Porter and Johnson-Eilola

I really enjoyed Porter's article seeing as he addressed an issue that I feel is hardly ever addressed in the reading material that many of my classes have either failed at or refused to analyze: the idea that the mind set is shaped by outside factors more so than the author realizes (which makes perfect sense to me). Very few classes I took throughout my college career have addressed that issue. And I was practically stunned when Porter introduced the idea that Thomas Jefferson, one of our very founding fathers, was not as talented and gifted a writer as so many fans of his seem to associate him with. I was introduced to this idea just two semesters ago, when I took a class on authorship and we looked at material through distinct yet different authros: Edgar Allen Poe and Louisa May Allcott. Through their works, the class found that their ideologies and backgrounds managed to shape and mold their works and how both have become respected in their fields. We know Poe as this genius that no one can top, and only Alcott as the writer of "Little Women". We found that both, while being talented writers, had to work through hardships, critics' expectations, and learning from the past in order to understand what it takes to be a successful writer while relatively being good at it. It was facinating how that class made me see two differeing writers in a very diffferent light.

I saw a lot of the same thing happening in the Jonhson-Eilola article as well. I took a Technical Writing course the following semester, and I was really surpised at how even the task of analytical/instructional writing takes so much intertextuality and hidden meanings that the author never intends, despite attempting a simple act like writing directions. It is with articles like these that I tend to wonder if Freud was right. I wonder if we will ever get the chance to know our true selves and what we truly mean when we say or act a certain way. I wonder if Freud himself ever talked about the act of writing as if that ever revealed the true self of a person or not.

Kohl and Lanham

Kohl definately shows the double edged sword in collaborative efforts to share information, such as Wikipedia, as most of us have undoubtly already encountered in our college careers. As far as I understand, most of our professors refrain from us doing at least a good portion of our research on Wikipedia, as they consider it to be false advertising for 100% accurate information on absolutley everything. I even had a history student-teacher refer to Wikipedia as "the devil." On the other hand, I had other professors say at the very least it provides a good stopping ground for referrences for research. I myself have never entangled in Wikipedia for research projects, mostly based on fear of what my professors told me. I mostly use it for quick refernces for random trivia, such as if I want to find out which actor appeared in a certain movie, or who sang a certain song, and random pointless crap like that. As amazing as Wikipedia is, I would probably use it as a reference for more research and not use it as primary research.

Lanham simply seemed to reinstate the fear that my professors have always told me about the digital age transfiguring more information than what is on the "authoritative" written word. Goodie. More reasons given to me to try to avoid the internet. Thank you so much, Lanhman, more ranting about how the digital age is ruining the education of our generation.

Testing, Testing

These are not the kitties we're looking for.