For Those Who Are Just Starting Out...

This poem advises aspiring writers to abandon conventional notions of "how" one is supposed to write, and advises them to go out and experience the world. This is solid advice. I always find the most inspiration in the things I see and hear around me, and sitting in a quiet room doesn't lend itself to creative inspiration. Writing can happen anywhere at any time. I think that beginning writers often think of writing as a strictly structured, organized, disciplined task, and that couldn't be farther from the truth in reality.

To beginning writers, I'd say to abandon your inhibitions. If there is one thing I will take from this class, it's that writing is not a pretty process. It is messy and disorganized and sometimes it's best to throw everything onto the wall and see what sticks. This is OKAY! Pre-writing doesn't have to be structured! You can word-vomit your ideas onto the screen and then try to make sense of them from there. Writing is a process, and it's much easier if you don't try to do it all at once. Even more, if the piece you're writing doesn't HAVE to be strictly linear, there's no reason to force your mind to think that way. Don't be afraid to branch out!

Write about what interests you. Even if a piece was boring, you can write about what you didn't like, or write about what parts caught your attention, for better or for worse. Tailor whatever piece you're developing into something that best suits your interests, and it will make all the difference. Passion (or lack thereof) comes through in writing. Plus, if you find your subject interesting, writing is much less painful. Push through and force yourself to think carefully about your topic, and you can find something interesting to latch on to.

Blog post 11/12

It's against my better judgement to say that these four letter word projects are writing, but I think in reality they are. I want to say, "no! writing is only words, duh!" but if I had to define writing, I would give it a much more broad definition than that- simply a visual representation constructed deliberately to convey a message. So these projects are writing, just in the broadest sense of the term. They are the clumsy digital cave paintings of digital writing, but they do fit the definition nonetheless. They lack the precision and grace of writing in words, but they are effective enough to communicate, and in the general medium of writing, that is what counts the most. I think it's interesting how much difficulty we (or at least I) find in writing in this fashion. I am too accustomed to the dexterity of words and pliancy of language to work within the confines of image.  

Rodney Jones (10/12)

I think Rodney Jones is making the argument that words are more powerful than images. The poem says, "no image like the image of language." Jones means that an image cannot achieve the same things that language can. In the last stanza, he talks about reaching out for an idea that is lost- perhaps lost through the medium of image. Image cannot achieve the nuances in an an argument that language can. The metaphorical aspect of dumping a coconut full of alcohol into the ocean down a ways from the beach would simply look two dimensional and the symbolism would be lost.

When I Put On Text.... (9/12)

I do anticipate readers when I put on text. I don't put on clothing without thinking about what I'm wearing, and I wouldn't put on text without considering who my audience might be, either. Certain text might be inappropriate for certain situations, and it's important to consider what you're doing when you're wearing text.  For instance, I have a ring that says "HELL" which I would happily wear to class but would avoid wearing to work or to Temple, for instance. But when I wear it to class, someone might notice it and tell me they find it funny, like I do. Wearable text is used as a vehicle for self expression and for communicating with others about yourself, so it must be worn carefully and deliberately.

Twouble with Twitter (6/12)

When we tweet, who are we talking to? I think the answer given in the video ("no one and everyone") is quite apt. Twitter is one of the more narcissistic forms of blogging- sending thoughts out into an audience in hopes that someone will take the bait and respond, or retweet, or what have you. It's the "overshare" experience personified, and you are offering information to anyone who will listen, which is sometimes no one at all. When I tweet, I am in some regards talking to myself, but I also have a loyal contingent of actual friends who follow me and will respond when they see fit. Twitter, for me, is silly and for fun- not something serious to dedicate a lot of time to. It is a relaxed, informal writing space where I write in the manner that I would talk to my friends.

I think Twitter can be a valuable tool for marketing as in businesses or celebrities, but on a personal level it's just for fun- perhaps to get attention or share information or just to look back on later. I thought the attitude of this video was beyond pretentious, to be honest. If a person thinks Twitter is stupid, I'd be really surprised if there was someone else holding a gun to his head, forcing him to Tweet for his life. The bottom line is that I don't take Twitter too seriously, and neither should the creators of that video. 

Poets vs. Presidents (5/12)

To conclude her essay, Zadie Smith discloses: “In this lecture I have been seeking to tentatively suggest that the voice that speaks with such freedom, thus unburdened by dogma and personal bias, thus flooded with empathy, might make a good president” (192).  However, she rejects this claim by advocating for the many-voiced role of the poet.  What is the difference between the rhetoric of a president and that of a poet?  Does Smith suggest there should be a difference?


Smith advocates that the president should be a "trimmer" in the positive sense- neither entirely here nor there, but skating in the middle and delving into multiple voices at once. Therefore I disagree with the assertion that Smith suggests a distinct difference between the voice of a president and the voice of a poet. From the text, I understood it that she believed a flexibility in voice was beneficial to both of them.  She praised Obama's ability to speak candidly, professionally, and to address each region in a way that would suit them best- she calls him the man from the City of Dreams, and suggests that poetry comes from the Dreamland itself. I believe that Smith thinks a poet should be able to use each voice more distinctly while a president should be able to move between them with careful, precise fluidity; but that the ability to float between voices is a positive trait entirely. 

Speaking in Tongues (4/12) (out of order, whoops)

1. "It's the fear of being mistaken for Joyce that has always ensured that I ignore the box marked 'biracial' and tick the box marked 'black' on any questionnaire I fill out." (p. 187) Why is acknowledging one's multiracial heritage so dangerous, in Smith's opinion? Must the inclusion of all cultures always imply shame of at least one of them? Is that a fair assertion for Smith to make, in light of the idea that race might be a spectrum rather than so clearly divided?

2. "There was a popular school of thought that maintained the voice was at the very heart of the thing; fail to keep it real there and you'd never see your Blackness again." (p. 188) Is maintaining a cultural identity more important than maintaining a personal identity? Is a cultural identity necessary to having a personal identity?

3. "He's talking down to white people-- how curious it sounds the other way around!" (p. 189) Is Smith suggesting that black people unify themselves in this absurd fashion, or that white people do it? Perhaps both? What purpose does Smith this unification serves?

4. "For reasons that are obscure to me, those qualities we cherish in our artists we condemn in our politicians." (p. 189) Is Smith proposing that flexibility in voice is an art form?

5. Smith identifies as Black, and speaks in a singular voice- yet she proposes, "It is my audacious hope that a man born and raised between opposing dogmas, between cultures, between voices, could not help but be aware of the extreme contingency of culture." (p. 194) Why does Smith feel that a person with flexibility in voice is an ideal president, when she chooses a singular voice for herself?

6. "It's amazing how many of our cross-cultural and cross-class encounters are limited not by hate or pride or shame, but by [...] embarrassment." (p. 194) Why does Smith choose to introduce this new element at the end of her essay? Does flexibility in voice help one avoid the embarrassment of seeming out of place?

Transcribing the Crayon Sample (8/12)

Yes. Yes! YES. Yes. YES. YES. Smith Whispers: "I believe that flexibility of a voice leads to a flexibility in all things" (194).


I believe this is true. I think being able to speak in many voices makes the situation one is speaking in, more flexible. There is a reason why you are speaking in that specific voice, whether it is to persuade yourself or others what you are saying, or if you feel that this particular voice helps get your point across. The voice you choose to speak with is the only other way for your audience to try and figure out who you are and what you're saying and maybe why you're saying it. Without a voice, there are only words.

Writing in Crayon? (Blog post 7/12)

The writer of the piece I'm reviewing is definitely influenced by her medium. She's used the space more creatively than, I assume, she would've in a conventional writing space, and she's used colors to emphasis the important parts of what she is saying. I do not think she was limited by the medium she used. In fact, I think the colors made her more expressive- she might have said the same thing in just pen, but it wouldn't have stood out quite so well. This is a good piece of writing, and I know it because I understand what she is trying to say. More than that, I believe her- the composition is convincing and well phrased. In particular, I like when she says, "Without a voice, there are only words." This is the profound  conclusion to her short composition that sums up both her argument and Zadie Smith's quite effectively.

Twitter as a Writing Space (3/12)

What I really think of Twitter as a writing space is that it promotes brevity above all else, which can be a very useful tool. Whether you're making a joke or asking a question or aimlessly sharing inane thoughts, Twitter forces  the author's hand in terms of making him "get on with it" and make a point. Twitter is an extremely informal and narcissistic writing space. It's personal and unmoderated, which is beneficial in terms of self-expression but does not lend itself to the most technically skilled or conventionally insightful writings. I can't imagine Tweeting a formal essay or reading something life changing in 140 characters or less (although I won't deny it's possible. Hemingway's 6 word story comes to mind. But I digress...). As I mentioned before, Twitter is narcissistic, and indulgently so. There is no room to expound upon the mysteries of life or delve into the thoughts of others: it is a singular moment, a lone thought, and that can be nothing but personal.

#PuttingOnText (2/12)

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 make them seem interesting and intriguing. It's like offering a little taste of their personalities or interests to the world and inviting them to want to find out more. No matter what a text tattoo actually reads, what it says is "ask me about this." A backpack with a handwritten phrase on it is a glimpse into personality: maybe it says "I'm fun, I'm easy-going, I'm not afraid to write on my things and declare who I am." Wearing text is like waving a flag, only instead of "American" it boasts "Hofstra student" or "Lacrosse player" or "I shop at Victoria's Secret." Wearing text can say "I want you to know this about me" or even quite the opposite, "I don't care enough to think about the words I'm wearing" which says a lot about a personality in and of itself.