When I first signed up to take this class, I knew it was going to be a class about how technology had changed our lives. I was just wrong about the type of technology we would be talking about. In my mind, we would be discussing the expansive internet, the inner-workings of the computer, and the ever secretive instant messages. However, the first day of class my hopes were dashed when I found out that we would not be discussing technology in the form of computers. It was even better; we were discussing language as a development of technology. Language is a vital development in technology because it has helped us develop our communication and given us a means to voice our emotions. There is always the question, though, of what changes you have to go through in order to communication through different mediums.

In my essay, there weren’t too many places where I would change what I would have written to my friend versus what I had written to my mother. I say that just because I believe that’s the way I am with everybody. I understand, however, that events may have to be changed in order to preserve the message and also to make certain items clearer in different mediums of communications. For instance, it is very hard to accurately describe facial twitches in a book because a person cannot actually see them. Instead, it is easier for a facial twitch to be portrayed in a movie, where the audience can see the image and it is easier for them to interpret the meaning. At the same level, though, I would argue that you are able to include more information into your story. Movie directors have “learned” that the public will only sit still for a movie or play for 2 hours or just a little bit more time; whereas, a book can stretch on from 10 pages to 1000 pages.

I would describe myself as a construct character because while I have included mostly true details of me, there is always a part of me that wants to embellish to make myself look better to other people. As an example, I really wanted to portray the image that I didn’t want to be at Stadium in my letters. I never really went into much detail about how much I danced that night and what type of dancing I did. I decided to do this because it didn’t fit the way I wanted to portray myself. Including how much I had danced would have weakened my point. Also, I probably overestimated the feelings that I had. I really spoke out against how much I didn’t want to be there, but now when I look at it, I find myself wondering if there really was a part of me that really wanted to go. Perhaps I wanted to be more accepted by my peers, by those of my age rather than older students. Also, there is one story that I decided to leave out because I value the friendship more than writing about what I did for her. It was the really the whole reason that I went to Stadium, but I felt that to retell the story would be a grievous mistake on my part. It would have been me propping myself up when I really didn’t do too much.

There are many different views on whom or what writes a character, but in my view there are two things that matter: the first is that you write the character, and the second is that you must keep in mind the other answers listed in the question in the prompt. It is important that you write the character because that is the only way that you impart the meaning that you want people to get out of the story. Also, like the theme for this essay, for each medium you will have to change the writing of yourself many times in order to get the correct “you” across to your audience. I say that you must also consider the other answers because you must change your writing style in order to portray yourself the way you want. Like the facial twitch example used earlier, you must include all aspects of thought into your writing because you are not only writing for you. While many authors have said that they began writing because it was a release for them, you must take into account the audience and the medium especially. It may be a release for them, but they must also write it to sell books. James Frey, the author of A Million Little Pieces, admitted that he lied about many of the details in his book in order to make it more appealing to consumers.

Writing is an extremely difficult trade because one must take into account all the changes that must be made in order to create your story through a different medium. Images that cannot be “seen” very well through a book may come through clearly on the movie screen, and vice versa. A writer must also consider the mood and expectations of the audience. Imaging me as a construct character is something that I had never thought of before, but I really think it describes a lot of characters. We are always looking for a way to keep ourselves above others, a way to portray ourselves in a positive light. One must always keep in mind their audience because the audience is what will make or break your work.

1. My narrative doesn't really change from the way I describe it to my mother and then to my friend. However, I can see where the thought is here. Many people would describe the event in different detail to their friend then they would their parent. Perhaps they left out an important detail in their parent's version, and then embellished the fact in their friend's version. Like I said before, I don't see a big change in my account from mother to friend, but I would say the thing that most changed was that I took a little bit of a harsher tone on my friends when sending the letter to my friend than I did with my mother.

2. A published account differs from a letter because you are expected to behave differently in each. A letter is something that is shared between a group of friends, where as a published account has the possibility of becoming public. In a letter, you feel free to let things out that you wouldn't say in a published account because you know that the chance of the letter coming into the public domain is considerably less. Also, a published account must be written to a more formal audience than a letter, because of the massive amounts of people that would read it.

3. I don't think that the "you" described in each of my letters is different. As I said in question 1, my tone and the basic elements of my letter did not change when I wrote the second one. I am still the same man in each of them. What did change, however, was my description of the other people. I was worse on them when talking to my friend Chris than I was when talking with my mom.

It has been a while since I have seen “The Wizard of Oz,” but with the examples given in the assignment, I think that I can determine the structure of the yellow brick road analogy, or at least build something close enough to resemble it. It seems that the “yellow brick road” resembles a path or journey that one takes in order to achieve a higher goal that they have in mind. Many of these start with a plight, or the problem that one would like to be able to solve or change. Usually, this is written as the introduction to the book. The next section will most likely be a planning stage. The main character in a “Wizard of Oz” sort of movie always takes the time to plan their moves. The character is seen as an intellectual who takes planning to the extreme. After the planning stage, the next move is to confront the villain or the problem. Known as the conflict, this part of the story is where the most action and dialogue should happen. Exchanges between the protagonist and antagonist are crucial to the elements of the story. In the case of “The Wizard of Ox,” Dorothy is recruited to help the Tin Man, Scarecrow, and Lion. Finally, the last part of the story is the resolution. Ending the story is important because without an end, your audience cannot completely appreciate your work. It might be interesting to leave them hanging and draw their own conclusions, but many people only look at concrete conclusions and may not be expecting something out of the blue. “The Wizard of Oz” can be looked at as a spiritual journey, and the “yellow brick road” is a simile for the path that you take in your mind; only the “yellow brick road” is that path set out in 3-D. I believe that it would be easy to take biographies for people like you see on Oprah, because that is really what her show is about. They talk about the problem, set up possible solutions, then show the conflict and talk about resolutions that were made. For the most part, biographies of people are talking about the problems and challenges that they face as a leader or celebrity and how they overcame them. So yes, I think it would be incredibly easy to fit many biographies in the mold of “The Wizard of Oz.”

The second question this assignment poses is very interesting. There have been times that I have found myself totally engrossed in a television program or movie, to the point where I start believing everything in it and reacting to it. Then, on the complete opposite spectrum, there have been movies out there that I watched for 10 minutes, thought were completely empty, and changed the channel. I think that “going to the land of Oz” could be a metaphor for going to that special place where you zone out during a movie, television episodes, or while reading a book. In “The Wizard of Oz” Dorothy is knocked unconscious and has a dream, so she never really had a choice of whether to become engrossed in her dream or not, but in our lives, we have the choice: do we want the movie to be able to take us away from our life? Television is many people’s escape from reality. As much as I like this escape, I really think that “The Wizard of Oz” is trying to tell us that by trying to ignore the problems that we face in real life, we actually create more problems than we solve. All the people involved in the production were trying to open our eyes and help us realize that fact. As much as I enjoy being led astray by the television, I realize that it is not helpful to anything in my life. I am not going to be watching an episode of “Full House” and suddenly realize that “oh my, this is what I need to do for love.” Television and movies mostly provide improper solutions to real world problems. Often, the solution will be reached through “magical” means, as in some way that really would never happen in the real world. While it is nice to let your self be sucked in by a great movie, you have to realize that it is not reality—so don’t use it to solve your problems.

When Christians speak of the theory of creation, they oftentimes include that god created each human being is made the same way, but includes different looks and qualities. When humans create robots however, they are not able to reach that same level of individuality. In Isaac Asimov’s book The Caves of Steel, the Earthmen believe that all robots are the same: hard, metallic bodies with a limited thinking capacity. Officer Baley never takes into account that his partner, R. Daneel Olivaw could look like a human. On their first meeting, Baley remarks, “It’s just, you see, that you don’t look like a robot (25).” Though Olivaw may look like an Earthman, he is not able to perform the most necessary of human functions, such as chewing and smiling. “Yes, I can perform the mechanical operations of chewing and swallowing. My capacity is, of course, quite limited, and I would have to remove the ingested material from what you might call my stomach sooner or later” (138) he informs Baley; a page later, on 139, Olivaw, responding to Baley’s question about whether he can smile, attempts it but can only move its mouth. The rest of the face does not follow suit.

While many of the people in New York City are still in the dark that there is a humanistic looking robot among them, the common theme is that they would not react well. Asimov writes frequently in The Caves of Steel about a group called “the Medievalists,” which highly oppose the induction of robots. City-dwellers, too, resent the robots: “Even with the cooperation of the Terrestrial government and most of the various City governments, resistance has been continuous and progress has been very slow (60).” Mary Shelley and Isaac Asimov provide opposite viewpoints, one thing is similar. Both authors have proved that humans are always looking to be the next big creator, the makers of the next human race. Invariably, they always fail, in Shelley’s case because the monster was not nurtured by Frankenstein and in Asimov’s case because they tried to replicate humans to a “T.” While it is theoretically best to make a robot like humans, practically it is not possible.

Tank, a robot-receptionist at Carnegie Mellon University, provides the answer for what we need for human communication. “Turn the robot into a soap opera,” said his creator, Reid Simmons. “The longest running shows on television, they’re all soap operas. I mean, they just keep going on for years and years and years,” he continued. Simmons is saying, in effect, that in order to communicate, people need to be able to make statements that are able to be responded to, or that ask for the other person’s opinion or thoughts. For example, if one were to ask what Tank thinks of Simmons, Tank would reply “Dr. Reid is my boss…I don’t know him very well yet. Don’t you think he has shifty eyes? And, what’s up with that hair?” This gives the user a chance to respond and agree or disagree with Tank, therefore making the user feel like his or her opinion mattered. While I think that Tank does respond as a human would, some of the times he responds it is incidental and you cannot read too much into it.

Occasionally, I do send emoticons (emotive pictures) when I use instant messengers. However, I send them for a single reason—sometimes, without that smiley face a person wouldn’t know whether I was being sincere or sarcastic. It is nearly impossible to communicate with intention or emotions, as that would be a very bland life and not encourage communication between people. Finally, I believe that I would be able to work alongside Olivaw, as I am very open minded about new technologies and am always happy when I have the chance to further my knowledge of them.

Humans and Robots

When Christians speak of the theory of creation, they oftentimes include that god created each human being is made the same way, but includes different looks and qualities. When humans create robots however, they are not able to reach that same level of individuality. In Isaac Asimov’s book The Caves of Steel, the Earthmen believe that all robots are the same: hard, metallic bodies with a limited thinking capacity. Officer Baley never takes into account that his partner, R. Daneel Olivaw could look like a human. On their first meeting, Baley remarks, “It’s just, you see, that you don’t look like a robot (25).” Though Olivaw may look like an Earthman, he is not able to perform the most necessary of human functions, such as chewing and smiling. “Yes, I can perform the mechanical operations of chewing and swallowing. My capacity is, of course, quite limited, and I would have to remove the ingested material from what you might call my stomach sooner or later” (138) he informs Baley; a page later, on 139, Olivaw, responding to Baley’s question about whether he can smile, attempts it but can only move its mouth. The rest of the face does not follow suit.

While many of the people in New York City are still in the dark that there is a humanistic looking robot among them, the common theme is that they would not react well. Asimov writes frequently in The Caves of Steel about a group called “the Medievalists,” which highly oppose the induction of robots. City-dwellers, too, resent the robots: “Even with the cooperation of the Terrestrial government and most of the various City governments, resistance has been continuous and progress has been very slow (60).” Mary Shelley and Isaac Asimov provide opposite viewpoints, one thing is similar. Both authors have proved that humans are always looking to be the next big creator, the makers of the next human race. Invariably, they always fail, in Shelley’s case because the monster was not nurtured by Frankenstein and in Asimov’s case because they tried to replicate humans to a “T.” While it is theoretically best to make a robot like humans, practically it is not possible.

Tank, a robot-receptionist at Carnegie Mellon University, provides the answer for what we need for human communication. “Turn the robot into a soap opera,” said his creator, Reid Simmons. “The longest running shows on television, they’re all soap operas. I mean, they just keep going on for years and years and years,” he continued. Simmons is saying, in effect, that in order to communicate, people need to be able to make statements that are able to be responded to, or that ask for the other person’s opinion or thoughts. For example, if one were to ask what Tank thinks of Simmons, Tank would reply “Dr. Reid is my boss…I don’t know him very well yet. Don’t you think he has shifty eyes? And, what’s up with that hair?” This gives the user a chance to respond and agree or disagree with Tank, therefore making the user feel like his or her opinion mattered. While I think that Tank does respond as a human would, some of the times he responds it is incidental and you cannot read too much into it.

Occasionally, I do send emoticons (emotive pictures) when I use instant messengers. However, I send them for a single reason—sometimes, without that smiley face a person wouldn’t know whether I was being sincere or sarcastic. It is nearly impossible to communicate with intention or emotions, as that would be a very bland life and not encourage communication between people. Finally, I believe that I would be able to work alongside Olivaw, as I am very open minded about new technologies and am always happy when I have the chance to further my knowledge of them.