Blog post 8 of 12

Blog post 7 of 12

The writer is most definitely influenced by the nature of the writing implement.  He did not use words in his composition.  Instead, there is just one green check sign on the top part of the page.  Unless this composition has some metaphorical hidden meaning that I am not getting, I think that the use of crayon makes it less expressive than a regular written text could have been.

I am not sure I would call this writing, only because I don't think it has a clear message to convey.  If the question had been a yes or no answer, then this check would have worked perfectly.  But given the fact that it was much more of a complex question, I don't really feel like this composition worked very well.  A+ for creativity, though.

Blog post 6 of 12

"No one. And everyone".  That single line pretty much summarizes what I think of my audience when I tweet, which I didn't do very often until recently.  Since I use Twitter mainly for personal (or fangirling) motives, I don't really have a huge following.  It is save to say that I have pretty much interacted at least once with all the people who follow me.  We either share common interests (see fandoms) or these are people who I know "in real life".  So every time I tweet, I don't really feel like the people in the video. I don't see myself as simply shouting random, uninteresting things (most of the time).  I would describe it more as making a comment to myself, but at the same time hoping someone will hear it and give me some sort of feedback (reply, retweet, favorite).


I see Twitter as a very valuable tool.  It is an easy way for companies, non-profits and news channels to reach thousands, if not millions, of people in under 140 characters.  The immediacy and specificity that Twitter has helped entire political, social and humanitarian campaigns to be initiated and organized. Given this perspective, I think Twitter is an instrument that can be used multiple ways.  From those of us who use it for personal purposes to those who use it in a grander scale, Twitter allows its users a medium to put their thoughts out there, wherever there might be.  We can only hope someone hears our chirping and tweets back.

Blog post 5 of 12

The main difference that she points out between the rhetoric of a poet and that of a president is their audiences' expectations.  She clearly states that the success behind figures such as George Bernard Shaw and Shakespeare is, largely, due their abilities to portray and take on different voices in their writings.  It is what a literary audience expects. They wish to see themselves represented in what they read or see being performed, so it makes sense they would tend to gravitate towards stories and characters that act, talk and sound like them.


On the other hand, Smith says that "from our politicians, we still look for ideological heroism (...).  We consider pragmatists to be weak.  We call men of balance naive fools" (191).  This means that our expectations from a politician, as electors or a similar positions, is that he or she have a single, unequivocal voice.  Having a plurality of voices is considered a sign of weakness, not only of language, but also of ideals and values. And who wants that from the people who are supposed to be making important decisions in our behalf?


According to Smith though, multi-voiced individuals do have a place in politics (192).  She says that it will be a long, hard process, that will end up in the dissociation between the politic and his multiple voices.  This will give him or her the ability to see issues from multiple perspectives, and this capability will, according to her, produce positive results.  She does not hesitate to say that the presence of more and more politicians to fit her description relies heavily in how Obama's administration turns out.

Blog post 4 of 12

1) Zadie Smith begins her speech by stating that English is not her first language.  She then goes on to explain how she learned it while she was in college.  Her motivation, she confesses, is that she thought English was "the voice of lettered people" (179).  Do you agree with this statement? Is a person only truly "lettered" if he or she expresses his or her ideas in the English language? How important is language in defining if one is considered lettered or not?

2) "There is no quicker way to insult an expat Scotsman than to tell him that he has lost his accent" (180). With this phrase, Smith exemplifies the reluctance of some British people to admit they engage in "voice adaptation", calling it even the original scene.  But what is the real importance of maintaining these idiosyncratic elements? How much of a role does tradition in language play in this fast-paced world? Wouldn't adapt language to the general norm make communication easier?

3)  From pages 180 to 182 there is a large analysis of the character of Eliza Doolittle from George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion.  Smith concludes that, by the end of the play, Eliza is stuck in an awkward position, between not only levels of language, but also social classes.  What was then, according to both Smith and Shaw, the morale of the story?

4) Smith then goes on and mentions Barack Obama and his novel, the "many-voiced" Another Country.  She says that it exemplifies Obama's ability to not speak for his people, but speak them.  Why would she point out this difference? And why is it important that Obama, as a president, has it?

5)  Later on in her speech, Smith mentions Shakespeares plays.  She considers they give the author the ability to "speak simultaneous truths" (190).  Can there really exist simultaneous, non-contradictory truths? And if so, what role does language play when delivering them?

6)  Smith ends her speech by focusing on her previous arguments from more of a political perspective.  How does she think (or expect) Obama's gift to speak in many different voices will translate into politics? Does she believe it will have a positive or a negative impact? And what role can it play on a bigger scale?

Blog post 3 of 12

What I really think about the writing space that twitter affords is that it is limited. I am sure we can argue that every single type of writing space is limited in its own way, but Twitter in particular is known because of this fact.  The 140-character limit is the main feature of this site, forcing people to find clever ways to summarize everything it is they want to communicate into short texts.  But since the point of using Twitter is just to send small, precise updates of our actions, daily life and surroundings, I don't think these restrictions play such a big role.  I mean, there are instances when one has to use more than one tweet to write the message he or she wants to send, but these situations are the exception, not the rule.  This is why I believe that, if we keep in mind that Twitter is a microblogging site, the limitations make sense.

Blog post 2 of 12

I'm not sure why so many people wear texts on their clothing and on their skin.  Perhaps they feel that such portable writing serves to connect to others. I know it does in my case, at least. When you wear shirts or sweaters with something written on them, you are making a statement. You are saying, with very few words, who you are, what you like, what you don't.  If someone recognizes or shares what you like, it's an instant feeling of connection to another person, no matter how short that connection might be.  And that just makes you feel like part of something bigger than yourself.