerous Waters. These metaphors are vehicles that do not only affect the way we describe their tenors, but affect the way we act and percieve them as well.

For example, illegal immigration is often described as as a flood of people coming into our country. By describing the phenomenon in this manner, we are...
#1 denying the immigrants human status
#2 emphasizing the danger of possible negative effects they may or may not have on our livelihoods
#3 overlooking the possible benefits of immigration
Another example of a metaphor affecting the way we think is the Argument as War metaphor.
When we say things like "defend your position," "attack his argument" and deem an argument as something that can be won or lost, our idea of arguing takes on a specific shape. Linking argument and war in our minds has big implications where we percieve argument as a battle, a competition.

The power of links is not something to be underestimated.

*This is actually a really interesting topic and you can read more about it in the section written by Otto Santa Anna in the book http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Language-Got-Keith-Walters/dp/0393978842 (actually a great book about language that brings up some other very good issues as well, perhaps I'll discuss them another time).

Muzams

We have recently been discussing the significance of museums in English class and how they impact us and our perceptions of humanity. During our discussions, one of my classmates (who will go unnamed) refuses to pronounce the word "museum" correctly. He pronounces it "muzams." Whenever he refers to MUSEUMS, I find that not only do I want to inflict minor physical pain upon him, but the idea of museums takes on a very negative connotation, which brings me to the actual purpose of this blog: to discuss how the manner in which we describe museums impacts our perceptions and actual experience with them.

In our society, we describe museums in many different ways. Stephen E. Weil notes the particular metaphors we use to describe museums in his book, A Cabinet of Curiosities: Inquiries into Museums and Their Prospects. Common metaphors portray museums as temples, schools, laboratories, forums or even mausoleums. Each of these metaphors suggests certain things about a museum and affects the way we experience the museum as well. For example, Weil discusses how a museum that is thought of or described as a temple generally warrants reverent visitors and houses objects regarded as sacred. On the contrary, the objects on display in a museum that is seen as a school are there to educate, not simply to be admired. People who visit a museum like this will be expecting to learn during their time there and will act very different from people visiting a museum viewed as temple. These metaphors do not only vary from museum to museum, but from person to person as well. How a visitor acts and how they experiece a museum is very much a consequence of how they view/describe the museum.
To give this idea some context, look at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. Depending on the visitor, the Field Museum can be viewed many different ways. Looking at the current exhibits, if a visitor is planning on visiting the Inside Ancient Egypt and the Ancient Americas exhibit, they might be more likely to revere the artifacts there, viewing the museum as a temple. However, a visitor that is excited to see the exhibits on climate change or natural disasters might be hoping to learn something about the modern world and would treat the museum as more of a school. The Field Museum could also be considered a laboratory. According to the museum website, it is "an international leader [of research in] evolutionary biology and paleontology, and archaeology and ethnography."

My personal experience with the Field Museum is largely composed of class field trips. Thus, the idea of the museum as a school is the metaphor I am particularly familiar with. However, in order for me and my classmates to really benefit from the museum, it had to be entertaining as well. There are definitely aspects of the Field Museum (perhaps even more so with the Museum of Science and Industry) that try to make the experience fun and exciting. For example, there's a new exhibit dedicated to chocolate. For children in particular, there is the Crown Family PlayLab for "your child's explorations and creative play." In this way, the museum is trying not only to be regarded as a school, but as a cool/interesting/fun place to go as well. Here we can see that even the museums themselves recognize the significance of our perceptions, which are the result of the language we use to describe museums.

Showing

If you read my last post, you'll know that I am currently reading The Poisonwood Bible, a novel by Barbara Kingsolver, for my high school English class. In the past, I've found myself struggling to become invested in the books that were assigned for class. I did not care about the characters or their fate for the most part. However, while reading The Poisonwood Bible (summary here), I found myself feeling genuinely sad when.........



*SPOILER ALERT*



*SPOILER ALERT*



*SPOILER ALERT*



.........Ruth May dies. I felt angry with Nathan's treatment of his family and frusturated with his style of missionary approach to the Congolese. I felt proud of Leah's transformation into a free-thinking, independent woman. I felt horrified and terrible when Orleanna recounted eating dirt while pregnant just to fill her stomach with something. I felt all of these things and many others while reading the book. This level of engagement that Kingsolver has elicited from me is something I hope to achieve in my writing. But my initial question is, how does she do it?

In one of our recent classes, we mapped out some of the central ideas from the Bel and the Serpent chapter. It became clear what I would write about in this blog post when we analyzed Ruth May's death. After her death, the native villagers in Kilanga came to mourn in front of the Prices' house and shrieked their strange, high, quivering, mourning song as if Ruth May were one of their own. This sad yet inspiring image allowed me to truly get a sense of how the Price women had become a part of the Kilanga community. The classic phrase here is "Show Don't Tell." Despite the cliché, this idea of showing and describing with detail to the reader is so much more engaging and emotionally powerful than merely writing, "By this time, the Price women had become accepted in the Kilanga community."

Kingsolver's writing succeeds at transporting the reader to Africa with the Prices. Her imagery and detail are extremely well-crafted. When the girls and Nelson discover the green mamba in the chicken house and see it shoot past them, the speed of scene is captured in one sentence. It is not even discovered that Ruth May has been fatally bitten until the next chapter. Here, Kingsolver shows that Ruth May's sisters were helpless to save her.

This idea of showing rather than telling paints a better picture for the reader, and gives them a better understanding of the situation or subject. Combined with imagery, details and descriptive writing, the author is able to engage the reader, bring them into the story and allow them to really connect with it. Once the reader has connected to the story, poem, speech, etc. the author's message becomes infinitely more powerful, not to mention more clearly communicated.

Poisonwood Devices

In our English class, we are currently reading The Poisonwood Bible, written by Barbara Kingsolver. The novel documents the experience of a Baptist missionary family that travels to the Congo. Kingsolver masterfully crafts the language of the book with strategically chosen narrators' perspectives, astute metaphors and other literary devices. While reading, I found myself paying particular attention to the character of Nathan, the preacher and the family's father.

Despite never narrating the book, Nathan, is an incredibly well-developed character. Regarding his conversion efforts, Nathan is stubborn, close-minded and ignorant. The people of Kilanga view religion pragmatically and worship the "luckiest god(s)." Nathan does not understand this and becomes confused and belligerent when he loses members of his congregation. Another example of his disconnection with the natives is his determination to baptize them in the river. He goes on for a long while before he is finally told that there are alligators in the river. Aside from his ignorance, Nathan cannot free himself from the mindset that the Congolese have to be "saved." This superiority complex prevents real understanding from taking place and creates a barrier between him and the natives.

A little context: As a soldier in WWII, Nathan was wounded and sent to a hospital before the Bataan Death March inn the Philippines where each and every man in his company died. His guilt caused him to completely and entirely devote his life to missionary efforts. Nathan separates himself emotionally from his family and rules over his wife and daughters in an oppressive, dictatorial and violent fashion. He allows no one to speak their mind except for himself. Nathan exploits his family to help continue his missionary efforts, with no regard to their well-being at all. This can be seen clearly in his decision for the family to stay after the Belgians give the Congo its independence. Masquerading as a benevolent father teaching Christian values, Nathan creates a horribly repressive atmosphere for the family that draws symapthy from the reader.

Nathan's ignorant, tyrannical and exploitive character very much personifies the European role in the African colonial experience. Under the guise of "civilizing" the Africans, countries like France, Belgium, Portugal, etc. went in and exploited their people and resources. This extended metaphor/personification is key to the message of the novel. While it is generally understood that the Western colonization of Africa was not a good thing, Kingsolver vividly portrays the horrors involved by condensing the experience into one family. The reader is able to connect emotionally to the mother and daughters of the Price family and thus, connect emotionally to the reprehensible colonial experience of Africa.

Words: The Things They Carry

Last week during a current events discussion, our English teacher kept track of certain key words or phrases that arose. These were words that carried meaning with them and deserved a closer look, which is what I shall be doing shortly. A few stuck out to me: extremism/radicalism, terrorism, Islamic world and them/they. Two other words that also came to my mind included "socialism" and "illegal" (when referring to immigrants). Often times, words like these get tossed around in discussions and no time is spent unpacking their meaning or implications.

First and foremost, pronouns like "them" and "they" are used far too often. In a diverse global world that is rapidly becoming more and more connected, pronouns like these create barriers between people of differing cultures, appearances and beliefs. By using these words, you separate yourself from others. You create opposition. Not a good idea. In the American government, there is way too much of this going on. As partisan politics prevail, people take sides and nothing gets done. Accusations fly. Labels including "liberal," "conservative," "socialist," "radical" and "extremist" are thrown at either side, halting cooperation for the greater good.

This attitude is a big problem in the global sphere as well. Where cooperation is necessary, for example in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a "us vs. them" mentality has prevented significant progress. Example of this: http://middle-east-analysis.blogspot.com/. It is vital that we accept responsibility for solving the problems that afflict us, rather than simply point a finger. A great first step is to limit our use of polarizing pronouns whenever possible.

In this same vein, the implications of the words terrorism and Islamic world are severe. The "us vs. them" way of thinking is already present in the minds of many Americans with regard to the Islamic world. In my experience, when people hear about Islam, muslims or the Middle East, terrorists come to mind almost immediately. These connotations in our society are dangerously negative and general. The nation of Islam is quite diverse and countries in the Middle East differ in many ways as well. Yet, when 9/11 occured, American sentiment turned against the entire region and the entire religion. This attitude still persists as evidenced by the uproar over the plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero. Because of this, we made additional enemies in the Middle East (as if we didn't have enough already) and global sympathies have drifted away from America. However, America's foreign image has slowly been improving, but it is still critical to rid ourselves of these broad generalizations that get us nothing but new enemies.

If you have any words that deserve unpacking feel free to comment.

Hello!

I, Nick Brenner, have grown up in a very musical family; my brother plays the guitar, my dad plays the bass and lately I’ve been flexing the pipes as well. As a result, when I listen to music, I’ve grown to appreciate the whole song. From the lead singer and guitar down to the triangle in the background, every part counts and contributes to the song. However, this is not a blog about music. The point I am getting at is that I have come to realize that this idea transcends music. It carries over to writing in a big way. Ever since this realization came about sometime during my sophomore year of high school, the subtleties of language (and the skill required to successfully employ them) have fascinated me.

Too often, people treat articles, speeches and other informative literature as just that: purely informative. It's easy to appreciate the art of writing when reading poetry, listening to a song or a getting lost in a novel. Still, it is even easier to forget that speechwriters and journalists and other authors in similar fields are also crafting their work, choosing words particularly to deliver their message just the way they want it.

It is my goal to focus on analyzing the symbols, allusions, metaphors, tone, etc. used in speeches, news articles, essays and other relevant literature I come across. And, while it is exciting to appreciate the ability of writers to augment their writing with these devices, it is even more important to see how the craft of writing affects the reader/audience. That is what determines the success of the piece.

See a more literal take on the "art of writing"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRNFiU4fG2o&feature=player_embedded