27 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2015
    1. Media ownership determines not only the media we can or cannot view, but also what the ordinary user can share and say online and to whom we can say it.

      Isn't this what makes the internet so dangerous?

    2. he commercial backbone of online media should factor into what we choose to share about our community and ourselves.

      The media should not have that much to control over how the interactions on the internet spread

    3. We forget that the online content can easily travel beyond our intended audiences,

      The internet is such a dangerous place and can lead to getting an audience that do not understand and in turn and lead to complicated interactions.

    4. he majority of the observations and experiences from which we build up our personal understandings of the world and how it works

      The media holds a strong control especially over the younger generations?

    5. When creating your own media, one should be aware of how imitation of popular or approved media images might come into play,

      Thinking about how messages are communications it makes you wonder if there are ways to get around the stereotypes of social media posts or if we are stuck in a rut where there is no getting out of imitating what is popular because there is such a push to follow the pop culture trends

    6. we can apply these principles to our own self-created content,

      Does this mean that we have to watch our own interactions on the internet in the same way that we regard government propaganda and other forms of communication?

    7. So how can we create a media literacy framework that takes into account our power and participation in the media?

      What does this mean for our future in the development in creating literacy and looking at how to go in regards to internet usage?

    8. an increase in our power to influence and persuade should come the critical frameworks that we can apply to the media we create, and not just the media we consume.

      Does this predict that we are going to have to be much more careful about what kind of media we use in our everyday life and in research?

    9. We are no longer just consumers of media, but content creators and distributors, as well as editors, opinion makers, and journalists.

      This comment causes me to predict that in the future the internet will only become less unreliable because of how easy it is to go in and alter the internet.

    1. I refer, of course, to that mixed bag of politicized professors and theory-happy revisionists of the 1970s and 1980s — feminists, ethnicists, Marxists, semioticians, deconstructionists, new historicists, and cultural materialists — all of whom took exception to the canon while not necessarily seeing eye to eye about much else.

      This makes me think that there is a constant shift in how people view literature in regards to the societal context as was done in regards to Milton and Shakespeare.

    2. The canon, they argued, represented the best that had been thought and said, and its contents were an expression of the human condition: the joy of love, the sorrow of death, the pain of duty, the horror of war, and the recognition of self and soul.

      Letting the mentality around a canon change should not occur???

    3. canon formation was, in truth, a result of the middle class’s desire to see its own values reflected in art.

      This is what I was thinking about.

    4. The tree he had helped cultivate now bent dangerously under the weight of its own foliage. Other genres — mysteries, thrillers, science fiction, fantasy, horror, and romance — extended from the trunk, sprouting titles that Adler must have bristled at, including those by women and minority writers whose books flourished, so it was claimed, because of their sex and ethnicity.

      I don't like the idea that he would be mad about the different genres of writing. I think the genres have just shown us how far literature has come as a whole.

    5. questioning whether “something called literature actually exists,”

      Why wouldn't literature exist? The difference between what people deem as "good" literature versus "bad" literature is up for debate. But literature has existed for hundreds of years. Even before the novel was big in the public eye. Beowulf was literature despite being a Epic poem.

    6. reason alone should be sufficient to tell us that War and Peace is objectively greater than The War of the Worlds, no matter which one we prefer to reread.

      Logic and passion should not be considered in regards to what is defined as literature.

    7. We want important writing (bearing in mind that not every successful poem, play, or story need be utterly serious) to explore the human condition,
    8. always

      Always is a very, very strong word

    9. a record of one human being’s sojourn on earth, proffered in verse or prose that artfully weaves together knowledge of the past with a heightened awareness of the present in ever new verbal configurations.

      Human condition and growth is what is most important isn't it???

    10. literature does not encompass every book that comes down the pike, however smart or well-made.

      Why not????

    11. as late as 1970 there was probably little disagreement as to what constituted literature.3

      Why did literature need a concrete definition?

    12. the canon became equated with a syllabus.

      This is something I had never thought about, that is really cool.

    13. uniform sets of poetry or the “complete works” of writers were standard publishing fare; and because the books looked and felt so good — The Aldine Edition of the British Poets (1830–52) was bound in morocco and marbled boards with gilt on the front covers and spines — each decorative volume seemed to shout “Literature.”?

      Literature should not be simply because of the look it also should not be a uniform style for writing like they wanted in the 1800s

    14. If books simply reinforced the cultural values that helped shape them, then any old book or any new book was worthy of consideration.

      This idea has been in literature for hundreds of years, society constantly both shapes the context of books and is shaped by books.

    15. critics hoped that a tradition of great writers would help create a national literature.

      This is the idea behind reading the classics isn't it? To help us to develop an understanding about reading as a whole?

    16. Because a canon of vastly superior ancient writers — Homer, Virgil, Cicero — already existed, a modern canon had been slow to develop. One way around this dilemma was to create new ancients closer to one’s own time, which is precisely what John Dryden did in 1700, when he translated Chaucer into Modern English. Dryden not only made Chaucer’s work a classic; he helped canonize English literature itself.

      Canons have been slowly developing and can create a new form of literature?

    17. “perpetual copyright”

      Is this idea of there only being a certain number of plots in the world?

    18. Greil Marcus and Werner Sollors’s A New Literary History of America. Alongside essays on Twain, Fitzgerald, Frost, and Henry James, there are pieces about Jackson Pollock, Chuck Berry, the telephone, the Winchester rifle, and Linda Lovelace

      This seems to really illustrate the mentality that lots of things can be considered literature