Jessica Pressman is a visiting scholar in the Literature Department at UCDS and a Lecturer in Sixth College’s Culture, Art, and Technology Program at UCSD, and a holder of the ACLS Collaborative Fellowship for 2012-2013. As she says in her “About Me”  webpage, her work examines how technologies affect our understanding of aesthetics and reading practices. In her article, “Navigating Electronic Literature,”  she discusses the idea of navigation and how it relates to how we interpret and understand electronic literature.

Jessica Pressman
http://www.sixth.ucsd.edu/_images/2012/cat/people/faculty/pressman_jessica.jpg

Electronic literature is very different than print literature. A key distinction of electronic literature is that it allows for user to navigate bout what they are reading. This element uniquely affects the ways in which we learn.  Instead of inscribed marks on a print page, electronic literature responds to interactions from the reader using a complex circuitry and codes. Pressman says, “such navigational interactions range from clicking on a hyperlink in a hypertext to typing a response to a narrative prompt in interactive fiction or moving an avatar through virtual spaces in immersive narrative. She talks about how navigation is both how a reader moves about the electronic literature, but also how they read the digital work.

Hypertext is one of the earliest forms of electronic literature. It consists of a set of hyperlinks that are in a non-linear form, and when clicked on, create a new section of text able to be read. Although sometimes identifying where the text is in electronic literature is a difficult task, navigating through it is, as Pressman says, “an act of producing the work’s signifying properties in the moment of engagement with them. Overall Pressman poses the question, does electronic literature complicate the way in which we think about and engage with literature?

Example of a picture in this electronic story
http://collection.eliterature.org/1/works/pullinger_babel_inanimate_alice_episode_1_china

Reading Jessica Pressman’s article on electronic literature made me want to go out and find a piece of electronic literature myself. I came across a website that contained a story called “Inanimate Alice, Episode 1: China.” Inanimate Alice is an electronic literature story that gives a glimpse into the future of literature for children and young adults. The narrative is produced in Flash, and combines short video clips, drawings, and words to tell a story about a young girl whose life is mediated by technology during a day of family struggles, when her father can not be found. The authors, Kate Pullinger and Babel, created this electronic story in order to invoke this idea of future children’s book. The story itself was created in order to draw attention to the issue of potentially harmful pollution resulting from wireless communications.

I though this example of electronic literature related to Jessica Pressman’s ideas on navigation. The multimedia story was separated into sentences. In order to get to the next sentence, the reader has to click on an arrow at the bottom of the screen. After clicking on the arrow, the transition to the next screen contained a short video segment or picture relating to the story. Because the story is separated into these parts, I believe that the navigation necessary to read the story creates a new way in which children or young adults understand what they are reading, and I believe this example portrays what the future of electronic literature will soon become.

In 1958, an American physicist named William Higinbotham was sitting in his office at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, where he worked. He was pondering of a way to cure the boredom of visitors who come to the laboratory, when he realized that one of the computers there could calculate ballistic missle trajectories. He used this idea to create one of the first video games,  “Tennis for Two,” which became the predecessor of the most iconic video games “Pong.”

The main display of the classic game “Pong”

Ian Bogost discusses how we tend to separate games from work in a section of his article titled “Play.” He talks about how playing and learning have always been separated, and gives the example of contemporary schooling where children are taught while sitting in desks attentively but also have a separte alliquoted time slot planned into their day (recess) so they can play before continuing to learn. Relating this idea back to video games, Bogost says,”Video games also subscribe to this value model. They are a part of the “entertainment software” industry, and they are generally considered a leisure practice by players and the general public alike” (120). There is a “possibility space” that everyone encounters when they reach out to play, but it is usually associated with rules, or procedures as Bogost later calls them, that regulate what can be done in this space (similar to the rules teachers create for kids at recess). In the same sense, Bogost believes that video games are a tool that allow individuals to navigate this “possibility space” through the procedures that set these contraints in motion.  He says,  “This is really what we do when we play video games: we explore the possibility space its rules afford by manipulating the symbolic systems the game provides. The rules do not merely create the experience of play-they also construct the meaning of the game” (121).

Ian Bogost playing with an Atari VCS joystick

Because there are many dfferent ways to create procedures for different video games, there are also many different types of games that can be created. Bogost compares Animal Crossing to another game called Doom, which unlike the friendly consumption type model of Animal Crossing instead focuses on the use of weopons. Just because there are games that may not give as beneficial of a learning expereince to the user, this does not eliminate the possibility. As Bogust puts clearly:

“Some games’ procedural representations serves mostly to create an entertainment expereince, a fantastic situation that transports the player to another world. But other games use procedurality to make claims about the cultural, social, or material aspects of human experience. Some do this deliberatelty, while others do it inadvertenetly” (123).

One of the main points of Bogost’s article is his therory of procedural rhetoric. He describes this saying, “I suggest the name procedurual rhetoric for the practice of using processes persuasively, just as verbal rhetoric is the practive of using oratory persuasively and visual rhetoric is the practive of using images persuasuively” (125). He beleives that this idea can be used in the way we create video games and similar programs, and through this, we are able to create games for children and adults that facilitate interest in learning and create and environment where people think critically about social and cultural themes.

Although I agree with much of what Bogost talks about in his article, I beleive that it is necessary to tred carefully when approaching the idea of video game learning. Before the general public will accept the idea of video games being a portal in which our minds will be richly engaged in cultural values, social practices, or interactive learning, there needs to be a shift in the stereotype of what a video game is. To me this seems like an almost impossible task because there are always going to be unproductive video games out there that give a bad name to all the ones that may actually increase our thinking power. In addition, there are also going to be video games out there that claim they will increase your awareness or inteligence relating to a certain subject but may not help whatsoever.

Main advertisement of Luminosity

An example that immediately came to my mind due to its continous advertising is the website Luminosity. This website claims to improve mental performance and brain function through online games. While researching this website I found many people out there that are immediately calling this website out on its “lies.” One person who goes by the name of “thestochasticman” in his blog,  discusses this idea of mental exercise in blog post Why Braintraining doesn’t work. He calls out this bad science by defaming the credibility of the neuroscientists who supposedly conducted research that proved the games Luminosity advertises work. He talks about who he is tired of all the marketing behind these type of things, and instead says, “If you really want to mildly stretch your brain, why not do a crossword?” Although I think that advances in technology that are continouly being created have a lot of potential to do a lot of good in the lives of many people, I know that there are always going to be companies and products that try to manipulate that idea in order for them to profit off the public. I guess thats what makes the U.S. what it is, but until there is a shift in this dynamic, I’m not exactly sure how productive people will start being by playing these types of games.

Technology is advancing at a remarkable rate especially in the area of mobile computers and devices.  We are able to carry these devices on us throughout our daily activities creating an unfathomable amount of opportunities. In addition to being able to access an almost unlimited amount of information, these devices also allow for people to document their experiences in real time. Instead of having to remember these details and reflect on the memories in order to write about a certain situation, people are now able to immediately publish their thoughts on site.

An artistic recreation of future smartphones

In Olin Bjork and John Schwartz’s publication, Writing in the Wild-A Paradigm for Mobile Composition, they discuss the idea of mobile composition and how it can relate to students and their work. They reflect on this saying, “we argue that students can better perceive -and learn to challenge-their social, cultural, and historical locations when they research, write, and even publish on location” (225). They continue to talk about breaking the “traditional classroom-homework dichotomy” in order for students to be able to better relate their thoughts on a certain topic while actually being present at the location they are talking about. The advances in mobile technology have facilitated this idea and will only continue to create an easier and effective way of writing on the go as time moves on. Bjork and Schwartz inform us more on this idea saying, “such assignments reposition writers in the wild, where they must confront material conditions and respond the rhetorical opportunities no often encountered through traditional assignments” (234). I agree with the idea that having students write in different scenarios and locations gives them the ability to think about what they are writing about through a new lens. Continuing to write in the same location may create a pattern that lacks creativity due to repeating of the same thing over and over again.

Future Compute Technology

While thinking about this idea of mobile composition, I couldn’t help but start thinking about future technologies that not yet exist but will be able to further facilitate this idea. In a blog post about future technology by Gloria St on February 13, 2013 she discusses a future flexilble computer that can fold in half for easy transportation. Concepts like this are being thought up every day at tech companies around the word. It is only a matter of time until our grasp of technology is so vast and so complicated, that mobile composition will seem like an ancient idea.

Chapter seven of the textbook Designing Visual Language discusses the impact of data displays on a readers’ ability to conceptualize information. When I first read the term “data display” I immediately pictured a table or graph full of complex numbers and information that would probably take a good amount of time to interpret. A couple paragraphs into the chapter I quickly realized that the purpose of data displays are quite the opposite of what I initially thought.

Data displays “show quantitative information by transforming textual elements–usually numbers—into images” (245). Although they sometimes contain text, its purpose is only to clarify the nontexual elements in the display (for example: axes titles, axes labels  or legends).  The main function of a data display is to enhance the readers’ ability to compare numbers in an easy and understandable way using graphical elements (for example: grid lines  pot frames, tick marks, background shading) They are more than useful in representing complex numerical data that may be too difficult to grasp in text form, but also in giving a “top-down” perspective of data that can lead to individuals noticing trends a lot faster than they would otherwise.

“Technology now provides a wide array of tools to design not only static displays but interactive ones as well”( 246)

In designing a data display chapter seven also talks about six strategies that can be used to apply rich visual vocabulary to data displays: arrangement, emphasis, clarity, conciseness, tone, and ethos.  Arrangement strategies are used to choose appropriate display types for the data and decide how the data is grouped is these displays. Emphasis strategies are used to highlight the main points that you are trying to make with your data display. Clarity strategies largely depend on how well the display adheres to the perceptual principles of benchmarks, area, gray scales, and perspective. Conciseness strategies help the creator of the display recognize the spatial conciseness in terms of “data density” and graphic conciseness in terms of “data-ink.” Tone strategies help form the mood of the display; is it serious, friendly, or formal? Lastly ethos strategies help make sure the display accurately tells the readers the story about the data without

manipulating the facts.

The message I got from this reading really changed the way I had previously viewed  data displays. By combining the above strategies, creators of these images can effectively clarify data that they want readers to understand. Because they allow for complex rhetoric to be emphasized in an image instead of text, data displays are a unique way to make a point.

A common spedometer

When I looked further into data displays I came upon an interesting blog post written by Robert Kosara on July 5, 2012. He gave a great example of how a data display can make information easier or more difficult to comprehend by comparing reading how fast you are going when your driving. Because the little red arrow points to your speed and constantly changes when you accelerate or decelerate, it is easy for most people to recognize how fast they are going while also paying attention to the situation on the road.  Kosara comments about how some spedometers are more complicated saying, “some cars have direct numerical displays for speed, and those are much harder to read. In fact, all cars I’ve seen so far with such a display also have some kind of bar display in addition that also shows the speed (though with much less precision).” In this same way, data display can be either helpful by clarifying data, or hurtful in making it more complex.

Svenja Adolphs is a professor of English Language and Linguistics at the University of Nottingham and also the Associate Director of the Center for Research and Applied Linguistics, the Director of Research for the Faculty of Arts, and the Associate Director of the Center for Advanced Studies. Her main interests are  in corpus linguistics and discourse analysis and she many publications regarding this topic.

In chapter four of Svenja Adolphs’s book, Introducing Electronic Text Analysis, describes techniques in analyzing individual words and phrases on the concordance level. He describes concordance programs that allow for individuals to search for certain words or phrase in electronic texts, having them appear in the center of the page. The words or phrases are called “nodes,” and the items to the left and right are called the “span.” He states that concordance analyses can both generate and test hypotheses regarding a proposed research question.

Image source “www.psychtronics.com”

One technique in this type of research that Adolph describes is using the Key Word in Context (KWIC) software to do a concordance analysis on the verb “disagree” in casual conversation. As stated by Adolph, one would not expect to find many instances of this verb due to the nature of  the conversation. After the concordance analysis, the individuals doing this study discovered that there were forty-four instances of the item. Further investigation found that “I” is only the subject in four of those instances and that the majority of the time the verb was being used to describe another person not present in the conversation.

Concordance analysis is a great way to discover unknown information about the way language is used in many types of conversation and in electronic texts. Because of the huge increase in the amount of online texts that are available, more studies will be able to be done to help understand the way in which language is changing and the patterns it is following. In chapter four of Adolphs book, he describes the benefits of this type of analysis saying:

“Concordance analysis has a key place in language description and lexicography, especially because such an analysis can reveal patterns of co-occurrence and association that not only challenge some traditional beliefs about language as a slot-and-filler system, but also lead to insights that are not easily generated on the basis of intuition alone.”

I believe that the use of language today and throughout history is, in many instances, overlooked by individuals and therefore not analyzed in ways that it could be. Because many words, phrases, and sayings that people use are so second nature to them, they fail to realize that the way in which they communicate has an associated pattern to it. Adolph dives into this idea briefly when he cites Sinclair (1996) regarding two principles which language is based. Sinclair states that there is the “idiom principle” which says that certain phrases are stored in long term memory and placed in conversation as one unit, and the “open choice principle” which says that language is used solely based on grammatical rules and is “selected slot-by slot.” In Adolphs opinion, concordance analysis is a wonderful tool in overturning the belief that language is based on grammatical rules instead of inherent or second nature phrases retained in a persons memory.

The idea of concordance analysis of texts and conversation has made me wonder about how much of the language I use everyday is based off my experiences and conversations with people throughout my life, and how much it is based off an inherent ability to try to follow grammatical rules.  An interesting blog post by Adam Elhardt on December 3, 2009 called “THE CONSCIOUS VS. SUBCONSCIOUS IN LANGUAGE LEARNING” describes the different influences on how we structure our language. He describes a study done by University of Southern California linguist Stephen Krashen that has identified two ways in which people pick up language. “Conscious learning” is formed from the study of grammar and rules associated with sentences. “Subconsciousness aquistion” is based on absorbing the conversation and style based from everyday interactions. Elhardt says:

“According to Krashen, the most effective language study focuses on language acquisition rather than grammar rules. When students are actively engaged in speaking and listening their focus is on the message being communicated rather than the form of the communication. Successful students know their grammar but they don’t use rules to form the sentences they speak. Rather they have developed a feel for the language that lets them create sentences more organically.”

Language is a diverse and unique aspect of every individual, and a crucial part of daily interactions. With the advancement of technology and online electronic texts, we will only be able to further our knowledge of how and why language is used in different ways around the world. Only through these types of analysis will we fully realize the enormous scale on which language evolves throughout time, and varies between individuals.

The languages that humans have created throughout our continuous evolution have become vast and complicated over time. It is quite fascinating the think that at one point we communicated through grunts and body motions, yet know we have thousands upon thousands of words that form the basis of our communication with each other. To make things more difficult, for each of those thousands of words, we also have hundreds of languages that represent those words differently. One can not help but ponder about the history and formation of linguistics and how language will change in the future.

Svenja Adolphs discusses the growing field of analyzing and understanding electronic texts which are increasing rapidly in our booming technological age in her book, . She discusses how computers and software allow for the rapid analysis of different texts from all around the world, and how we can use this analysis to gain knowledge about the structure of language through textual analysis. She says:

“Language description refers to the process of exploring corpus data with the aim of developing a better understanding of language in use,while an application refers to the deployment of language analysis tools with the aim of producing an output that has relevance outside of linguistics”

In my opinion, the most interesting aspect of the first three chapters of Svenja’s book was her ability to relate the benefits of electronic textual analysis to our modern day society. Without the ability of computers to quickly scan data and output results after looking at this information, we would never be able to analyze texts in the detailed way we can now. Due to our super fast computer technology that is continuously growing, we are able to analyze electronic texts in terms of sentence length, word length, number of different words in a text, punctuation frequency, word phrase frequency, and the list goes on. It is our job to be able to create hypothesis from this data in order to better understand the way in which different people around the world relate their thoughts in electronic documents. Svenja talks about language theory saying:

“This key difference in the kind of data that forms the basis for language theory marks two different approaches:empiricism and rationalism.Put simply,rationalist approaches to language are concerned with the way in which the mind processes language,while empiricist approaches are based on the observation of naturally occurring data”

While reading Svenja’s interesting outlook on electronic texts,and being the science nerd that I am, I couldn’t help but to relate her main message to applications in scientific research and development. Before the rise of computer technology and electronic or online texts, scientific data was collected and described in the writings of textbooks. Lucky for us science nerds, the revolution in technology has allowed for the compilation of an almost seemingly endless amount of articles and texts. For me, this is exciting in regard to the accessibility and swiftness in finding whatever information that you want to know. Relating it to Svenja’s ideas, these electronic texts can also be analyzed to better understand and interpret scientific writing and how it is generally structured. To display the enormous amount of information that is waiting to be processed, one can go to Highwire website created by Stanford University which claims to have Earth’s largest free full-text online science archive with 2,297,585 free full-text articles as of February 1, 2013.

This incredible amount of information, all compiled into and accessible on one online site truly display the how research on electronic texts is going to be a continuously growing field as more and more texts get published digitally. It is exciting to think about how much our society and species has transformed from the grunts and motions of the early Neanderthals, to the advanced online civilization we are today.

Anyone who has conversed with a grandparent, old friend, or individual who lived a long time before this day and age can get a feeling that their lives were quite different than ours. I have been lucky enough to have been able to live with my grandma while I was growing up. Countless afternoon I would sit with her, playing cards or baking, and discuss with her about society today and how it is something that she could have never imagined. The ability to examine the past and find patterns and themes that help explain how we got from there to here is an important step in understanding how advances in technology, society, and human thought are going to influence what the future is like for us.

Richard A. Lanham does a suffient job in describing the “age of information” that we live in now. In chapter one of his book, “The Economic of Attention”, he accurately relates life today to the rapidly growing technological society we live in today. He explains that this is the first time in histroy that people have been able to purchase such a vast array of material goods through the internet instead of going out to a store and buying them themseleves. In addition, Lanham writes that many people beleive that acquiring these goods is the goonly way for them to find happiness. I beleive that it would be hard for somebody living in the world today to argue with these statements. We are constantly bombared with subliminal advertising, new trends, and updated technology that infleunces who we are and what we strive to do in our lives.

Another interesting point that Lanham make regards how globalized we are. He talks about how tourisim is a plagued idea based on the what it is in general. Everyone wants to go out and explore interesting places around the world, that is the basis behind tourism, but as tourism and traveling has increased it becomes more and more a “self destructive buisness.” Once a location is discoverd and overun by tourists, noone wants to go there anymore and it seems to be “ruined.” Lanham converts this idea into how physical locations have began to disappear because of how little time it takes to travel or communicate to other people living in distant places around the world. All these transformations that are occuring around us have began to change the dynamic of what we want to have in our lives. The material “stuff” that we have always seemed to impact our desires is now shifting into information. Lanham says, “when you interpret nature as information, stuff and fluff change places.”

The world is changing into a place that is so vastly interconnected, that although material things and brands are still valued highly, information is becoming the hot new thing that is evolving. Lanham describes this idea using building airplanes as an expample:

“In this world, every element has been created from specific information keyboarded by master illusionists. Made objects, from building airplanes, find their beginning and and central reality in computer assisted design and manufacture. The life-giving act inheres in designing the object on a digital screen. The manufacture or “printout” of the object becomes a derivative function performed slave-like by a computer-controlled machine.”

 

People have always tried to do things that are able to keep their attention. If someone is not interested in what they are doing, what they are watching, or who they are interacting with, then they will not fully put themsleves into the situation in which they exist in. Lanham talks about human nautre saying, “We might think of this inherited set of adaptive patterns, of behavioral inclanations, as the attention capital of humankind. It represents the stroed-up impulse to pay attention to certain kinds of thinks in certain kinds of ways.” In his opinion, this new age of information is coincides with the way humans are designed to be. We love to be constantly entertained or interested, and by allowing humans to have access to an astronomical amount of information we have little trouble not finding something that will catch our attention. As Lanham puts it, “The World Wide Web is now a document billions of pages long.”

In my opinion, Lanham does a very good job describing the world today and the direction in which we are headed. Everyday people live their lives without realizing how different of a world we live in today than we did even two decades ago. If your mind is able to travel even farther back in history, the gap that separtes the similarities between these two times becomes increasingly distinct. After reading an article that describes future techonologies that will change the world, it is easy to see how these changes to society are only going to increase at an exponential rate. This article talks about nanotechonology. In a world of ever increasing information, communication, and knowledge, we are soon going to be able to make things on such a small scale, that it will be able to interact with the microscopic organisms that live within our body.

These are changes everyone is going to have to realize and understand. Failure to do so will lead to ignorance of the world we live in, but will also obstruct opions from forming that could help change the direction of today’s society. A last point to be made has to do with Lanham’s opinion on rhetoric. Although it is quite pessimistic, it is a truth that will continue if not changed by inteligent individuals living today:

“”Rhetroic” has not always beena dirty word, the opposites of sincerity, truth, and good intentions. For most of its life it meant the training in expresssion, spoken and written, that you need to play a useful role in human soceity. It became a dirty word in the seventeenth centruy, when science, trying to describe the world of stuff, wanted to aboloish the distortions of human attention structures”

Painting showing Quintilian teaching rhetoric

Discussions, debates, and arguments are fundamental human  interactions that have been scattered throughout our history. Are these confrontations between people a phenomenon that has grew from our original evolutionary roots? Or rather, have they been provoked through another means such as moral character? Marcus Fabium Quintilianus was a Roman rhetorician who writes about what it takes to be a good orator in his book, “Quintilian’s Institutes of Oratory,” a twelve-volume textbook on rhetoric published around 95 AD. The work explains the theory and practice of rhetoric, but also talks about the foundational education and development of the orator himself. Lee Honeycutt developed an online version of this book last modified July 18, 2006.

Quintilian writes his book during an era in which the emperor’s regime is quite harsh. Because of this limiting government, it is difficult for orators to publicize their idea without creating an opposition from the ruling class. Either in response to this time or because of his unshakable opinion, Quintilian attempts to resurrect the old role of orators. This includes returning to a simpler and clearer language rather than embellishing ideas. He uses another famous rhetorician from the previous century, Cicero, as a model for this simplified way of speaking. Although many of his ideas are based off Cicero, Quintilian dictates that he is theorizing beyond the work of others rather than solely using their thoughts.In Book XII of his work, Quintilian addresses many aspects leading to the development of a promising orator. He discusses the orator’s career after completing his or her education, the necessity to be a good man, the methods in influencing character, and the study of philosophy.

In his introduction, he details his fears about the hardships that a career of an orator will entail, but adds that his education would be wasted if he “might not render useless what had been already finished” (12, introduction). In the last paragraph he explains that he is following in the footsteps of a previous orator, Cicero, but adds that he is theorizing beyond the work of other: “Thus, though I cannot overtake the great man that is before men, I must nevertheless go farther than he, as my subject shall lead me” (12, introduction).

Quintilian then continues into chapter one where he first discusses why it is important for an orator to have a good moral character. He evokes the idea that the power of speaking, used by bad men, will be detrimental to public and private concerns. He continues to talk about how nature has distinguished us from all animals by giving us the ability to speak. By using this gift to promote evil, we are in essence slapping Mother Nature in the face.

“For it would have been better for us to have been born dumb and to have been left destitute of reasoning powers than to have received endowments from providence only to turn them to the destruction of one another” (12.1.1)

After describing the importance of a good moral character, Quintilian then begins to talk about the limitations an immoral character creates in orators. He points out that these men will speak with hindered authority and virtue, be deficient in wisdom, and never be able to perfect their eloquence compared to good men. Because a bad man has vicious thoughts that contradict the truth, it is more difficult for him to dictate his point when speaking. The lies he creates are clouded by his actual immoral desires.  A good man does not have these limitations that cause his thought to be slowed.

“But a bad man must of necessity utter words at variance with his thoughts, while good men, on the contrary, will never be lacking a virtuous sincerity of language nor (for good men will also be wise) a power of producing the most excellent thoughts, which, though they may be destitute of showy charms, will be sufficiently adorned by their own natural qualities, since whatever is said with honest feeling will also be said with eloquence” (12.1.28)

Chapter two of book twelve discusses what a good orator must do to maintain high moral character. Quintilian gives details describing the impulses of human nature, and that good men must form their moral character based on the insight that these tendencies give. He insists that an orator must study to maintain a high moral character: “the orator must above all things study morality and must obtain a thorough knowledge of all that is just and honorable, without which no one can either be a good man or able speaker” (12.2.1). Lastly, he describes the division of philosophy into three parts, moral and natural philosophy, and how an orator should never attach himself to any particular sect.

The part of these chapters that I enjoyed reading dealt with the studying of human nature in order to better analyze a person’s moral character. The evolution of human beings is an astronomically complicated topic to try to understand and is filled with details, of which, are almost impossible to comprehend. It is interesting to ponder the thought that humans could have developed an innate immoral character based on the natural selection that occurred during our transformation into Homo sapiens. Oppositely, some individuals may believe that the immoral character of humans was actually a result of the different societies that erupted during our early history. This idea brings out the scientist in me and makes me strive to learn about the scientific background that may help answer some of these questions, leading to an examining websites that discuss the science behind human nature.

Despite if either of these cases is the actual truth, I agree with Quintilian’s point that it is necessary to examine human nature in order to better grasp what aspects of it are important to keep,  and which are crucial to suppress. The best orators will be individuals who can grasp this concept and apply it to their lives, thoughts, and arguments.

Rhetoric is an art form that is used by everyone but understood by few. For those who understand how to use it, they have the ability to either display the truth or conceal it for some malicious gain. Ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato pondered this idea of Rhetoric because they understood the impact it has had and will have on the world.

In his Internet resource, Aristotle’s “Rhetoric,” Lee Honeycutt compiles W. Rhys Roberts’ translation of Aristotle’s Rhetoric into an easily accessible online document. Plato’s “Phaedrus“, written around 370 BC, also contains dialogue between Socrates and Phaedrus that discusses the importance of rhetoric. This happens through their dialogue that contains analogies and stories used to exemplify their points rather than the more direct statements made by Aristotle in Rhetoric.

In Chapter 1 of Book 1, Aristotle describes the central idea of Rhetoric. He states that it is innate for all men to talk to one another based on their ideas. These ideas, statements, or arguments occur randomly but also intentionally. In the end, their influence depends on the speaker’s knowledge of Rhetoric. He gives the example of a judge in a court case. The Judge is influenced by “non-essentials” which consist of emotions that change how the words being said appeal to the person judging the case. He states that in this way, “it is clear, then, that rhetorical study, in its strict sense, is concerned with the modes of persuasion. “The function of rhetoric “is not simply to succeed in persuading, but rather to discover the means of coming as near such success as the circumstances of each particular case allow.”

The influence of words can be used to uncover the truth in a way that is more easily facilitated than hiding this truth in a fallacy. In this chapter Aristotle describes four ways in which rhetoric is useful. It has the ability to find the truth in all topics, because the truth will always prevail if argued in the right way. Aristotle says, “things that are true and things that are better are, by their nature, practically always easier to prove and easier to believe in.”

Although rhetoric has the ability to uncover the truth behind a discussion, truth is not enough in itself to be able to allow someone to change to mind of another. They need both the truth, and knowledge in the art of rhetoric to fully have an impact on the individuals in the dialogue. In “Phaedrus“, Socrates displays this point well while talking to Phaedrus:

Socrates: The mere knowledge of the truth not enough to give the art of persuasion. But neither is the art of persuasion separable from the truth. But perhaps rhetoric has been getting too roughly handled by us, and she might answer: What amazing nonsense you are talking! As if I forced any man to learn to speak in ignorance of the truth! Whatever my advice may be worth, I should have told him to arrive at the truth first, and then come to me. At the same time I boldly assert that mere knowledge of the truth will not give you the art of persuasion.

Human speech is one the most important qualities that we have to assert our impact on one another. It can be used to defend, attack, influence, manipulate, or cure. It has the ability to create an immense amount of pain and suffering, or oppositely, find the truth that is hidden deep down waiting to be uncovered. If Aristotle and ancient philosophers were able to discover the importance that rhetoric has in the world of human interactions, then any rational human being should be able to also understand their points. Aristotle’s fourth point in chapter one, in my opinion, best exemplifies the power of words:

Again, (4) it is absurd to hold that a man ought to be ashamed of being unable to defend himself with his limbs, but not of being unable to defend himself with speech and reason, when the use of rational speech is more distinctive of a human being than the use of his limbs. And if it be objected that one who uses such power of speech unjustly might do great harm, that is a charge which may be made in common against all good things except virtue, and above all against the things that are most useful, as strength, health, wealth, generalship. A man can confer the greatest of benefits by a right use of these, and inflict the greatest of injuries by using them wrongly.

Do blogs have a generic definition accepted by society? Or are blogs a representation of the individual writing them and therefore can only be defined through their terms? Danah Boyd tries to  discern what a blog is in her 2006 article “A Blogger’s Blog: Exploring the Definition of a Medium,” published in the online journal reconstruction: studies in contemporary culture.

With over a decade of blogging experience Boyd sees blogs in many different contexts based on the specific author. She describes the short history of blogging and how it has been seen by the public. Through interviews with amateur, up and coming, and veteran bloggers, Boyd displays that it is almost impossible to give an accurate definition of what blogging is:

More seasoned bloggers frequently find the definition question either irritating or futile. For every blog post trying to define blogging, there are just as many dismissing the effort itself. This dismissal comes from a frustration over being labeled and categorized in narrow terms.