Write here; write now.

My subject was a male of about middle age. He was sitting in a brown chair which was located to the right of a door with a sign reading "FIRE HOSE AND EXTINGUISHER IN STAIRWELL" and to the left of where Matt was sitting. he was wearing a black hoodie but the insdie of the hood looked like a tan'green thermal material. The hoodie was fully zipped and he was wearing a green/gray jacket of the hoodie. His jeans were worn at the knee and he was wearing black dress shoes with black high socks. Weird combination of dress shoes and hoodie. He was of medium build and was an average height and average weight.
The subject was intent on one activity only. He was holding multiple sheets of paper in his hands. His hands were holding the papers about midway through the page with his four fingers on the back of the page and his thumb on the front. He didn't do anything the whole time! He just stared at the same page he didn't even look at another paper just the same one for a half hour. It was almost like he was trying to light it on fire with his eyes. He occasionally took a break from spontaneous combustion and glanced around the room at people walking by and just to see what was going on. The whole thing was really weird.
He was super boring. I probably could have picked someone better to stalk for a half hour but he seemed random in the room of what mostly consisted of college students. Here was this shady man who was a cross between a professor and a random guy wearing a hoodie so naturally I figured he was interesting. It turned out the only really interesting thing was whatever was on that piece of paper. I'm actually really curious now to know what he was staring at for a half hour and probably more. It must have been important. Or, like I mentioned before, he was just trying to light it on fire with his eyes. The overall experiece was cool though. I go people watching sometimes but I've never stalked someone(probably a good thing). I guess watching someone isn't really stalking though cuz I didn't follow him anywhere I just stared at the guy for a half hour which is probably just considered being creepy.

Lethem...1st time

I'm going to be completely honest and I just skimmed this article. He pretty much says plagiarism is everywhere and it's a natural part of life. Everyone does it not just students. Artists, musicians, athletes. Other people's ideas are floating around everywhere and if other people like them, the just pick them up. A good example of a musician plagiarizing would be Kid Rock in his song All Summer Long http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_QSFtoMOEQ. The background music he uses is from the song Werewolves of London by Warren Zevon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MRu8N2K0NY Go listen. Then he more obviously took lines from the chorus of Lynard Skynard's classic Sweet Home Alabama (There is no Youtube link for this song if you don't know it then you're sheltered). Is this plagiarism? I personally think the end result of this completely random combination came out awesome. It's a very catchy song. I think Lethem is advocating plagiarism. I feel like everything is technically plagiarism anyway, how could you not advocate it. One of my professors did a whole lesson on what plagiarism is and what you can and cannot do. I raised my hand and asked "So what ISN'T plagiarism?" It didn't necessarily go over well but that's a different story for a different blog.

About Stalking

The experience in the library enabled us to see the true importance of observation. It's not just a fun class activity where you look at a commercial or a shell and write down observations so you can guess what it is or what it means. There is actually a point to it. Observing actual people in the library was an activity that can strengthen how we write.

This was probably useful for writers in the fact that it allows them to write with detail. By stalking people in the library we are able to take in details about the person and learn how he/she reacts to other people and different situations.

We were definitely strengthening our people watching skills so when the time comes to go to the mall and people watch, we can notice more interesting things about them. Not really. Attention to detail is vital in writing and I believe this is one of the things we were strengthening in the library. Just adding an extra detailed line in an essay or book can make it better. For example, say you have the line "Julia was cooking something in the kitchen, and I wondered what it was." and then the story moves on to another subject. It's dull and boring right?... yea, she could be cooking anything in the kitchen, she could even be burning things in the kitchen we don't know because there is no detail. If I add another line of details, the whole experience becomes stronger. "Julia was cooking something in the kitchen, and I wondered what it was. There was such a sweet smell, a combination of cinnamon and spices coming from the oven that it made my mouth water and my nose tingle with every whiff." Psh.. that makes me hungry. Thanks for the details.

If you don't feel like reading the whole thing, just read the last paragraph. It's the best part.

Dog Whisperer

So I started to read this and said to myself "Ok is this reading seriously about the dog whisperer?" Well, it was and it was actually very interesting. Throughout the reading, Gladwell hits on the human interaction between dogs as well as other humans. Caesar has a way of understanding dogs and knows how to communicate with them. He knows how to place himself in the mind of the dog and know exactly what they are thinking, and how they interpret human gestures. I actually learned that dogs pay close attention to the way humans approach them. It actually makes a difference to a dog whether you are leaning slightly forward or slightly backward. One stance can be threatening and one can be harmless. The same also goes for human interactions. Gladwell moves to Eric who is an autistic child. Suzi Tortora, the author/dance-movement psychotherapist, has to deal with Eric in a different way than normal children. Because he cannot communicate well, she has to act like Caesar and approach him in a unique way. Instead of telling him to calm down and relax, she mimics his movements. She bends Eric's knees to the music that is playing so as to calm him through rhythm instead of his chaotic flailing. Both human-dog and human-human interactions involve an understanding of movement, posture, and psychology.
I think Gladwell is arguing that gestures have a lot to do with how we interact with others. When Lori reached to protect Bandit instead of her son, this was showing the dog that it was more important to protect him than her son. She should have been reaching out for Tyler instead of Bandit. Tyler didn't see this as an insult but Bandit saw it as a reinforcement to his control over Lori. If Lori went to protect Tyler, Bandit would have reacted differently to her action. The whole "exercise, discipline, and affection" thing. It's not really key to understanding the essay, I just think it's used frequently. Lynda Forman was missing the discipline aspect of the trio when dealing with Sugar. There had to be a happy medium within the three in order to get Sugar to behave. This also applied to Eric. Eric needed the combination of these three things in order to communicate effectively.

Overall reaction: Pretty good reading and it wasn't boring. I also thought it was funny when Caesar and his wife were in marriage counseling and had an "epiphany" that his wife was like the dogs he works with. "That's it! It's like the dogs. They need exercise, discipline, and affection." Oh yea I totally see how women are like dogs. It's so obvious to me now. Yea.....

Peter's questions

5. What community of writers does the creator of "Stitch Bitch" reach out to?

I think "Stitch Bitch" reaches out to online writers. People who blog, facebook, tweet, whatever. The hypertext Shelley talks about throughout her writing is directed towards these writers. Online writers are capable of changing, editing, deleting, copying, pasting, saving, cutting, fixing. Anything they want. This style is unique because there is no final copy, its constantly being rewritten.

3. How can a reader better navigate through "Stitch Bitch"?

A reader can better navigate through "Stitch Bitch" by reading it over again, except no one would ever want to do that voluntarily. I had a hard time understanding it. Maybe it was just me I don't know. You don't necessarily HAVE TO READ IT IN ORder (sorry caps lock went on) because the sections were randomly placed. It goes along with the whole "patchwork" theme I guess. A good way of understanding is to probably to get a background on Shelley and go from there.

Shelley what?

I am Shelley Jackson, but not really because she is who I am who is really Mary Shelley. I am really her because she didn't actually create me, I created her. I am also Shelley Shelley, daughter of Mary Shelley, who is also Shelley Jackson but not really because I am Shelley Jackson.

We're not who we say we are. You're not where you think you are. I'm not where you say I am. You won't get where you think you're going. It's not what we wish it were. We don't think what we think we think. It's not what it says it is. She's not what he says she is. I'm not what you think I am. We don't say what we mean to say. We are not who we wish we are. It is not all you think it is. It was not how it said it was. EVERYTHING IS NOTHING!

This woman is insane. Apparently my brain is in every cell of my body. I understand it's a metaphor but her metaphors are annoying. I suppose she is saying that hypertext is actually just an illusion. It is not like normal writing, anything can change at any time. One day it can be there, the next it won't. I guess there is some sanity in her insanity. Shelley is basically saying that hypertext is its own genre. It can be different and the same all at once. The "patchwork" works in a sense that hypertext is always being worked on or stitched or improved, even deleted. That is what I got from this insane writing.

Matt's questions

1. What does Collins really think about his poem's subject? Does he really love her or is it just a sarcastic slant on love poems that compare the beloved to objects in nature using meaningless metaphors?

Collins absolutely does not love his beloved and the entire poem is just a slant on love poems. The meaningless silly metaphors show how he is in now way serious about anything he is saying. To me, being told everything that I'm not isn't flattering at all.

2. How does he really feel about himself? Is the second half of the poem purely sarcastic?

The second part of the poem is purely sarcastic. Collins goes on to talk about himself instead of his beloved. He compliments himself with what seems to be flattering metaphors. There is no way he is serious about being the basket of chestnuts on the kitchen table. That isn't even a compliment. This poem is a joke to Collins.

3. Does Collins really dislike poems based in comparison and imagery or was he just trying to be humorous in his parody?

I think he was just trying to be funny. Comparison love poems like the one he is making fun of were very popular. Instead of praising the poems he is making fun of them. Just a change of pace.

4. How would the original poem's author feel about Collins' adaptation.

The original author would probably feel insulted as Collins turned his entire poem into a joke, even though Collins' version is probably better. He would probably consider it plagiarism as well.

5. Is Collins' poem a love poem?

I think Collins' poem is based off a love poem, however, I would not consider it one. I would probably never compare someone I liked to a goblet of wine or a bird pooping on a statue.

6. What is the meaning behind the uncertain terms Collins uses, such as "maybe", "however", and "somehow"?

Collins uses these terms to change the subject of his poetry. When he says "however," he goes from comparing his beloved to things she is, to comparing his beloved to things she is not. When he uses "maybe," it seems like he isn't sure whether the woman is the pigeon on the general's head. "Somehow" is used to bring the subject back to comparing the beloved to the bread and the knife.

6 questions on Collins' poem

Is Collins plagiarizing or is he simply just "rewriting" a failed poem?

Why does the poet steal the first 2 lines (You are the bread and the knife, the crystal goblet and the wine) from a typical western love poem instead of any other lines?

Is Collins' main point of this poem to make fun of typical western love poems?

Does Collins' use of ridiculous comparisons really insult his beloved instead of flattering her?

Why does Collins go on to flatter himself towards the end of the poem?

Would you rather be the bread and knife or the evening paper blowing in the alley? Why?

Ecstasy of influence

Lethem believes copyrights are generally bad for artists. Copyrights are supposed to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," but they have become corrupted. What once helped the advancement of culture is now suppressing it. It is a crime to use almost any information from another author. People can no longer build off others ideas because it is illegal. Lethem does not see this "modern" copyright as good for artists. They cannot base their work off previous writings they must record their own unique conclusions. Lethem pretty much says everything is plagiarism. Mostly everything that is written or recorded has come from some other source or idea. Every single piece of information is copied from somewhere else. There is not longer any original ideas. Writing should be a gift. Every writer should be offering their ideas to the public instead of getting copyrights to ban them from being used. The use of knowledge should not be suppressed. New ideas should be able to stem off of the old ones. Lethem believes that copyrights prevent this. He compares the spread of knowledge to lighting anothers candle. You do not lose any brightness by lighting another candle with your own but you help another person experience the light.

In other words, don't keep your grea ideas and revelations to yourself, share the wealth and let your art benefit th erest of society.