The Stickiness Factor.

I really liked this excerpt a lot. Its such a common thing that I don't often think about: what makes an idea stick in my mind so well that the second after I hear it, I could easily retell it without error? After reading the intro about the organ thieves, I immediately thought, "Wow I should keep that in mind when accepting something from a stranger in the future." Even though it was a myth. And, for a while, I probably will think twice. Right after I thought that, I read: And if we believe it's true, it might change our behavior permanently — at least in terms of accepting drinks from attractive strangers." It was weird to me how unoriginal my thought was.

Stickiness is an idea, story, fact, that will remain in your memory for a while because of its affect on you. It will often involve three things:

1. Highlighting an unexpected danger in a common activity
2. Make use of vivid, concrete images that cling easily to memory
3. Tap into emotion

This excerpt made me think of my geology professor. He is a professional magician who has/had shows in Staten Island, Long Island, Las Vegas, has been on TV, etc. He does a magic trick for the main points in what we are learning. It is not only entertaining, but it makes it easier to remember the key facts. For example, I won't easily forget that it takes a lot of heat and pressure to create a metamorphic rock. I agree with the authors and Heath, that those 3 factors will make something really stick in your mind. The authors even touched on Halloween and how many parents don't let their kids eat candy that has been either packaged by the person giving it out, or not packaged at all because of the myths-including my parents. After coming back from trick-or-treating, my parents always went through my candy and took out the pieces that were "unsafe." I'll probably do the same for my kids. The scary thought of your child dying over cyanide contaminated candy will continue to stick in my mind. Even if it wasn't the stranger's fault at all.

Lethem: The second time around

Jonathan Lethem's argument is that artists or authors should be able to use other people's work within their own, but they must acknowledge that it's someone else's idea or thought and not their own. Plagiarism is the act of taking someone else's piece of work and calling it your own. What Lethem is advocating is not plagiarism at all: He isn't saying that one should claim another's original thoughts. He's arguing that its okay to use other people as influence or even twist a work into something new. On the contrary of advocating plagiarism, Jonathan Lethem is affirming that intertextuality exists.

The influence of one artist on another isn't a cause for shame. Influenced work can come out very well done and be popular, although its uncommon. Many people, after reading the original work and enjoying it will not even want to know what happens in the newly created version. People create a feeling of needing to stand behind the original, and feel like they're cheating on it if they like the work that is more recent. Often, the artist who made the original will be annoyed by the person who copied them, and feel like they stole their original ideas. However, Lethem believes that the artist shouldn't feel this way because its a form of flattery. Just like your parents tell you when you get annoyed with your little sister or brother following you around all the time. They aren't trying to make you annoyed-they want to be like you.

My Best Guess.

The subject was about six feet, two inches in height. It was male, with straight dark brown hair. He wore a navy blue hat with a logo on the front of it. The rim of the hat was to the right side of his head. He was wearing sweats-navy blue sweatpants and a tan zip-up jacket with a plain white t-shirt with a scoop neck. His shoes were black and white, and his clothes were baggy.
For the majority of the time I was studying the subject, he was sitting in a leather chair, feet up on a table that was dark brown wood. One leg was crossed over the other. His white macbook was resting on his legs, while he faced his head down towards the screen, typing, and focused intensely. From time to time, the subject would either get up and walk around to talk to various people or sit on the wooden table that his feet were previously situated and talk to the girl sitting on the leather couch to the left of him. He occasionally would pick up his pink-colored vitamin water and take a sip.
The subject seemed to be determined to finish whatever he was doing on the computer but also would get up to take a break once in a while to talk to the girl or possibly assist her with work. When he got up to walk around, it was usually for two purposes: one to stretch his legs and two to address his collegues about an issue. Overall, the subject appeared to be layed back as relfected in his primary poisition on the leather chair. However, he also looked as though he was a hard-working student anxious to finish his work.

Stalking..

So, I guess I would have to say that activity was a little odd. But it was probably helpful. I think that it would be helpful to writers because you have to think more about the things that usually go over your head. Like how to interpret someone's movements and positions. The metaphors were by far the hardest part for me. I couldn't think of what one leg crossed over the other or what a computer could be compared to. It reminded me of the dog essay because he talked so much about body language, and how important posture can be. The activity also stretched our imagination, and helped us practice being descriptive which is important in writing. When someone reads your writing, they should be able to develop an image of what you're talking about, and not have too many questions about what kind of picture they're supposed to create. The writer should be doing all the work, and not force the reader to make assumptions. When someone reads the descriptions of the person I took notes about, they should be able to have a near to complete mental picture with few holes.

The Dog Whisperer

If I had read this article four years ago, I would have known where Caesar was coming from, but I wouldn’t have fully understood. When my family bought our yellow lab Zoe, she was like all rambunctious puppies. She loved to chew on EVERYTHING. Once, she chewed right threw the television cord, while it was plugged in. After that, we decided we needed help if we didn’t want our dog to be the annoying untrained dog that constantly jumps up on people. I learned many things from the trainer who came over to help us. One time was all we needed. I learned to be consistent, stern, and rewarding. He told us to only stay angry for seven seconds, and to never yell. Now, whenever people come over they’re amazed when she sits in front of her food for a couple seconds before we give her the cue to eat it. How she will sit and wait when a door is open without running away. I completely understand what Caesar meant when he told Lynda that she wasn’t” loving” her dog. She was being unfair. She was angry that he would do something wrong, when he didn’t even know what that meant.

Gladwell is arguing that body language is crucial between human-dog interactions. Dogs are unable to communicate in ways other than body language. They can’t tell you what they’re thinking. Yes, they can learn many commands, but that’s based on body language. “Exercise, Discipline, and Affection” are key for understanding the essay because they are the three things that are critical when training a dog. Exercise means exercising the different ways of interaction. If you decide that you’re dog isn’t allowed on the couch, don’t let it go once in a while. If you don’t want your dog begging, never give food from the table. It’s simple. Discipline is important because it shows the dog that they’re submissive which is incredibly important. Finally, affection is really important if you want your dog to be friendly, and nice to be around. Zoe loves people. When she sees you, she wants to love you. She definitely wouldn’t be like that if it weren’t for the affection my family gives her.

Peter's Question

How can the body be fully paralleled to writing?

As Shelley Jackson says, "The body is a patchwork." The body can be paralleled to writing in the way that there are pieces that can stand on their own, but in the end they are sewed together to make a whole. Also, often in writing, parts depend on each other. You can't function your arm without your brain, just like you can't have an example without a point. The body works together to have some sort of goal or accomplishment its working towards, as is writing. The author creates a text with a purpose, and means for the reader to take something away from it.

Stich Bitch Part Deux.

1. Is the word, "stitch" in the title a reference to Frankenstein?
2. Why does she include a similar sentence in the beginning of every section?
3. Why does she say she's not shelley jackson?
4. Is she comparing hypertext to life?
5. What is her point?
6. What is Shelley Jackson saying about Plagiarism?

She's Out of Her Mind.

To say the least. My reaction to "stitch bitch" by Shelley Jackson wasn't a good one. I really disliked it. I hate the way she writes! Its like she's trying so hard to be different that it's just annoying. For example:

"In the no-place of hypertext, there's finally room to move around, like an orifice I can fit my whole body into, instead of just my finger or my p-p-p-pen."

Do we really need the extra p's? No. That's just irritating. One of my biggest pet peeves is when people online write words with extra letters. " I loveeeeeee you," "I'm boreddddddddddd" "Lets hang outttttt" Stop it.

Back to Shelley Shelley. I think the section that I could stand the most was, GAPS, LEAPS. It made the most sense to me. Throughout much of her article, I had to re-read sentences just to get what she was trying to say. How is it good writing when the reader has to go over sentences multiple times? In this particular section, she's talking about how hypertext isn't like a regular flowing novel, its all over the place. That makes sense to me. This doesn't: "Plot chaperones understanding, cuts off errant interpretations."

Is that even a sentence? Why can she do that?!

Responding to Kelsey...

I agree that she can write whatever she wants. That's not only the beauty of writing, but the beauty of being a citizen of the United States of America: we have free speech. However, when writing for the public, its important to keep your audience in mind. It's possible that she was trying to get a reaction-like the one I had-or she just doesn't care and is merely writing for herself. In that case, I don't think that she's a very mindful writer. Its true that she has the right to say whatever she wants. But, I'm just saying that it bothers me. Maybe many people enjoyed her style of writing, it just doesn't appeal to me. I believe that she can get her point across in a way that is less irritating to me specifically. But, she's not just writing for me, is she?

Six Questions for Billy Collins

1. Does each object Collins uses to compare to his beloved have a different meaning?

2. Is the tone of the poem humorous? serious? sarcastic?

3. In the beginning of the poem, Collins compares his beloved to something that seems to be a complement, "you are the dew on the morning grass." Why does he use comparisons that seem to be good then change to saying "you are not" and comparing to nice things?

4. Is Collins trying to work out how he feels about the beloved in the poem, or did he have a specific stance before he wrote it?

5. Who is "you"? Is it really the beloved?

6. Is there a significance in the structure of the stanzas in Collins poem?

Mark Twain

“To get the right word in the right place is a rare achievement. To condense the diffused light of a page of thought into the luminous flash of a single sentence, is worthy to rank as a prize composition just by itself… Anybody can have ideas–the difficulty is to express them without squandering a quire of paper on an idea that ought to be reduced to one glittering paragraph.”

In this particular quote, Mark Twain’s advice is to use the least amount of words as possible in your writing that will get your point across. He is also saying that this is a very difficult thing to do. I am an incredibly verbose writer. I like to write long sentences, and add in words that don’t need to be in my text. I write the way I think or talk, which can sometimes be fast and wordy. I’ve read many articles where at the end of the paper, I’m annoyed at how long it was because the point was so simple. I felt like that after reading David Bartholomae’s “Inventing the University.” He could have cut that down to a couple pages. The only time I can understand loquacious writing is a case like Charles Dickens when he was paid by the word. Otherwise, I find editing numerous times helps me to cut out meaningless words.

Johnathan Lethem

Jonathan Lethem’s essay, “The Ecstasy of Influence” shows how many artists’ creations haven’t been “original works” and is technically plagiarism. The reworking of a previously made text can be hindering to the author who was “influenced” by someone else’s ideas. This is because the second making of a work needs to have something to offer that the original didn’t have. For example, everyone I’ve asked about the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory remake, they dislike it simply because the first is a classic and we grew up with it. The copy of most works will almost always be critiqued more than the original.

In the end of his essay, Lethem is concluding that many times, what artists create are gifts in the way that we get something out of them. Even if it meant spending a little money, it doesn’t matter to us if we walked out with something to hold onto from the performance, museum, etc. Lethem is saying that the more the artist’s work is turned into something related to corporate, then meaning is devalued and we lose because we miss out on the connection between the artist and the audience.