hyper-textual cocktails

            When birthed into the electronic world, hypertext became both a vitamin and flu like symptom for the online reading breed.  After a revelation, I had put a finger on exactly what hypertext reminded me of. In my mothers clothing store I would go into the dressing rooms and look in the triple sided mirror. I would not just see three Henrys, but an endless repetition of my adolescent self. I would grow frustrated that I could never see the end of this endless reflection. While online hypertext does not inflict frustration, the intangible vastness of the hyper textual world is something that people are seldom able to fathom. This vast endlessness of the Internet is where people can decide if it is to them, flu or a vitamin. When viewing The Museum, both the flu in and the vitamin came to me at the same time. While frustrated that I could never possibly explore every crevice of hypertext on the page without going mad, I was also visually frustrated. After a few clicks, I had no idea where I was in the museum. Trying to imagine how I got there I looked longingly at the ironic map of the Metropolitan museum on my desk. Why was there no map of hypertext? Perhaps its because we are meant to get lost in hypertext. If no one got lost who would feed the beast? This beast though; does he leave us helpless at his feet looking for some sort of escape or helped, in a conversation with his infinite knowledge.

            The idea of an online novel with hypertext sparks interesting questions that can only be answered subjectively, however I have a few theories on the matter. Consider the idea of hypertext in a novel a substance of alcoholic sorts. This “cocktail” will be served by an the virtual bartender we call the eBook. Some will choose to refrain, pledge sobriety, perhaps reminiscent of the hardcover book. Some will drink responsibly and use the drink to simply further enjoy their evening. Some will indulge perhaps a little too much and wake up with a hangover that leaves them with a blurred line between hypertext and the novel itself. The alcoholics will become addicted; forgetting why or what they were actually reading and simply clicking and glancing at the hundreds of pages before them. Drinking in volume rather than quality will leave them eventually passed out with nothing to recall despite viewing so much. Age is a factor as well; the young and inexperienced will be more likely to view irresponsibly and find themselves with an improper mix of novel and hypertext. The elder and wiser will simply click one or two for reference. The internet bottle that hypertext is encompassed by can be opened by everyone, it is however how they choose to use this literary aphrodisiac that will send them to prison for a DUI or a wine tasting gala in Napa Valley. 

Murray

In Murray’s introduction to Hamlet on the Holodeck she titles her initial thoughts “A Book Lover Longs For Cyberdrama”. She gifts us with an honest look at the marriage of technology and literature. Her teaching credentials at MIT place her in an appropriate position to preach that this marriage is a healthy one. While she once lived by the way of the bound book, the arrival of the digital age peaked her interest in the medium. At first the technology left her discouraged, but that response had been true for past technologies as well. However, she and technology matured hand in hand leading her to become enchanted.  Working specifically to digitize education she received a lot of criticism. People think that human thought and idea can only be written, but obviously this argument is non sequitur because it is out dated. Murray states however that there is a connotation and experience that only books can give you, which to she adds that computers can also account for resources that wouldn’t be available to the strictly traditional reader.  Books are face value, what you get is what you get, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but a specific experience none the less. Holistically Murray has a very nuanced and credible opinion on the subject. She is a book lover who still enjoys the experience of reading a solid book; and at the same time she is excited to explore the possibilities of the new medium and where it will take us in the future.

            Murray exhumes the positive side in both mediums, which gives us an exciting and refreshing viewpoint on the subject. After reading the dogmatic arguments of Birkerts and his cohorts, we finally have a well-grounded opinion on the situation. Murray explains what individual powers books have and what individual powers computers have and what the two powers can accomplish together. And to use these powers for good; the educational outreach would be of biblical proportion. Murray then goes on to say that the computer is capable of visual learning that is not found in books. With books like Hugo however, this argument may become invalid. I support her belief in the visual advantage of digitalization, but if books like Hugo continue to emerge, they will have the same experience.

            Technology may be the biggest advantage we have in mass education though. With Mobil technology becoming more and more advanced, it will be easy to reach kids in desolate parts of the world. Tablets are becoming more and more affordable and if they made one specifically for education in poverty stricken regions, I’m sure they could come up with a very cost efficient product. Unlike sending physical books, getting an eBook to a tablet across the world is essentially cost free.

            With the potential of a tablet, I believe that one-day people will primarily read off of a screen. However, no matter how advanced tablets become there will be no invention that would prevent me from having a physical library and my house; the feeling on gets from looking at an old book is irreplaceable. 

Media is my message

            The Medium Is The Massage is subjectively one of the best books that exists on the face of the Planet. It is brave, honest and its brevity only forces the readers mind to explore outside of our humble comfort zone of the written word. When I say brevity I mean it would be brief in the eyes of someone who is accustomed to reading endless waves of words that create a novel. If you are someone that appreciates different mediums, this book is not a quick read; not in its length, but simply in its provocative ideas.  "All media are extensions of some human faculty- psychic or physical" The idea of how media is not just something that appeals to our senses, but seeps through the pours of our skin, into our bloodstream and visits our oldest memories and the deepest crevices of our soul.

            As someone who would rename this book My Thought Process Volume. I, McLuhan has taken my short attention span, my enjoyment of art, culture and documentary, and the satisfaction I get from reading articles and created a book that should in my eyes should be bound with hair from a unicorns tail.

            Among the complexity of this book and its various interacting themes lies a root of communication. In this communicative root, we can better how exactly interpersonal communication as well as media communication works. Without communication between the people that populate planate earth, we would still be ape like. Communication is the driving force behind the past and future progression of this race and with McLuhan’s book dissecting this idea; it should be on the same shelf as the library. Past communication was perhaps more shallow because of its limited information and technology, but know that we know a lot about each other (perhaps too much) this idea of communication that started as a simple seed in a garden has grown into the beanstalk that Jack climbed on to reach the land of giants. “All media work us over completely. They are so pervasive in their personal, political, economic, aesthetic, psychological, moral, ethical, and social consequences that they leave no part of us untouched, unaffected, unaltered. The medium is the massage. Any understanding of social and cultural change is impossible without a knowledge of the way media work as environments.” Unless you make the most heroic effort of biblical proportion to escape the medias arms, you will fail. This makes media perhaps the most powerful institution in the universe. This godlike presence will make its CEO’s the most powerful people in the world and its creative backbone perhaps an ivy league of resourceful minds. Media is no longer will be announced as something that reaches people; it will be a vehicle for collective voice, good or bad we don’t know, but infinitely powerful non the less. Think about some of the greatest charity movements of our time. Yes Dr. King had 250,000 people behind him in Washington. In the very same city, The Live Earth concert connected the 400,000 in attendance to 2 billion others worldwide. 

Hugo cabernet

            Hugo is perhaps a monumental piece of literature. While in our day and age we only see a new perspective to reading followed by a critically acclaimed feature film, Hugo shows promise of becoming one of the great literary works of our lifetime. Only time will tell if the idea of a graphic novel catches on, if it does Hugo will be remembered as an iconic work. On a personal note it is probably on of the most engaging books I have ever read. As a photographer I take pride in analyzing images, so each page was not just a picture, but another story. Upon diving into the novel, I had no idea what I would find inside, I had only heard of the movie. The daunting volume of the book was soon to be misleading.  Once I understood the story would be told only in part by words and mostly by pictures.  It was if we were looking at a movie slide by slide. Similar to the artist that played the movie Psycho a frame a second, Selznick breaks down a story frame by frame. Because of this we have a different and refreshing perspective into the novel.

             The entirety of the first half of the book is an establishing sequence that leaves the reader bound by curiosity. The automaton and the emotional mystery behind it were enthralling. As the story progressed the pieces of the puzzle were revealed, it began to seem as if the automaton was the linchpin of the story.  In many ways the story of reflects elements of Frankenstein and the monsters creation in the midst of adversity. Aside from being innovation Hugo also challenges different generations and draws them to board the Hugo Cabret train. While on a simple level this book appeals to the younger crowed with basic literature and a plethora of pictures. Just as Frankenstein was a somewhat simple story on the surface, Hugo is as well. However in both stories alike, if you take the core values portrayed and run with them, they can become fascinating and complex stories that are perplexing to adults and scholars.

            With Hugo making an enormous splash as a new type of reading, it would not be a surprise that this new literary style catches on. With a dynamic experience that can be interpreted by numerous different groups of readers, Hugo appeals to the masses. Just as Shelly birthed an extraordinary and revolutionary  novel, I believe that Selznick has done the same.

            

The Path Less Traveled - Frankenstein and Dante

            “The Path Less Traveled”

            Henry Eschricht

            Meehan English

            Spring 2012

            Upon reading Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, it is, at a glance, a simple tragedy of a monster and his creator. However, if you further indulge in the novel, numerous themes and emotions carry you far beyond the confinements of its simple text. In exploring these greater ideas, we realize that Shelly has given birth to her novel using parts of other great stories. Just as Victor used numerous human beings to create his monster, Shelly’s use of other stories breeds her Frankenstein to be a bastion of great literary works. Among the works reflected in Frankenstein lies a deep parallel to Dante’s Inferno. While there is only one cited reference to the tale of Dante’s Inferno, its themes and ideas are echoed throughout the novel. Dante’s journey through the different circles of hell closely shadow the monsters first endeavors on earth. Both characters start as naïve individuals and are stripped of their innocence as they gain insight into the “barbarity of man.” (Shelly 103)

            Before the great adventures that the two characters embark on they are both blind to realism of the human race. The monster just having been created, did not know how to function as a living being, let alone experience the wrath of human emotion. “A strange multiplicity of sensations seized me, and I saw, felt, heard, and smelt, at the same time.” (Shelly 95) While the monster was born with his innocence, Dante gained innocence by living life as a man and taking for granted what human interactions he experienced. Both the monster and Dante are incognizant of what they are about to experience; in this lies their innocence. As Dante enters the gates of hell he and Virgil pass an inscription that states, “Abandon hope, you who enter here” (Dante 7) Dante is on the verge of entering hell and the monster, while on earth is also on the verge of entering his own subjective hell. In entering hell each character goes through a process that eventually strips them of their innocence. Because of the similar experiences that these characters share, Dante’s Inferno is proven to be an inherent part of Shelly’s novel.

            Because the monster in Frankenstein is of the purest innocence when he is born, he essentially enters hell when he steps out into the world. He has not yet had any interaction with human beings aside from meeting his creator. While experiencing the elements and sensation of the natural world, the monster learns quickly of earth and her natural state. “I examined the materials of the fire, and to my joy found it to be composed of wood. I quickly collected some branches; but they were wet, and would not burn. I was pained at this, and sat still watching the operation of the fire. The wet wood which I had placed near the heat dried, and itself became inflamed.” (Shelly 97) Earths natural state is however the least of the monsters worries, as he will soon stumble upon his demise, not by mother earth herself, but by her inhabitants.

            Through the monsters interactions with people, he intern reflects back to both the reader and Victor the true barbarity of man.  Just as Dante literally enters hell to experience, the same side of humanity, the monster enters hell when he interacts with human beings. Through these interactions his innocence as well as eager approach to explore mankind both deteriorate. Simply looking for food one day, he enters a hut in which a man is preparing food. “He turned on hearing a noise; and, perceiving me, shrieked loudly, and, quitting the hut, ran across the fields with a speed of which his debilitated form hardly appeared capable.” (Shelly 98) As he tells the story to Victor he does not reflect on the fact that instance and continues to describe his fascination with the hut. After other experiences it is only then that he becomes keen to why mankind viewed him as a beast. He decides to test his theory with a blind man. “ I revolved many projects; but that on which I finally fixed was, to enter the dwelling when the blind old man should be alone. I had sagacity enough to discover that the unnatural hideousness of my person was the chief object of horror with those who had formerly beheld me. My voice, although harsh, had nothing terrible in it; I thought, therefore, that if, in the absence of his children, I could gain the good-will and mediation of the old De Lacey, I might, by his means, be tolerated by my younger protectors.” (Shelly 93) His experience with the man showed the monster that he himself was truly a kind sole. “I have good dispositions; my life has been hitherto harmless and in some degree beneficial; but a fatal prejudice clouds their eyes, and where they ought to see a feeling and kind friend, they behold only a detestable monster.” (Shelly)  Thus the irony of a monster being more human than any man is solidified. While the monster had lost all innocence and faith while discovering hell on earth Dante shadows his story by venturing through literal hell.

            Upon creating the monster Victor states, “I had gazed on him while unfinished he was ugly then; but when those muscles and joints were rendered capable of motion, it became a thing such as even Dante could not have conceived.” (Shelly ch. 5) Little did he know that his monster was less demonic than the Dante-esque hellions. When Dante embarks on his pure journey to join his wife in heaven he ends up at the gates of hell frightened by the beast that protect the gates. This would be the last time he would look at only animals as beasts. Travelling through the circles of hell Dante is, like the monster, taxed on his misconception of humans. In just the second ring of hell, Fire storms are cast upon those who lived lustfully, thus turning their memories of the past into a current nightmare. He even meets a pope who has once conspired against him. When entering the eighth pouch of hell he meets Ulysses, who is the hero of Homers epics. He has been given an eternal place in hell alongside his fellow religious criminals. In this instance, the great deviation between human heroism and true purity is best exemplified. Just as Victor asks himself how anyone (even Dante) could fathom the bestiality of his monster, Dante posses the same question, “Tante chi stipa nove travaglie e pene? (Who thought this stuff up?)” This solidifies his new reformed view on the impurity of man. At first he was blind to the severity of sin in the world around him, but now he saw.

            The monster and Dante also have similar stories in their escape from hell. Both are not directly religious, but the coincidences behind them are certainly biblical. While Dante is resurrected from hell on Easter morning, the monster creates his own resurrection from hell in leaving to die. Both of these instances are symbolic to escape from the unbearable scenes of hell. Because of the similarities between the monster and Dante, we are left without question why Shelly incorporated that single quotation. Reading Frankenstien with no frame of reference to Dantes Inferno gives you a monochromatic experience.  If you are however, aware of Dantes trials and tribulations while reading Shellys novel, her quote plants a seed inside the readers mind that forces the reader to essentially picture these two walking hand in hand through the gates of hell.

STOP>

( Having not been aware of Dantes Inferno while reading Frankenstein it did truly provide a limited experience. Once I familiarized myself with Dante’s Inferno, I went back and revisited Shellys novel. The experience I had essentially re reading most of Frankenstein was much more eye opening. It only leads me to wonder how the experience would be having known all the pieces on the list you gave us to compare Frankenstein with. )

Frankenstein glog 2

As, the book progresses even further, Shelley continues to give the beast unmistakable human features. He reflects on the treachery that has been his short time in existence. So betrayed, by something he doesn’t fully understand, he knows nothing but to end the life of the very man that would father his existence. This is ironic because in so many instances does media tell the same story. Troubled kid, goes on rampage, kills people, kills himself, etc. While the beast does this portrayed as a beast, he is really very human in voicing his frustration.

                   As you read on, you continue to feel the overwhelming need for attention and affection that the beast can just not harvest from people. Shelly personifies this desperation by making the reader feel as if the monster were a mere child, which immediately intensifies the readers personal sense of frustration.  Shelly righteously leads the reader down a path of sympathy for the beast even in his darkest times.

                  Throughout the book Shelly gives us various instances where the beast interacts with elements and experiences different feels like hunger and pain. One of the best instances of this is when the beast has his first encounter with fire. The beast comes across a small fire that has been left in the path of his crusade by the homeless sorts. He cannot fathom the concept of fire because his mind is simply still in its childish stage. He ends up injuring himself because of this fire showing the difference between the joy he gets from the warmth, and the pain he gets from touching the embers.  “In my joy I thrust my hand into the live embers, but quickly drew it out again with a cry of pain. How strange, I thought, that the same cause should produce such opposite affects,” (97). This shows that he is beginning to recognize not only the dangers of real world elements, but that one thing can be so seemingly appealing, yet as you get closer is absolutely horrible. Again Shelly leaves us with an irony; the monster is a complete opposite experience. He is seemingly grotesque, yet rather pleasing when you begin to see his character.   We see this event magnified yet again in the beast’s relationship the DeLuca family. He tries to become a part of the warmth that encompasses the idea of companionship. However, when he gets too close, their ignorant embers ultimately burn him.

Frankenstein and his challenge to mankind

Frankenstein Glog

Henry Eschricht

Meehan – English and Lit

February 2012

            Mary Shelley bestows Frankenstein’s monster upon us in order to subtly challenge every facet of mankind’s brittle morals. Through the synthetic beast, we see both the deepest fears and the most distant dreams of human beings come true. Shelly doesn’t just challenge one group however; she showers us with a spectrum of human morals and how they are reflected through their interaction with a quasi human. Shelly Begins here story with a series of letters from a sailor that open a window of curiosity for the reader.

            Through Frankenstein’s creation of the beast we see human beings undying need to become godlike. Frankenstein becomes divine when he creates another human being; he is a creator of mankind. “The sight of the awful and majestic in nature had indeed always the effect of solemnizing my mind, and causing me to forget the passing cares of life” (91).  He did not consider any of the repercussions that would entail is faux creation of a human being and instead narrow-mindedly focused on conquering divine abilities. When he becomes weary of this godlike rush, he falls into a deep pit of reality in realizing what he has done; he states, “A thing such as even Dante could not have conceived” (61).  This is ironic because he has, through action and quotation, been jettisoned from the divine to the satanic.

            Next we see the undeniable intolerance of human beings through the beast. While the beast is viewed as, well, beastly; at the same time he represents the pinnacle of human tolerance and moral fortitude. He understands human ignorance, saves lives, and desires the acquisition of knowledge. When he is seeking a human for advice, he already understand that almost all people will immediately see him for the beast that he is; so he, as a many inspirational story will repeat, goes to the literally (and figuratively) blind, who will appreciate him for what he is really worth. It is remarkable that he can understand this concept at such an immature point his understanding of mankind and their complex emotional system. The irony behind this is that, while the beast epitomizes a moral human being it is interesting to see that his innocence betrays him. Frankly (no pun intended) if the world was like the beast, it would be a better place, yet no one in this world accepts him; even when he beseeches a friend in a blind cabin occupant.

            In the following events of his betrayal of human emotion, he soon is educated as to the reason behind this mysterious excommunication he suffers. “Looked upon them as superior beings, who would be the arbiters of my future destiny” (105). The irony is so apparent it is slightly uncomfortable her, which is perhaps, what Shelly has intended to do here. What humans should be like emotionally has betrayed the visual standards of the species, while the visual standards of the species have betrayed the morals human beings should have. This raises the question if being a human is defined more by your emotions or your physical appearance? And if it is, what does that make Mr. Frankenstien? A god? A demon?

Brevity and the mind of Buzzy

An infatuation with brevity

While Birkerts is in his own right to argue that reading is the lynchpin for intellect, he is immature in his demeaning of media to something that is wholly lacking intellectual potential.

Learning to read

From day one of reading, I was always looking for ways around it, I liked being read to sure, but was not to crazy about reading. Focusing on understanding the words and grasping ideas did not leave room for my brain to wonder and imagine.

I was the first kid to learn to read in my class, well sort of. It was rather a brilliant scheme by my pre school self.  I picked a Sesame Street book that was available to me both at home and at school and every day for a few weeks I would have it read to me at home and once in a while at school. Eventually I had it memorized, so I proudly approached my teacher. I said, “I think I know how to read.”. She was ecstatic. She sat down and said pick a book and read it to me, so you can just guess which book I picked.  I read it flawlessly, or should I say I recited it flawlessly. I then read it to the class, and to my parents, who were actually a little suspicious, but none the less supportive.

Obviously one day I learned how to actually read, but the fact that this day is much more a happy memory just shows that reading really wasn’t my thing from day 1.

I can honestly say that I can count the number of books I have read from cover to cover on my two hands. I mean 150+ pages of meaty book. I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell, To Kill A Mockingbird, Life of Pi, just to name a few.

I take that back, I actually enjoy reading, but I have my limitations. I am a slow reader who enjoys conceptual ideas and short stories, short chapters and anything with breaks. 

This is because I am hindered in my speed-reading abilities. I have to read books aloud in my head as if the author were speaking to me, so a 200 page book is essentially a 200 page speech I am listening to from the author. I don’t have the patience even to listen to the most brilliant and intriguing people for that long, especially if the conversation is one sided.

As I have mentioned before, I am a visual learner and visual learning is my way of reading a 200-page book. I simply watch a documentary. A picture is worth a thousand words and a documentary is thousands of pictures, so its like reading a really like book and being able to grasp the concept.

I don’t usually read, but when I do, I read articles. Articles, photography books or books with really short chapters.

Buzzy in "Maryland Life"

http://www.marylandlife.com/articles/outdoor-school

Your main man buzzy featured in this article by writer Rafeal Alvarez who has done some pretty cool stuff including writing for the show "The Wire"

Mr. Birkerts and the fallacies of a closed mind

“Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate,

but that we are powerful beyond measure.

It is our light, not our darkness, that frightens us.

We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant,

gorgeous, handsome, talented and fabulous?....

….And, as we let our own light shine, we consciously give

other people permission to do the same.

As we are liberated from our fear,

our presence automatically liberates others.”

-Marianne Williamson

         Birkerts deepest fear is the light, the light that radiates from the age of technology. He fears that reading will exit its dark home of the book and shed light. The technology age is the monster that will do this; that will bring literature to light. In using words that connote the dichotomy between light and dark, we are shown his experience in the battle between book and e- book. In truth the e-book is not entirely correct in shedding light on its leather bound brother just as the book is somewhat selfish in keeping his touch screen brother in the dark.

Page v. Screen Chief Justice- Mr. Birkerts

: A page is a beautiful thing crafted by nature and passed to its Homo-Sapiens brother who will be able to run his sensitive fingertips along the page. “How can a piece of writing have simple ideas and still infect the reader with the exciting of its thinking?” (11) A page you can read, a page forces the mind to imagine, to create. When you read with a book in your hand you are being leisurely, relaxed, intellectual. You are an individual, you are alone, you can get lost in a book, and you can hide in a book. 

We prosecute the evil screen and technological device and its defacing of the society the page has created. You watch a screen, it comes to thy lazy self, it entertains thy self that doth not know how to be entertained. It is cowardly commercial, collective, and horribly social. It sheds light on simplicity and mass-produces shallow thinking.

Screen is sentenced to be diminished!

Case Closed (thud thud thud goes the Mr. Birkerts gavel)

My dear sir you are wrong. You are scared of the “Metamorphosis of the familiar.” (15) You have diminished technology to your Disney standards of, “mass-produced entertainment.” (29)

In reality, screen is a technology just as books were and are still today! Mr. Birkerts simply has the technology of books embedded as what he knows as his familiar. He does not take the technology generation into consideration. He is part of the book generation and finds a book familiar, just as any youth today finds technology to be familiar. We now live in a world where the horrors of being connected and social are and can be used to the utmost advantage. Today technology enables people to get any book in the world in the palm of their hand with a push of a button. Why is he so selfish to have a genuine hatred towards the collective sharing of what he holds so dear?

I am rather offended by Mr. Birkerts preaching’s, they are completely subjective. Yes there are certain nuances that give each technology and the classic their advantages, but why make them enemies? I am an overwhelmingly visual learner and hold documentaries so dear to myself. I can watch one documentary and retain more information than I would if I read 10 books. Does he dislike photography as well? “A picture is worth a thousand words.” - Napoleon Bonaparte. It is immature to say that new technological mediums of art are just as mindless as Disney movies and even to say that the works of Walt Disney himself are mindless. It is not to say that Birkerts does not have valid points in his expressions of the wonders of reading a written word on a page, but it can easily be said that he needs to open his mind and realize that shedding light on everything that he preaches can be a beautiful thing. It is the technology that we will pass on to the next generation and many generations to come, just as books have been passed on to many generations and continue to be passed on.


Just as Mr. Birkerts needs to be more open minded of the technology to come, the generation of the technology to come needs to be more openminded of technologies that served as a foundation for past generations. 

The Greatest Blog in the World

http://brostoncollege.blogspot.com/

Friends, Bromans, Countrymen, lend me your ears. Please check Broston College out it is the best blog that has ever been revealed to man.

Hidden Intellectualism- David Graff

HIdden Intellectualism By: David Graff

            Graff invites us to join his world of contrasting ideas, and challenges us with his theories on the dichotomy between different types of intellect. The dominant theme of the paper is a cry of frustration that these different types of intellect are not widely appreciated let alone recognized in the modern world.

            “What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.” – Cool Hand Luke

            While there are many complexities to the point that Graff makes, the keystone of his idea is very heartbreakingly simple. It is the mere lack of communication between human beings on the simplest level, the human level. Coming from a childhood that presented him with a first hand look at this lack of communication, he is more than qualified to make this cry. Since the beginning of time the marriage between coolness and intellectualism has been a rocky one. There are numerous times in history where intellectual aristocrats were the coolest people in town, and then there were times when the most brilliant minds of all time were considered to be crazy. Mankind eventually realizes that it was wrong, yet the idea still continues to perpetuate. In the recent cycle of this rocky marriage, intellect and being the cool has had its recent separation in the 50’s. Graff expresses frustration in the idea that this marriage has again wined and dined its way into the honeymoon phase, but we (the United States) as a culture are too stubborn to realize this. In our new age, you cannot only be cool and smart, but there are also new definitions of what smart is.  He doesn’t just accuse the (formally- from an academic point of view) uneducated for showing dislike in the academics, but also the academics themselves for not providing the means to break down this wall. He does not entirely discredit people in the last 60 years mentioning Elvis’s (Viewed as the coolest man of his time) view on the candidates in the 1956 election stating that, “I don’t dig the intellectual bit, but I’m telling you, man, he knows the most.” He wonders if the scars that wrote learning left on a generation will ever be healed, if academia will leave open doors for different types of intellect, and if those hidden intellects will ever knock on the closed doors of academia.

“Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall!!” – Ronald Reagan

            If Mr. Graff was the Prime Minister of France during Nazi occupation in World War II, I would like to ever so gallantly self proclaim myself as the head of La Résistance. If I were writing an autobiography of myself, which I hope to one day be of enough importance to do so, this topic would certainly be a major chapter. I grew up in a somewhat aristocratic town and went to private school that bred kids for top-notch prep schools and went to a public high school that even bred kids for nothing short of Ivy League. In my private school days, I was the athlete that Mr. Graff describes. Instead of spending all my time with kids who went home to tutors and a maid preparing lunch for them, I went to play hockey with kids on the other side of the tracks. Kids that Graff describes as “thugs”. I would throw my button down in the hamper, and head off to hockey. In the locker room I was educated on swear words and got an update on how many hubcaps they had stolen from cars that day. I found myself in the middle of two contrasting worlds and yet I was never really part of either. I had to be two different people in two different worlds and in reality I only wanted to be a little bit of both. I thought my private school friends were a little too serious and my sports friends a little too thuggy. This is was my boot camp for La Résistance.

            In high school I found myself stuck in another facet of Graffs argument. All of a sudden I was playing sports with the public school kids. Those kids liked to have a good time, not playing chess, yet not stealing hubcaps. There was a problem though, which again is portrayed in Graff’s theories (truths). I was hanging out with all these cool kids and conversing with them on an intellectual level and acting on the same intellectual level, but not in school. All those kids were making honors every quarter and partying and playing sports. I was smart, I knew it, but the high school I was in did not have an open door for people like me. Because of my boot camp, I had intellect; it was not the kind of intellect that my friends had. I was frustrated, my high school had a cookie cutter feel and if you were a different shape, well that was just too bad. I would do really well in the very few classes that were made for minds like mine, better than my honor roll friends, only suffer so much in the cookie cutter classes that defaced my GPA to that of someone who is completely incapable of being intellectual. I’m not going to pump my own tires and list everything I think I am excellent at right now, but I was frustrated. Coming to college I thought things would be different, but tragically they are the same. I thought classes in college would be different, but my first semester rained on that parade. I had a meeting with a dean last semester who received reports from two professors with concerns that one of the most seemingly capable students in class discussion was doing surprisingly poorly in their classes and they didn’t want me to be frustrated. In my toughest class last semester, I did the best and in my what should have been easiest class, I did the worst. I was frustrated. I am still frustrated. This semester I ignored distribution requirements and signed up for classes that I know I would love and do well in.

            The truth is we live in exponential times, and the spectrum of different kinds of intellects has broadened exponentially. That is why it is so important that we break down the wall of cookie cutter academia and cater to students not just like me, but also at the opposite end of the spectrum. Capabilities of the millennial generation are being over looked and under stimulated. Capabilities of the future of America are being over looked and under stimulated. Maybe I am crazy for thinking this, but Pythagoras said the earth was round and they called him crazy. Maybe Graff is wrong, but I believe him. Some people thought La Résistance was wrong, but that was Hitler.

          

           

Wise words from the man, the myth, the legend - Mr. Rodman Fox

Subject: I would rather be a Tiger for a year than a sheep for a hundred ...

Body: 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

It’s January 24^th.

What did you want to accomplish in January of 2012? Take a peek. Are you doing it?

If not, you can change that right now. As of this second, start focusing on the things that will make an impact for you and for us in January 2012.

Every single person in this organization can make an impact.

By the way, what do you want to accomplish in February?

Own the Jungle.

FOX