To be honest, I'm not fond of mythology, but it has been quite an experience. Creating a myth was thus far difficult for me to do. It's like you have to logically explain things to make sense of everything. When I created the Darrel and the Falcon story, I had to do some research on the falcon, what it symbolizes, and so on. I even had to do some research on the timeline to create the Darrel character. Matter of fact, there has been a Deaf person in the account during the biblical times, but I wanted to do something that may be related to real-life experiences. The only thing that might seem less rational about the relationship between Darrel and the falcon is the communication between the human being and the bird. Sure, birds can get angry and dive over one's head, but they would never create a wind that strong to push Darrel a bit. But, you know... anything's possible. :-)
As for enhancing the study of myth, I think one of the most dangerous tools to debunk mythologies is trying to link the history in a very logical way that it makes it almost impossible to say, "This can't be." History itself tends to be recorded, but are they considered facts? You can consider them facts when you have evidence. This is why research plays a crucial role in the English department. When one of the students finds something in the mythology that seems out of whack, well, someone's going to say, "See? It's just a story." Can we make mythology a fact? I believe the answer to be "yes." I do believe there is something out there that we cannot really explain. As we try to challenge the English department to go beyond farther than just reading about mythology, we are trying to look for something to back up our logic reasoning. In a way, we're creating mythology to see how much critical thinking have been used in the field.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Similarities and differences between writing about poetry and writing it
Sorry this came really late. I mistakenly thought this was due on the 13th. My bad. Better late than never.
Writing poetry is something personal, in my humble opinion. I don't think anybody can write a poem as discretely as they can. Maybe they do. But the only time I could ever let go of my personal biases by writing a poem was the first time I wrote a poem because I never understood it completely. I was 16 years old. My English teacher used his signing hands hoping that we would understand poetry. So, I tried making sense of the poem by only focusing on the words from the dictionary. All he wanted for us to do is make a story out of it. I was just too busy focusing on the words trying to figure out if it was making any sense to my classmates then turn it in. I never really connected to it, however.
As soon as I grew older, I realize the benefits of poetry after my cat died. Funny it might sound, but it hit me on the spot where I had to scratch that itch. It bugged the hell out of me. So, I wrote my very first poem, spontaneously, filling the paper with my emotions. Ever since, and every time I lay my pen on a paper, it's a "connection" ready to be made. This is why I said it's something personal.
Writing about it, on the other hand, forces me to remove my personal biases and lenses. It's a bit of a challenge because I'm automatically assuming what's in between the lines. We can't always assume why the poet wrote his or her piece. What's more important is we have the tools to deconstruct the poem to make an educated guess about what really is going on behind the writing. For instance, how can I ask George Meredith why in the world did he wrote "Lucifer in Starlight"? Even if he was alive, he might say, "It's how you look at it as. Whatever floats your boat." This is something we probably mostly hate, but at the same time, I think this is what we should cherish the most because we'd look like jackasses for making a wrong assumption if the poet says, "Wrong, it's about...." This is why in today's world, we rely heavily on the tools of poetry to do some analysis to talk about it with other people. And this is why defamiliarization, to me, is important... this means we must keep an open mind.
Writing poetry is something personal, in my humble opinion. I don't think anybody can write a poem as discretely as they can. Maybe they do. But the only time I could ever let go of my personal biases by writing a poem was the first time I wrote a poem because I never understood it completely. I was 16 years old. My English teacher used his signing hands hoping that we would understand poetry. So, I tried making sense of the poem by only focusing on the words from the dictionary. All he wanted for us to do is make a story out of it. I was just too busy focusing on the words trying to figure out if it was making any sense to my classmates then turn it in. I never really connected to it, however.
As soon as I grew older, I realize the benefits of poetry after my cat died. Funny it might sound, but it hit me on the spot where I had to scratch that itch. It bugged the hell out of me. So, I wrote my very first poem, spontaneously, filling the paper with my emotions. Ever since, and every time I lay my pen on a paper, it's a "connection" ready to be made. This is why I said it's something personal.
Writing about it, on the other hand, forces me to remove my personal biases and lenses. It's a bit of a challenge because I'm automatically assuming what's in between the lines. We can't always assume why the poet wrote his or her piece. What's more important is we have the tools to deconstruct the poem to make an educated guess about what really is going on behind the writing. For instance, how can I ask George Meredith why in the world did he wrote "Lucifer in Starlight"? Even if he was alive, he might say, "It's how you look at it as. Whatever floats your boat." This is something we probably mostly hate, but at the same time, I think this is what we should cherish the most because we'd look like jackasses for making a wrong assumption if the poet says, "Wrong, it's about...." This is why in today's world, we rely heavily on the tools of poetry to do some analysis to talk about it with other people. And this is why defamiliarization, to me, is important... this means we must keep an open mind.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Introduction
My name is Casey R. Weber. I am Deaf. I'm a senior with a double major in English and Deaf Studies because I want to become an English teacher for Deaf high school children. I will be graduating in spring 2010. I'm the eldest of my siblings in the family. I was born and raised in Orange County, California. I look forward to learning from not only from Professor Kent Baxter but also from you, my fellow classmates, as I know you have a lot to share with us as potential teachers of tomorrow. :-)
Answering the questions from our first homework prompt:
1) What role you feel media technology should play in teaching, at any level?
The media is extremely influential in teaching our children--as well as adults--in various levels. For example, George Veditz, a very well-known Deaf advocate for American Sign Language (ASL) rights, filmed himself in 1913 via ASL. He expressed that ASL is "God's noblest gift," and "as long as we have Deaf people, there will be sign language." This triggered the Deaf community to speak up for their rights, but simultaneously--with precise knowledge in regards to history of oppression--they kept their cool.
Until 1960, William Stokoe, an ASL linguist, broke down the linguistic properties of ASL. He discovered that ASL had various linguistic elements in the same level as English. Thus, countless videos, pictures, and even books were made to celebrate the "discovery" of our language in its entirety. We are also getting vlogs--known as "video blogs"--so the Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing can sign to the camera to those who read vlogs.
More and more Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing people began to realize the value of the Deaf culture. Countless debates were triggered especially in regards to how we should educate our Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing children. In today's world, it is very complex due to controversies ranging from whether children should have cochlear implants to how audism--a term simply meaning that the hearing people think Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing people are a problem within the general society--is influential in the society as a whole.
2) Have you witnessed any particularly effective or ineffective uses of media technology as a student?
I took many classes via WebCT. In one instance, I had a professor who signed the lecture in a podcast while I was at home in comfort. To be honest, I questioned the effectiveness of this type of media technology in terms of responsibility. I preferred to come to class (maybe because I'm old-fashioned) because this helped me to work hard for what I have earned.
Now, if there is much comfort, will it stimulate my learning process? If so, how much will I be able to learn from this? If I were to sit on a hard, uncomfortable chair and desk at a school taking notes of the same lecture, does it really stimulate how I learn? The answer directs me to this: it depends on how motivated you are. In addition, I personally think the media world is working too hard for us students. In my humble opinion, I think it is our responsibility to decide what's best for us to stimulate our learning experience in terms of media technology.
Answering the questions from our first homework prompt:
1) What role you feel media technology should play in teaching, at any level?
The media is extremely influential in teaching our children--as well as adults--in various levels. For example, George Veditz, a very well-known Deaf advocate for American Sign Language (ASL) rights, filmed himself in 1913 via ASL. He expressed that ASL is "God's noblest gift," and "as long as we have Deaf people, there will be sign language." This triggered the Deaf community to speak up for their rights, but simultaneously--with precise knowledge in regards to history of oppression--they kept their cool.
Until 1960, William Stokoe, an ASL linguist, broke down the linguistic properties of ASL. He discovered that ASL had various linguistic elements in the same level as English. Thus, countless videos, pictures, and even books were made to celebrate the "discovery" of our language in its entirety. We are also getting vlogs--known as "video blogs"--so the Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing can sign to the camera to those who read vlogs.
More and more Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing people began to realize the value of the Deaf culture. Countless debates were triggered especially in regards to how we should educate our Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing children. In today's world, it is very complex due to controversies ranging from whether children should have cochlear implants to how audism--a term simply meaning that the hearing people think Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing people are a problem within the general society--is influential in the society as a whole.
2) Have you witnessed any particularly effective or ineffective uses of media technology as a student?
I took many classes via WebCT. In one instance, I had a professor who signed the lecture in a podcast while I was at home in comfort. To be honest, I questioned the effectiveness of this type of media technology in terms of responsibility. I preferred to come to class (maybe because I'm old-fashioned) because this helped me to work hard for what I have earned.
Now, if there is much comfort, will it stimulate my learning process? If so, how much will I be able to learn from this? If I were to sit on a hard, uncomfortable chair and desk at a school taking notes of the same lecture, does it really stimulate how I learn? The answer directs me to this: it depends on how motivated you are. In addition, I personally think the media world is working too hard for us students. In my humble opinion, I think it is our responsibility to decide what's best for us to stimulate our learning experience in terms of media technology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
