Final Project

Here is the link to my final project for Comp 1 at OSU. It is a site showing some of my web identities!

http://identityfacets.weebly.com/index.html

Essay 4: Viewer’s Review

            Growing up, I never listened to critics when deciding what movie to attend. I knew there was people whose job it was to tell the public whether they felt a movie was worth paying for or not. However, I just listened to my friends and what they had heard or thought about the picture. This allowed me to get multiple opinions about the movie and from sources that were my age and thought similar to myself. To this day it still seems like to best way to learn about something like a movie. When it comes to movies I find that critics are all looking for things that I do not care as much about. For many critics the artistic elements may be the biggest factor for judging a movie. Personally I can enjoy all kinds of movies and while I enjoy a truly great movie experience I also enjoy the typical action or murder mystery. I still find that I only agree with the critics about half of the time. Therefore, when I look for a movie to see today I go to the Internet to decide if a film is worth spending my money on. I go to sites and blogs dedicated to giving customer reviews and I judge what the general rating of the film is before making my decision. The Internet has changed the way many people look for reviews or product opinions. It allows people to be able to get a wide sense of the quality of something instead of just one person’s opinion. The Internet decreases the need for paid professionals to serve as critics.

            The Internet has allowed people to be able to share their opinions all over the world. Not everyone feels that this is for the best in terms of quality of information. Andrew Keen, author of The Cult of the Amateur, thinks that the Internet is belittling truth and diminishing quality. The first few chapters of Keen’s book explain how he feels the Internet is allowing so many amateurs to post reviews and opinions that the professional’s opinions get lost in the mess. However, Keen commits certain fallacies that weaken or undermine his arguments against the points in this paper. Keen begins by talking about the negative side of blogging and the Internet using neutral terms, however he soon converts his word choice to negative words such as calling the bloggers and programmers “monkeys” (Keen 15). In this he is committing the Shifting Terms Fallacy. Keen is using degrading words such as monkeys to bring down the readers opinion of the people he is attacking. It is not actually dealing with the issues, but instead he is simply breaking down any ethos they may have had. Keen also states that, “What the Web 2.0 revolution is really delivering is superficial observations of the world around us rather than deep analysis, shrill opinion rather than considered judgment” (Keen 16). This is an example of the fallacy that Keen commits many times in his arguments. He is committing the Begging the Question Fallacy because he is arguing that reviews and posts made by amateurs are shallow and uninformed compared to the professional’s views. He is basing this proof on something that is very subjective. This is also a good example of Keen committing the Stereotyping Fallacy because he is declaring that all amateur’s opinions are weaker and less-intelligible that true critics without basing it off any large sample of the population. Keen is declaring the inferiority of amateurs’ opinions and knowledge without anything to back up his argument.

            As the Internet has transformed different movie or food sites have popped up that deal with the difference between critical reviews and user reviews. The most notable one is the website Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes has two ways of grading a movie, shown by two separate one hundred percent rating scales. One is an average rating of all professional critics while the other is an average of anyone who wants to write in a rating on the site. The site shows that people care about amateurs’ views just as much, if not more than the critics’ opinions. The majority of big movies on the site have more amateur reviews, resulting is a more fair and average score, than critics. The large amount of users that take the time to write a review and score the film proves how much people not only enjoy reviewing the movies but also how many people use the user reviews. For many movies the scores from the critics and the amateurs are similar. The result is that people do not need both groups of reviewers when they are getting the same results. Plus, since commonly the amateurs outnumber the critics, if there is a slight difference the viewer score is more accurate.

An article called “Rotten Tomatoes: A Good Pick for Movie Reviews” by Gary M. Stern discusses the website and the difference in reviewers.  Stern writes for Information Today, Inc., which is a publisher of magazines and books geared towards libraries. The article states that some movies may get a very different score between the different groups. The article quotes an editor of the Rotten Tomato site stating, “‘A lot of critics analyze movies from an artistic perspective’” and “’If there’s a movie you really want to see, go see it – regardless of what the critics say’” (Stern). The editor of the website believes that many critics are not looking at how entertaining or good the movie is and instead are focusing more on the artistic quality the film portrays. The editor sees that when the critics and viewers are very different that the public tends to find the amateurs’ reviews more real and helpful. Rotten Tomatoes provides both types of reviewers but when there are disagreements about the quality and enjoyment of a movie the public sides with the amateurs’ reviews. This is a great example of how the Internet and amateur critics are removing the need for professionals.

The reason these amateurs can take over the job of reviewing movies and restaurants from critics is because of the passion they possess. Critics clearly enjoy whatever they are reviewing or they would not do the job. However, amateurs are not getting paid or even much recognition for what they are posting. These amateurs are taking time after their jobs and families to review and spread their ideas about something they enjoy. This devotion and enjoyment will create better, more real reviews and responses than a paid professional would. In 2006 TIME magazine gave their Person of the Year award to You. In “You – Yes, You – Are TIME’S Person of the Year”, by Lev Grossman, Grossman insists that the drive and dedication that everyday people have to create, make and review online is the reason everyone on the Internet is their Person of the Year. The award did not go to a professional; in fact it went to exactly the opposite, to the amateurs. TIME felt that these amateurs were growing so much in importance that they needed to be recognized because with the Internet, these people are driven by something so much to be able to spread their love and problems with something like a movie. Since there are people like that and a platform to spread their message there is no need for people, who often don’t have the same devotion, to be paid to do the same thing.

            I am one of those devoted people that enjoy writing and debating about my favorite film or even just a recent movie. Another thing that makes the amateur writers a better system than the professional critics is the connectedness of all the people online. I can comment on a review someone has posted because I disagree with their opinion and they can respond, defending their reasoning. This is not a possibility with Roger Ebert or any professional writer. They are not truly out of contact but they are not as accessible for discussions as a blogger. This allows many people to post and debate and gives a better indication of the true quality of a film. The more people that input their opinion, the more accurate and helpful it will be. The same can be said for sites like Amazon, which allows every member to post their own review of any product, including movies. Amazon has a five star rating system and each reviewer can give a rating and their reasoning. This allows readers to get a more through of the product they are about to buy. When reading a critic’s review there is always the risk that they may have alternative reasons for giving it a good or bad review. However, sites like Amazon overcome this problem since each person can review. This way anyone who may have a less than honorable motives will be covered up by all the users who can give a more accurate description. It results in a more truthful and therefore trustworthy method than a singular critic. Amazon has used the Internet to create a better shopping environment because amateurs are able to provide insight and more accurate reviews that can only come from countless people.

            The Internet is decreasing the need for paid professionals who will only provide a single view, for the sum of opinions of an Internet full of amateurs. It opens the door to a more through understanding of how good or enjoyable something is instead of trusting one person who may not even be looking for the same qualities. Amateurs give opinions that are closer to what the average person is looking for and by averaging many of these reviews a more truthful rating can be found. The Internet allows a person to review a movie, debate it with many people and produce a better understanding of what type of experience the movie or product provided. All the way from grade school to now, the availability of countless reviews and opinions will always trump a single viewpoint, professional or not.

Works Cited

Amazon.com, Web. 27 Nov. 2011.

Grossman, Lev. “You – Yes, You – Are TIME’s Person of the Year” TIME Magazine U.S. n.p. 25 Dec. 2006. Web. 27 Nov. 2011.

Keen, Andrew. The Cult of the Amateur New York: Doubleday, 2007. Print.

RottenTomatoes.com, Web. 27 Nov. 2011.

Stern, Gary. “Rotten Tomatoes: A Good Pick For Movie Reviews.” Link Up Digital. n.p. 15 Nov. 2011. Web. 27 Nov. 2011.

Essay 3: How to Construct a Tentpole

         Movie companies have come a long way since the movie industry began. Now they are huge businesses and like any good business they need to make money. Since not every movie makes a profit, the major production companies have to have certain films that they know will bring in a huge haul allowing them to risk some money on other projects. Such movies are called Tentpole films. The issue that is arising with these Tentpole films is whether it is the story or the visual spectacle that is bringing in the fans. On one side there is the argument, most commonly made by those in the business, that these Tentpole movies should not concern themselves with the story nearly as much as the visual aspects of the film, because the visual effects are what people will pay money to see. However, the majority of movie fans agree that a really great film should be able to balance both an entertaining story and some beautiful images.  Many arguments, mainly centering on appeals to logos, are made to support the idea that even Tentpole movies should have a good story. One article, entitled “Disney Exec Says Tentpole Movies are About Spectacle, Not Story. Is He Right?” by Angie Han, attacks a speech given by Disney Executive Andy Hendrickson. Hendrickson believes that Tentpole films should not focus on story because people pay the high prices of the movie theatres to see visual spectacle. Han uses examples of story-driven blockbuster movies to back up her arguments as to why she believes that this is an incorrect idea. The second article, “Staked to Cash-cow Tentpoles, Hollywood Has Little Need to Look Back” by Elizabeth Guider, explains why the movie business is heading towards Tentpole films that are only about money and not about story. Both these articles use similar appeals but are also prone to committing the simillar fallacies.

            Neither of the two articles have very many appeals to pathos. Guider uses only one emotional phrase when she discusses how sad it is that the same people who grew up on “story-led films and will say that they fell in love with these movies” (Guider) are now greenlighting movies with no coherent plot at all. Guider uses this emotional appeal because she knows that her audience of movie lovers will feel sentimental about the movies they grew up with and they will be emotionally led to agree with her. This is a value proof type of appeal to pathos because Guider is using what the audience will value, good quality movies, to strengthen the argument. Guider’s article appears in the Hollywood Reporter which is a movie magazine and website that draws in the most audience in both males and females of 18-49 years, being stronger in the older females. However, the biggest factor in audience is that people who read this are people who enjoy reading about movies and therefore, probably love watching movies. Guider uses the emotion of enjoyment or happiness when relating back to older films and their strong use of plot. There are other times in the article where emotion is used in the background, such as when Guider talks about blockbuster movies and why America has always loved them. She hopes the readers will feel the same emotion of nostalgia about the old movies and enjoyment of the new, but these arguments are not direct appeals to pathos. Han’s article also has background emotional parts but no true appeals to pathos. A few of her arguments contain small appeals to pathos because she talks about how irritated some people may be at Hendrickson downplaying the role of story, something that Han points out, is very important to the audience of this site. The audience of the /Film website is also strongest in ages 18-49, although on this site it is much stronger in males, probably due to the site’s focus on science fiction. The audience is, however, also people who love movies and therefore want them to be the best they can.

            Due to the lack of appeals to pathos neither of the writers’ ethos are affected by extreme or misplaced emotions. Thus, both authors are able to use their ethos to strengthen their articles. Han is a member of the site’s community of posters and for people who visit the site regularly, she is probably a recognizable name. She also does a very through job of analyzing Hendrickson’s claims and directing her arguments with her audience in mind, both of which increase her ethos. She also makes appeals to ethos when she compares herself to the audience in how much she enjoys watching movies. This is an appeal to the personal experience type of ethos because she is trying to prove that she knows about movies because she enjoys watching them just like those who read the site. It is also a one-of-us appeal because she is aligning herself with the audience since people more easily trust people who are like them. Guider does not ever make these appeals to ethos in the text; however, she has more ethos than Han due to her writing experience. By simply exploring the Hollywood Reporter website it can be discovered that Guider has won multiple different writing awards while working for them and holds a high level position in the company. This information is not expressed directly in the article but is most likely known to people who frequent the site or magazine. Han expresses exactly why she knows what she is talking about and Guider has the experience as a writer to prove her ethos.

            Both articles make arguments that appeal to logos. Han’s biggest argument is centered on a list of the top 25 grossing movies. Han makes an appeal to logos by showing the facts of what movies have made the most money and how many of those actually are story-driven. This is an argument from statistics because it uses the quantitative values the movies have earned as proof that they are examples of the Tentpole movies that Han is writing about. She carries out the argument nicely as she uses examples such as Star Wars and Titanic that are not only loved by millions but that also have strong stories at the core. This shows that past examples have proven that story is something that can be a major factor in a movie’s success. Guider also references a few big name films to aid in her appeals to logos. She discusses how much money The Dark Knight (which had not been released to theaters at the time of this article) is estimated to make and how superhero movies are the big moneymaker right now. Guider argues, however, that unless these movies have more than just beautiful effects then the fad will die off and Hollywood will have to find the next subject for Tentpole films. She uses past examples, like Han, to show how movies without an entertaining story can make a large amount of money but will not stay as big as long and may not inspire as much interest down the sequel line.

            Guider also makes the argument that it may be impossible for Tentpole films to be very heavy in story. The article takes a little bit of a turn here to focus on why films seem to have been going the way of spectacle. Guider focuses on the audience that movie companies are now gearing the movies towards, “14-year-old boys” (Guider). She states that most Tentpole films are being based off of graphic novels, and on top of the ever-advancing technology, the visual effects are what can be done the best with the source material. These are arguments from induction, a type of appeal to logos, because she is taking a number of examples from today’s movies and drawing a conclusion. The conclusion is that the target audience, material and technology is causing it to be very difficult for a story-centered film like Citizen Kane or Rosemary’s Baby to be made. She declares that even the very successful Hollywood legend Warren Beatty “probably couldn’t get a movie made in today’s film climate” (Guider). She is reasoning from her earlier conclusion to a specific example about Warren Beatty, which is called an argument from deduction. She goes much farther than Han on what the future of movies may hold because Han simply concludes that movies should be able to contain both story and visual wonder.

            Both writers focus on a few strong arguments that appeal to logos but some of these arguments commit fallacies and that not only lessens the weight of the argument but it also decreases their ethos. Han commits the begging the question fallacy when she uses examples of movies that she considers to be largely story-based. While the use of specific examples is a good technique to make a strong argument, this use begs the question of the determining factors of a story-driven versus a spectacle movie. The evidence is very subjective, and while her examples are well known and may not receive disagreement from most readers, the argument is still weakened by this fallacy. Guider, however, commits different fallacies in her argument about where movies are headed due to their audience, technology and source material. First she commits the false dilemma fallacy by breaking down the controversy into only two choices. She limits the options to movies that are only story-driven or movies that have basically no story at all. She completely ignores the possibility that even though the audience wants more action or effects that they may want an entertaining story too. She also commits the slippery slope fallacy when she talks about how hard, or even impossible it would be to get a story-driven movie, like the older ones, made in today’s culture. This is slippery slope because the first part of the argument is weakened by another fallacy and this takes that part and then leaps to grand conclusions without explaining. There is no proof or even reasoning why technology and the audience would eventually lead to it being impossible to make movies with a story. This argument is completely broken down by fallacies even though some of the points may be true.

            Both writers, Han and Guider, focus primarily on arguments that appeal to logos, which is mostly due to the subject matter. Movies are something that everyone enjoys but there are not very many strong emotions that could be called on by an appeal to pathos. Also in this day of the internet, having a good ethos on movie knowledge does not take a degree or job, it is more about how well the writer argues. The audience is more likely to look at the comments section to see if others think the person knows what they are writing about to determine how much ethos they carry than to find out what degree they have. For a debate about movies and money, logos is simply the best appeal to make. Yet, the fallacies that occur in both papers are also logic fallacies. Han commits her fallacy because she uses examples for the subject that could be subjective. The examples come from a reputable source and Han makes the argument because she believes the audience will be movies lovers that will agree with her. However, this fallacy opens up the chance for someone on the opposite side of the argument to be able to attack this point and it therefore, weakens the argument. Guider commits her fallacies because she plays into the fear that movies will have to go to one of the extremes when there could easily be a compromise in terms of story and spectacle. She believes that her older readership are going to be worried about where movies are headed these days and will therefore, go along with her reasoning. The fallacies are not a surprise for such logic heavy articles and the writers still both make some convincing points in the debate of Tentpole films.

Work Cited

Guider, Elizabeth. “Staked to Cash-cow Tentpoles, Hollywood Has Little Need to Look Back” Hollywood Reporter – International Edition 405.37 18 Jul. 2008: 42-42. Print.

Han, Angie. “Disney Exec Says Tentpole Movies are About Spectacle, Not Story. Is He Right?” /Film. n.p., 17 August 2011. Web.  25 September 2011.

Netvibes

This is a link to my Netvibes account! It is a pretty useful tool for having everything in one place.

http://www.netvibes.com/christianoldham

Mindmap

Essay 2: Spectacle, Story, or Both

           Technology is ever advancing and this increase in special effects could be damaging the movie industry. This progress centers on the visual aspect of the film, making movies more and more of a feast for the eyes. However, the story may be suffering for it. Slash Film (written /Film.com) is a website that blogs about different happenings in the entertainment industry such as casting news, reviews and interviews. The site is very popular, doing the best in the 18-49 male demographic, and is aimed at big movie fans. The site mostly posts updates, reviews and general information about science fiction and blockbuster movies. Recently, Angie Han, a writer for the site, posted an article about whether movies should concern themselves more with spectacle or story. The article is titled “Disney Exec Says Tentpole Movies are About Spectacle, Not Story. Is He Right?” Han writes a coverage and reaction to a presentation by the Walt Disney Animation Studios’ Chief Technical Officer Andy Hendrickson. In his talk he discussed the idea that the biggest movies only draw in the fans because of visual spectacle, not because of the story. Han outlines his presentation about the decreasing amount of people attending each movie and about the importance of Tentpole movies. However, she counters his idea, using arguments of pathos, ethos, and logos, that these movies should only focus on the spectacle in order to make money.

            Han starts out with a rundown of Hendrickson’s presentation. She defines a Tentpole film as a movie that the company can rely on to make a substantial profit so they can put money into other riskier films. Han goes on to say that the main point of Hendrickson’s presentation was that Tentpole films should focus only on the spectacle because he believes it is what draws in moviegoers. However, Han is quick to point out that his assertion is, “story doesn’t matter, only spectacle does.” She argues that the readers of this site, herself included, are going to have a problem with that because it downgrades one of the most important aspects of a movie. Her argument is one of logos because she states why her readers are going to have a problem with an idea like that. She also does a good job of connecting with the audience by calling them “cinephiles” and including them in her argument. The arguments contains small appeals to pathos because she talks about how irritated some people may be at Hendrickson downplaying the role of story, something that Han points out, is very important to the audience of this site.

            Han has some ethos to readers of the site because she is constantly updating the site with her posts. At the beginning of the article the audience does not know her credentials or even how much she really knows about the subject matter, and therefore, her ethos is a little low. Yet, the site carries its own ethos as a site that can be trusted to deliver accurate information and so as a writer for the site she gains some ethos. Her analysis of Hendrickson is very through and she does a good job of directing her arguments with her audience in mind. She also makes appeals to ethos when she compares herself multiple times with the audience as a major movie fan. This gives the audience an idea of who she is and why they might listen to her arguments, making her ethos a prominent factor by the end of the article. 

There is a strong appeal to logos near the latter half of the article concerning previous Tentpole movies and whether they use spectacle over story. The writer of the post has a chart from Box Office Mojo that shows the top 25 grossing movies of all time (not adjusted for inflation), which she address in her argument. Han argues that while some movies on the list were all about spectacle (Transformers: Dark of the Moon) many of the top movies (such as Titanic and Toy Story 3) have good stories. The appeal to logos could work very well as long as the readers agree that the latter category of movies truly have good stories. The argument is at the mercy of people’s opinions and therefore could make people who disagree with the quality of those movies completely dismiss it. The argument could also hold a little bit of an appeal to pathos when concerning movies that people love, such as Star Wars IV. Big fans of these movies would probably side with the position that declares that their favorite movie consists of something more respectable than just visual effects. Since most of the audience loves stories, the appeals to pathos concerning the idea that Hendrickson is insisting that many of the biggest movies of all time are nothing more than a spectacle is probably insulting to many people reading the post. Han again brings the arguments back around to the audience, strengthening her article.

The article is written in an ordered, through way that resonates strongly with the audience of the site Slash Film. Han uses the appeals to pathos, ethos and logos but focuses most of her arguments in logic. Her ethos grows as the article goes along and she slips in appeals to pathos in many of her logos arguments. Her appeals to logos are mostly very strong and well aimed at the site’s readers. Some of her logical statements are at risk of alienating some of the audience because of the reliance on people sharing her opinion. However, the opinion is backed up with examples that are agreed upon. The article always does a good job of knowing who the readership is and staying focused on the audience. Han holds movies to a higher standard and her article gives a through set of arguments and appeals as to why she believes movies can contain both a solid, moving story and visually impressive effects.

Work Cited

Han, Angie. “Disney Exec Says Tentpole Movies are About Spectacle, Not Story. Is He Right?” /Film. n.p., 17 August 2011. Web.  25 September 2011.

The Final Piece - My Web Identity

For my final blog post on this platform I look to my own web identity. This blog, first of all is for a class and therefore does not convey all of myself. This simply shows my truthful reactions to questions and prompts provide to me. Overall, I believe this blog shows a positive presence. My other areas in the Internet include Facebook, Amazon and the various movie blogs I comment on. Facebook certainly provides a more complete look at me as my friends also provide information about me. This keeps me from sugarcoating everything about me to appear better. With conversations, pictures and information sections Facebook is a large part of my presence in cyberspace and I think it is also a good one. I am not on Facebook as much right now as my posting slows down a lot during the school year. This is mainly due to a lack of time and the fact that I see a lot of my friends in person so there is no need to talk with them online.

However, even Facebook does not show a total look at me as it just shows my public image. My Amazon profile can tell you about what I like to buy and therefore some personal things about my interests. Amazon would tell you I buy a ton of movie memorabilia and merchandise along with the movies and soundtracks themselves. This would certainly give a better idea about how much I enjoy movies and what some of my favorites are since many of my purchases center around LOST, Pirates of the Caribbean and The Dark Knight. Going along with this my presence as a commenter on many movie blogs also gives some insight into me. It would show how I could get intense when debating about something I care about. Yet, it would also show that I never loose my temper, as I would rather sign offline before I say something I will later regret. My overall web identity is pretty positive I believe and I hope I can keep it that way because the Internet is forever!

SALMON! Response

So I checked through most of my classmates' blogs and many people had very interesting things to say and post, however, this post made me laugh and so I wanted to write about SALMON! First of all, I will say that I have never heard of this commercial but I found it very clever and funny. However you make some good points that the commercial does not address issues about the actual product. I do believe they are insisting that it is fresh and it is good quality so that is why people should buy it but they never say any of that directly. It is a very funny commercial and while I do not like salmon I agree that this commercial makes we want to buy from them.

The Mr. Bundle Affair

At first, while reading A Rape in Cyberspace I had the idea that online rape would not be as big of an issue as the article was going to make it out to be. however, I will say that I was surprised how much what it called online rape appeared to be cyber bullying. The case of Mr. Bundle making it appear as though the players in the virtual reality were committing acts of a sexual nature could easily be seen as bullying. It really hurt people because even online people become very interested in their reputation and keeping their characters the way they want. For something to happen to them against their will and to allow everyone else on the site to be able to see them is very much act of bullying. A big thing for the people on the site was to try and “toad” the player, which is to remove the player completely from the virtual site and erase their character. This was something that could be seen as the equality of banishing someone from a community. It eventually happened and the site eventually developed a set of rules that allowed punishments to be delt out to members who deserved it. I believe it is a real issue because it is very much a type of bullying that should not be tolerated online or anywhere. While it is not at the same level of real rape it is something that hurts people emotionally and could lead to those people being scarred in real life.

Avatar (sans blue skin!)

My Yahoo Avatar

My Yahoo avatar is something I created a while ago when I noticed that people would message me. I have not used it in quite some time but I feel that it still represents me pretty well. I created it simply to show some of the things I like or am interested in so people get an idea who I am if they are messaging me or doing something else on Yahoo.

First the guy is a thing, male with brown, slightly un-kept hair in a casual button-up shirt and cargo pants. This is a pretty decent description of me so as the most personal part of the avatar it fits well its intention of letting people know about me. The background is a movie theater, which is meant to cover the fact that I love movies . . . and TV . . . and just about any form of entertainment. He used to be reading a book but when I changed the background I thought it would be weird to read a book in a movie theater. The things around me are really the only things I could find that I felt was worth mentioning about my personality. I have a cat because I have a cat and I enjoy watching all those funny cat videos online with my girlfriend. I have a bag of ‘zombie chow’ and a strangely happy robot to show some of my favorite genera of movies. The ‘zombie chow’ represents horror, more directly zombie flicks, while the robot represents science fiction in general. Those images are really just icons that I hope people might see what I was trying to say with them in the picture.

This is obviously not everything about me but for something like yahoo where I just want to have something representing some of my personality I believe this guy does the trick!

Don't bother Googling me. . . unless you want some art!

Sorry for the "later than normal" update. I had a big paper due for honors seminar and I completely forgot! :(

On to the actual article:

(Screenshot of my Google search of me, set against the backdrop of LOST!)

I can honestly say I have never Googled myself before. I have heard of people doing it but it is never anything that occurred to me while I was online. Upon doing the search I discovered how much more common my last name was. I am only on the list one time, near the bottom of the first page, and you have to click into the site before you can find me. The site is a white pages site and I am the sixth name down however, the address they have me listed under is not even the correct address.

The list mostly consists of a few other Christian Oldhams that apparently have more of a presence on the Internet than I do. If someone was looking online for information about me they could not find anything on the first page except an incorrect address. These other COs seem to be mostly artists. There are at least two painters (one paints in watercolor and the other using computer painting techniques). Plus there is a few Facebook pages but none of them are mine.

I wish I showed up on the list at all as far as a Facebook page or some other account I hold online. I guess I do not do enough where I actually use my real name for the first Google page to pick me up. I have searched quite a few pages in and still there is nothing that pertains solely to me. However, apparently my name is spawns good art cause there was many more sculptures and music recorders that I found. Granted, I have never heard of any of them so maybe their art is not so good after all! :P

The poster that always shares too much

Facebook is a great place to connect with people and post things for people to read. However, sometimes things do not need to be shared. Anyone who has a Facebook has certain kinds of posts they hate. Some people don’t like the posting of song lyrics or quotes. Others hate it when people post about absolutely nothing. I, personally, am not a big fan of the posts that ask everyone else to post the same thing on their profile. These kinds of posts can be very frustrating but sometimes people will just post too much and it can make you feel awkward or even appalled at the person.

It is surprising sometimes the things that people are willing to tell the world. There are people like that that will say just about anything about their or other’s personal lives. Most of the times this has a negative effect on how people view them. These posts, especially when they are often occurrences, make people seem very whinny and eventually everything they post will be seen as extreme pathos because they are making public such emotional things that either do not need to be public or are not important enough to warrant a post at all.

There can be times when a very emotional post can actually define a person in a  positive light. These are times when something is truly worth a emotional response but not too personal that it comes across as weird, such as when people post about an animal or member of there family being hurt or when someone is trying to provide support to someone else. However, these are normally the types of posts that are very rare because if extreme pathos posts are a norm for a person then people will begin just blocking or ignoring everything that person says. It is ok to share some personal information or have lots of pathos in a posts but it is the number of times that a person does this that defines them.

Rally Fallacy

Facebook is a great place to find funny images or post from friends. Most of the pictures I find really funny are comics that friends have found around the internet. These images can sometimes tie into what we were just discussing in English: Argument Fallacies. This image is a great comic about two such fallacies. The comic actually points out the two fallacies that are being committed by the cheerleader

The first is the fallacy of Ad Hominem, which is a personal attack against an opponent to divert attention away from the real issue. The cheerleader is declaring that their school, Lakeview High, is the best, implying that the other school, North High, is worse than they are. This is used to rally the Lakeview school about how good they are but instead just compares them to another school. The attack is used instead of rallying the school about its own accomplishments.

The second, more prominent argument fallacy is Begging the Question, which is when the argument begs the question about the determining factors. This mainly occurs when the evidence behind the claim is subjective. The crowd points this fallacy out to the cheerleader by giving her examples of people from the other school doing really great things. They notice that she has nothing but opinion to back up her claim and they question how she can truly say they are better.

There is also the possibility that the crowd is making a fallacy in their argument. They may be committing a Hasty Generalization because they are using a sample population of only a few people to make assumptions about the whole school. Lakeview may indeed be better, even if there are a few good people on their team. The comic is a very funny look at something as common as a school rally and how even then fallacies can be committed.

12 Angry Men, 2 Great Arguments

If you are looking for a movie that demonstrates great arguments look no further than 12 Angry Men. The movie is filled with ethos, pathos and logo. Here are two scenes for 12 Angry Men that show such arguments.

The first scene shows the older man, Juror 9, answering to the fact that he changed his vote to not guilty. As he states, he actually still believes that the kid probably is guilty but he respects that Juror 8 is standing up to the other men. Juror 9 wants to hear more about why Juror 8 thinks they should not vote guilty because 8 has bravely gone against everyone to talk about the case and not simply vote guilty. A person would not stand to this kind of ridicule if they did not have a good reason. ("I respect his motives" - Juror 9 about 8) This shows that 9 has changed his mind due to his respect of Juror 8's ethos. However there is probably some pathos involved in that to as he seems to feel that if this man is willing to fight for a fair trial for the boy that he should help too. The old man also projects ethos, being the oldest (implied wisdom) member of the jury.

The second clip shows an argument about how a switchblade knife would be used. The argument is made by Juror 5, a man who grew up in the slums. His argument is logos based but it also carries the weight of 5's ethos as someone from the slums (just like the kid on trial) and as someone who knows a lot about switchblade knifes. The argument sways quite a few jurors as a result because of both the logos about how to hold a knife like that and how it would be used to stab someone in the heat of the moment, supported by the ethos of the person arguing it.

The Influence of Technology and Information

After creating an Infosphere I was surprised how many sites and inputs of information I receive, many on a daily basis. Technology, primarily the Internet, is a huge factor in my life and has a large influence on my identity. For the most part the sites that comprise my Infosphere either help me stay in contact with others or inform me of news. I feel that I have a pretty even split of sites that sustain my views and ideas and others that challenge them. However, I am sure that this is a very biased view and in truth, there are probably more sites that I will agree with in my Infosphere. However, I am constantly learning more about the topics that my sites cover, such as news and movie information.

            I feel like I am attached to my technological devices such as my computer or phone because I have a huge amount of personal information stored on them. My computer is especially a major possession for me. I also treat my phone very well and I like to find a good case for it, something that expresses me so that when I use it I can show it off. However, I would say that while these may have influences on my identity, the information gleamed from them is a much larger factor. I get excited or enjoy talking about something that I just learned from a site or just saw on a video, not about my computer or phone. These are simply devices that enable me to be constantly connected and therefore constantly updated on the world around me.

Attempting Social Site Ethos

Social networking sites like Facebook are built to allow people to communicate with friends; post photos and meets new friends with similar interests. However, one danger is that on a site people are not always who they say they are and it is tough to know sometimes who to trust. The question is whether it is possible to build ethos, or credibility, about who you are. This goes beyond just being who you say you are, it includes people believing you when you post things and being able to trust you.

First is making sure people can believe you are the person you say you are. This is normally pretty easy and sites like facebook can help with that by such things as the “mutual friends.” Most likely if you have 20 or more friends in common with a person then they are probably who they say they are or someone should have noticed by now.

Second is trying to establish that you know about something that you want people to be able to trust you on. Social sites are all about posting and commenting and so you want people to know that when you post about something you are not just making stuff up. Sometimes the info section of your profile can make this appeal to ethos. I am a friend with the Horn Prof. on facebook and her info section says that she is the Horn Prof. at the college so if she posts something about French Horns or music I know that what she posted is credible. Most other appeals to ethos take time such as other people agreeing with you enough of something or posting things over and over that continue to be correct. Ethos is something that is tough to build on social sites.

In Ben Agger’s Words

        The first chapter of Ben Agger’s The Virtual Self: A Contemporary Sociology acts as an overview of the book and as an introduction to some of the main ideas that Agger will discuss. The title of the first chapter is “Everyday life in Our Wired World” and Agger argues that the new level of interconnectivity that people experience everyday, primarily through the Internet, is forcing us to adjust our view of society. He begins by talking about the virtual self, which he describes as “the person connected to the world and to others through electronic means such as the Internet, television, and cell phones” (1). Agger declares that he is going to try and push sociology beyond its borders to discuss self, society and culture in this new age. Agger believes that self is most important, and that sociology must deal with what he calls “the worldliness of selves – their ability to go anywhere/anytime, their saturation with popular culture, their penchant for travel, their tendency to change jobs, spouses, their bodies” (4). Agger points out that sociology is changing and this change is most concerned with self and social structure in this interconnected time.

        Agger notes that while many things are still the same since he grew up in the sixties, such as careers, divorces, and watching television, there are glaring differences primarily around the pressure and constant businesses pushed on kids.  Agger declares that he has “skepticism about the potential of new information technologies” (11). He points out that technology and affluence have not freed people from work; instead people have busier lives, larger debts and more pressure. He points out how the wired world is “compressing time and leaving people scattered and restless” (19). While Agger outlines some beneficial things that technology can do, such as spreading education or recreating a public sphere for people to be contribute to, he focuses more on the downsides it could cause. The main one that Agger details is the fact that the information superhighway could discipline people, effectively removing their free will. Agger discusses that idea that “to consume and conform have become ‘second nature,’ not exposed to clear thought and careful consideration but operating at an unconscious level” (14). Agger discusses that people need to develop practical reason, allowing them to accomplish things even in the face of uncertainty, as a key to living in the wired world. Agger does not believe he has very good practical reason but also argues that the way.

Agger talks about the different themes of sociology by examining how people live their everyday lives to see how technology is affecting it. First, he looks at how structures like culture, family, government and the economy impact peoples’ lives. Agger argues, citing a phenomenologist named Husserl, that everyday life is a huge collection of experiences that are more powerful that theoretical experiences. He states that people do not focus on the familiar thing is our lives but instead on the new experiences. This is known as the natural attitude. According to Agger, “philosophy needs to perceive things from the vantage of the natural attitude, thus learning from people’s ordinary experiences of the world” (27). Agger discusses the different types of government that control us and that he  feels it is simply the impermanence of capitalism. He argues that it has only survived this long because “it is preferable, more practical system and because socialism has proven to be a dismal failure” (24). Agger discusses the different views of Marx and Weber on what was the main cause(s) for how a person’s life would be. Agger argues that Weber’s three dimensional model, containing class, status and party, allowed him to go deeper into how things like salary, prestige and political affiliation could affect people’s lives then Marx’s unidimensional model, which only centered around class.

Agger wraps up his first chapter discussing what will come in later chapters in his book, namely some new models of sociology that the current study could evolve towards. Agger also discusses why other models like positivism, which he describes as the use of the scientific method to discover truths in sociology may not be the direction to go. He points out that, overall, the Internet and all new connectivity technology is simultaneously making life harder and easier at the same time. Agger argues that we have “access to more information and stimulation than ever before in history, and yet that most people are less well educated than their counterparts a generation ago” (39). He drives home the point that this ability of society to have more information and yet less use of it is the reason sociology is having to change and it is a direct outcome of this new age. Agger believes that this wired world people live in today is changing many, if not all, parts of society and therefore sociology has to change along with it.

Work Cited

Agger, Ben. “Everyday Life in Our Wired World” The Virtual Self: a Contemporary Sociology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2004. 1-41. Print.

The Most Over-the-Top Man in the World

(Video from YouTube)

The basic argument of the Most Interesting man in the World commercials is to buy Dos Equis beer. The implication of the commercial is that this guy is everything a guy would want to be and that the only beer he drinks is Dos Equis, therefore if you were to drink it you would be that much more amazing. The target audience is probably males that can drink. the pathos that the commercial uses is comedy and comparing thier drink to ideas of grandeur and awesomeness. At the very least the commercial should make the audience laugh and when they see the beer in the store or think of what drink they want to buy they will remember that commercial and the hilariousness of it and want to buy that beer. most likely no one actually thinks that by drinking Dos Equis they will actually be able to do any of the stuff the commercial talks about, but by pairing the drink with something so desirable as The Most Interesting man in the World the audience will want to have something that relates them to that idea. The commercial also shows a man who can not only do all these awesome things but who is also very happy, living a great life, held in high esteem and surrounded by people. These are all things that common people search and desire for and the idea, no matter how silly or outlandish, that a beer could bring any of this to you is at least a draw to buy the drink.

Not Quite Futurama's Infosphere

In Futurama the Infosphere is a Death Star-esque space station that stores all of the information about the universe. However, the creatures (giant flying brains) that built the Infosphere set it to destroy the universe once it has collected all the information so no new info arises. Fortunately for us, the term infosphere is used to describe something much less sinister . . . at least for now!

Michael Vlahos argues that the definition of the Infosphere is a culmination of all the worlds databases, networks and any other source of information. He goes so far as to describe it as an ecology, a place, not physical but just as powerful, where people do and will increasingly gather to do business, learn or simply be social. I like this relation of the Infosphere to an ecology. In that sense, each person's personal infosphere as a niche in the ecological system. This means that within the huge Infosphere structure each person has a small area that they work and play within. Just like in nature, some niches have many organisms residing in it, all competing for the resources, or in this case, information and attention.

I am thankful that Vlahos' definition of the Infosphere does not intend to kill us. As I am currently trying to outline my personal infosphere for project 2 it is interesting to see where some of my interests really lie and how much information I really take in everyday. The biggest source of that information seems to be the internet. Vlahos states that he thinks the "Infosphere has the potential to gather all people and all knowledge together in one place" While I do believe the Infosphere is a "vehicle of change" I do not know that the internet is the final and best Infosphere. I think right now it is the best we have but looking at my personal infosphere I do not see the internet ever being able to store all the personal interactions people have, I believe we are just too complex for the Infosphere's current incarnation.

On the upside, the internet is not planning to destroy the universe anytime soon! :)

The Perfect Writing Environment

Writing is definitely something I have to be psyched to do if I want to do a good job. A big part of this is the environment that I write in. I can write anywhere but my favorite place to write is at a desk on my computer. I have a desktop so it kinda limits my options of how easily I can move it or where I can take it, but that is ok because if I sit somewhere too comfortable, like a bed or couch, I will not concentrate. As for my surroundings I cannot have too much noise because other conversations or dialogue easily distracts my brain. However, I do enjoy having instrumental music on. I like classical and jazz but my favorite is soundtrack music. I love movies and sometimes the music from the right film cannot only push me to work but also inspire great ideas. As someone who has over 1000 soundtrack songs I can always find something that will keep me focused and motivate me. 

The other big factor in motivation and focus is the time I write. Now, of course, I can write anytime but I really feel the best about my writing when I am working on it late at night. Anywhere from around 10 at night to 3 or 4 in the morning seems to be when I can really knuckle down and produce some of my best work. I will commonly wait to write until late even if the paper or project is not due for a while simply because I get less distracted and I seem to think more clearly. Food has always served as a distraction for me when writing and while I may have something to drink, like a Dr. Pepper, I do not like to eat while I write. I actually like to use a snack as motivation for a break if I get a certain amount done. When I can write late at night, like right now, at my computer with some soundtrack music playing (in this case it is Sherlock Holmes by Hans Zimmer) I am mentally at home and the writing process can take over. 

Everyone is Yelling, No One is Listening

The Web 2.0 is certainly not all good and for an opposing view to the previous post I look to Andrew Keen and the first chapter of his book The Cult of the Amateur. Overall Andrew Keen argues that the new version of the internet is destroying our trust in information and lowering the quality of the products that develop from it. His argument is an argument of cause. The first chapter centers around how the anonymity of the Web 2.0 allows people to publish lies and parade them around as the truth. This causes a severe loss of trust in anything you read on the internet because there are no editors or fact checking before something is pushed into cyberspace. The effect is that truth has become more of something that is decided upon by the majority instead of a true fact. On top of this the ease of copy and paste on the internet has slimmed creativity and caused a lack of ownership on ideas and products on Web 2.0.

The first chapter eludes that much of how the new version of the internet is actually doing all the opposite things that it says it will do. The hope was to expand creativity and truth but instead it smothers them. Keen  has many arguments of evaluation that go over how many of the movies, art, music, and writings that we now see all over the internet are not near as good as the creations we used to see. The new web has allowed amateurs to steal away the eyeballs of people from professionals and businesses.

Keen also had an argument of fact when he discusses that there is no longer a true audience, that instead of a group of creators / publishers and an inactive group of watchers / readers there is only one group of constantly interactive participants. Keen describes this as a flattening of our culture. In some ways it can be good to have everyone function as an active part of the machine, but the fact that everyone is yelling their version of the truth on the internet means that there is not really anyone listening.  And if no one is listening, what is the point?

Web 2.0

Annually Time Magazine puts out an article about their pick for Person of the Year. This can be anyone who Time feels has made a huge difference on the world and in 2006 the choice was us! More accurately, it is what we as a worldwide population have done on the internet. "We're looking at an explosion of productivity and innovation, and it's just getting started, as millions of minds that would otherwise have drowned in obscurity get backhauled into the global intellectual economy." The productivity and innovation is happening all over the internet, creativity and facts running rampant. Never before has there been a stage where so many people can be heard. I agree that this Web 2.0, as some call it, is a huge advantage to the common person. Grossman talks about how companies are able to hold contests to design new products and how some are even challenged by the ability for everyday people to create a better product. 
This argument of facts had a very positive overall look on what the internet is capable of creating and becoming. I feel like the negative aspects of this new creation are not something that will ever go away. People will always have negative comments and abuse the power of the Web 2.0 simply to hurt other people. I do not like the idea that it is akin to an experiment that can fail. I believe it is a tool, a way for people to do great things but that can also fall into the wrong hands. I do not think the Web will ever fail, I simply think it will evolve and improve. 
I like the way the article read to me; it felt like it was almost sentimental, as though he was talking about something he had had a very direct hand in creating. Maybe in some ways he wants us to all feel this way. The Web 2.0 is, after all, a creation that allows anyone to point to and say "I helped make that what it is today."