[Casey Vincelette]

I think that what aspects of paratext we decide to read depends on what we want to get out of the text. I know that I, for one, have a very hard time making myself read an introduction if I’m pleasure-reading. I will even neglect the footnotes so that I can continue the story or maintain the flow without distraction. However, if someone is analyzing a text studiously, most forms of paratext would be much more essential to further understanding and insight. In particular, if a text is very dense, outdated, or hard to follow, frequent reference to footnotes can be an immensely useful tool. They can even act as training wheels of sorts, which you might rely on heavily when you begin reading and gradually ween yourself off of as you become more familiar with the cadence of the writing.

[Casey Vincelette]

In both the Nicolay and Hay versions, later drafts of this speech, we see a difference in Lincoln’s description of the lost soldiers’ purpose in the last paragraph. It is a very small, subtle change, but it nonetheless affects meaning. After all, the entire speech is intended to reassure the audience that the tragedy which the Gettysburg battleground had been witness to was a step toward a larger goal, and was important to the nation. In the final Bliss version, and in early versions, Lincoln had spoken of “the unfinished work which they who fought here, have thus far, so nobly advanced.” This was a diplomatic change in the effect of the sentence and its implications. The Hay version replaces “advanced” with “carried on”. In my opinion, “nobly carried on” could suggest a heavy, difficult burden, perhaps not taken up by choice. “Nobly advanced” adds a more personal note: it seems to suggest that the soldiers were passionate about the cause they fought for, and they gave their lives willingly for the sake of their nation’s future, for the advancement of those they loved. This very slight difference, when analyzed, suggests a deep and intentional change to meaning.

A difference in flow can again be seen between the Nicolay version and the subsequent Bliss version, particularly in the second paragraph. The Nicolay version seems a bit more abrupt, especially in its use of the term “died” rather than “gave their lives”—the latter sounds more deliberate and encourages a slow, controlled reading. This type of steady pace is particularly enforced by the expanded use of commas in the Bliss version, which give the middle sentence is given more pauses. To sum it all up, the ending sentence seems to be abbreviated in the Nicolay version.

The harried flow and possible grave connotations regarding the soldiers’ sacrifice in the Nicolay version serve to make it a bit more brash and emotional, in my reading, but I think I prefer the Bliss version for its carefulness and sensibility.

[Casey Vincelette]

The perspectives offered by Beth Witheral and Ron Clapper certainly made a lot of sense and are almost definitely right, but in my reading I still can’t fully justify this. My opinion is far less substantiated, but I feel that Thoreau’s tone didn’t seem to be addressing a complacent proletariat, it seemed to me to be objectifying them. Simply the use of the word “it” to describe a human baby to me suggests a severe disconnect between the author and his subject. Whenever he mentioned the Irish, to me it seemed like he was making a stab at them for the sake of humor, to try to appeal to a public that felt that they were above them. Again, I am not a Thoreau expert and this is only my first read, so I probably am only marking the superficial implications of this theme.

[Casey Vincelette]

I really loved how this group brought in the idea of reading people, I think it’s really interesting. We start our development as infants through human interaction, so people are some of the first things we learn to “read”, based on the way the term seems to be defined in this context. In order to gauge whether our own actions are acceptable and whether we are safe, we must interpret facial expressions and body language and connect them with concepts and feelings. It’s a common occurrence to read people wrong or to be unable to get a read on them if we are unfamiliar with the way they compose themselves, just as if you are unfamiliar with a certain antiquated dialect, you may struggle to read pieces written in it.

[Casey Vincelette]

The human race has advanced more than any other species thanks to our capacity to cooperate. In forming groups, we can enjoy safety, support, and division of labor which enables us to pursue leisure activities and follow our passions. On the down side, this often leads to inequality, when one subdivision in the group has an advantage over another and the members manage to secure for themselves a greater share of resources. It is understandable that Thoreau would be against this, but a completely laissez-faire government can’t really be said to be better. If every man decides for himself and is not reliant on any government, then every man has to care for himself. If Thoreau is advocating that everyone do exactly as he did, people who are physically incapable would be at a disadvantage, as would people with large amounts of children who are too young to assist with chores. The former would not be capable of farming and food preparation, and the latter wouldn’t be able to make enough with the same amount of supplies.

[Casey Vincelette]

As I’m assuming most of us have experienced, our generation is growing up with a certain amount of integration of technology into our education. It’s common practice for elementary schools to introduce children to the websites they should and shouldn’t be using to do research, and how to distinguish reliable scholarly material from unreliable, biased, or unprofessional material. Many people may remember being advised against using Wikipedia during the very first years of their academic careers, simply because anyone could edit it. Learning institutions are taking the initiative to instill students with a sense of what is “good” information, almost in the same way that academics in the past have emphasized the essential and “good” nature of what Thoreau calls the Classics.

[Casey Vincelette]

Technology can give anybody a peek into how the other half lives: reality television can show us the glamorous lifestyles of the rich and famous, and through social media, we can interact with people of all sorts of backgrounds, mindsets, and walks of life. Like Melissa pointed out, people who have an idea and lack financing have all sorts of means to rally support through the internet. In American society, these resources are available to most people, even those of the lower class. There are very few American households who cannot afford a television. These technological bridges over a canyon of geographical, psychological, and cultural divisions are certainly remarkable; however, it’s hard to know whether this heightened awareness of differences in lifestyles has actually heightened mobility, or the capability of a citizen to move from one class to another with ease.

[Casey Vincelette]

I feel like online interaction has become more like uttering big thoughts in small words. If you go to the comments section of any given post, video, or article, there may be thousands upon thousands of comments, all people talking in many different directions at the same time. Any given thought, no matter how intelligent it is, is in the mix with many, many others, some that are less coherent and some that are downright ridiculous or offensive. It becomes a much greater challenge to engage in rhetoric, as replies may be buried or interrupted by this teeming global community.

[Casey Vincelette]

Personally, I feel that simply having access to the internet impedes my reading sometimes. It’s just easier to find a short little snippet of an article on the internet, and the momentary satisfaction it provides feels good, even though I know I’m not getting a taxing intellectual experience out of it. There’s a booming business for comedy articles with lots of pictures that are meant to entertain what Thoreau would call “feeble intellects and children”, and when they pop up on the edges of a screen, it’s easy to lose oneself and waste time gaining very little from these trivial blurbs meant to momentarily appease a wandering attention span. I don’t know that the reading itself is bad, though admittedly I don’t even retain very much of it, but if I start with one article and keep mindlessly clicking on the next and the next, I’ll look up and suddenly three hours have passed, I’ve made no progress on my homework, and my mind will be saturated with fun, easy reading instead of being prepared to tackle a complex text that I may or may not be very interested in. So I think that at least the kind of digital reading that I do is not necessarily hazardous to my health, but it is a waste of time and a bad habit.

[Casey Vincelette]

Kaitlin brings up a really interesting point about Wake Up Now’s perspective. True, as far as moneymaking corporations go, it would seem that they are as soulless as they come, but it was an idea made up by a human following the American Dream of getting everything from nothing, and maybe even had good intentions. Whoever started it has achieved exactly what he’s promising his followers they can do: in his experience it has worked. If he’s an idealist, maybe he actually believes that with some ingenuity, anyone can do what he’s done. More likely, he has some inkling that such a scheme can never sustain itself, but in order to propagate this message of overwhelming optimism, he also has to realize the appeal and potential of chance. This is, of course, pretending that the reasoning of Wake Up Now is coming from one person instead of a team of marketing experts, which is more likely.

[Casey Vincelette]

I think that the presentation of a book can appeal to a specific audience, and in doing so can tell you its genre. The cover of a young adult book tends to be more playful and colorful than, say, the cover of a Stephen King novel. The font found on the latter will probably be very formal and large, to bring focus to the literary intensity of the content, whereas a young adult book may have an illustration and a more quirky font.

[Author]

Posts