U2 - No Line on the Horizon

It's been a while since I've written an album review; there just hasn't been a whole lot released lately that I've been genuinely interested in.

When I heard U2 had a new one hitting the stands, I was excited for one reason:

New album = World Tour.

(Which, if you haven't taken a glance at the column on the right, would enable me to check "See U2 in concert" off on my Bucket List.)

OK, now to the review.

I wasn't too interested in hearing the new album--for Pete's sake I wasn't even aware it was released this week, ..nor did I know "No Line on the Horizon" was the title. I was sitting in class yesterday when a friend of mine pointed proudly to the screen of his MacBookPro, "Look what I got. It came out on Tuesday." He had listened to it once through (which is how it's supposed to be done, people) and then listened to a few songs here and there. Overall it sounded like he thought it was one of those albums that grows on you after a few listens.

My friend bought the digital album on Amazon for $3.99, so I decided I'd have to try it out. Why not? I grabbed my Sony headphones, flipped on the noise-cancelling switch and sunk into the couch to take a ride out to "The Horizon." (Okay, that was cheesey.)

"No Line On The Horizon" was as boring as its album cover.

There was nothing to it, no substance, no golden moments. It was flat. Stale. It was Boring. Plain. Unoriginal. Did I say it cost $3.99? I had to use every ounce of self restraint not to skip through every track on the first listen.

With the exception of the second-to-last track, "Breathe", there were no guitar solos. Bridges barely existed on this album. When songs are 5 and 7 minutes long, ideally there is a bit of contrast somewhere. But there was nothing. The intros were long and gave me anxiety. Not only did Bono pull out the talking-but-sorta-singing act (which drives me nuts), he pulled lyrics out from where the sun don't shine. And I don't know if this is just me, but I felt as though Bono's ego was so oversized you could actually hear it.

I get the feeling this one was overworked, overproduced and maybe...just maybe, they tried too hard to be mainstream. You'd think after 11 studio albums, U2 wouldn't feel the need to impress anyone--just make your music, man!

DTC 355 - Clarity-Brevity-Sincerity

The C-B-S model, clarity-brevity-sincerity, represents clear, truthful, and to-the-point communication. This theory of human communication was, at first, a difficult concept to grasp. I might have been thrown off by how unrealistically it represented the communication I've experienced; but then I read on. Lanham goes on to explain that the C-B-S model may be a great theory to recognize, but it is “less useful in practice" (140).

I fully agree with Lanham on this point. The C-B-S model can be an accurate model for a small amount of communication, but I think the majority of human communication leans more on the side of rhetoric; rhetoric being the way in which we conduct an argument. The fact that this model exists, just helps us recognize what rhetoric is and how we utilize style and argument to communicate because we have something to compare it to. Humans do not communicate with full clarity, with full brevity, nor with full sincerity. Lanham points out that his theory "leaves out much of what it sets out to explain--human behavior. And if it does not work as a theory of behavior, still less does it work as a theory of expression" (Lanham 141).

People, sometimes unfortunately, don't always tend to speak with utmost brevity. Personally, it is just against my nature to not have descriptive words flying around. My friends tell me I am the worst story-teller they know. I tend to include the most unnecessary details that usually have nothing to do with the storyline. So I like to paint the whole picture? "Get to the point!" they tell me.

In any case, the C-B-S model model may be a great theory, but it doesn't work too well in practice. I am sure there are cases where it works, but the majority of humans generally have a bit of style, a few extra words here and there, and perhaps not the whole truth in their use of everyday language.



Works Cited

Lanham, Richard A.. The Economics of Attention: Style and Substance in the Age of Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006. 130-156.

DTC 355 - Burbules and Links (are cool)

First and foremost, (after reflecting for a minute on Burbules and links), I would like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the reading. I have never thought about links in the way Burbules presents them, and I think now I am able to further develop my website to incorporate some of these ideas. There is a lot more to links than just moving from A to B!

Links conceal and reveal exactly what the link is pointing to. When you have a link on a page, the link is hiding the destination. When the link is clicked on, the destination is, or should be, uncovered. In some situations, certain links may be more concealing of what they'll reveal than others. Burbules identifies eight different types of links in "Rhetorics of the Web", one of these being Catechresis. Catechresis as a type of link is where "any two things can be linked" (Burbules 116). For example, a link placed on the word "hippo" could take you to a website for trees. This is how some links can be more concealing than others.

Catechresis is the most concealing of the types of links Burbules identifies. One located further up the scale could be a metonymic link. Metonymy is "substituting the name of an attribute or feature for the name of the thing itself" (Metonymy). An example of a metonymic link could be an image of a crown or the typed word "crown" as a link to a website about the kings of France.

Burbules did a fantastic job of making the me think about links in a different way. Next time I click on a link or create my own, I will consider the type of link it is and think about how it could be different or why the designer/author might have chosen that particular method of linking.



Works Cited

Burbules, Nicholas C.. "Rhetorics of the Web: hyperreading and critical literacy." Page to Screen: Taking literacy into the electronic era. Ed. Ilana Snyder. London: Routledge.

"Metonymy." WordNet. 2006. Princeton University. 1 Mar 2009 http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=metonymy.

DTC 355 - The Power of Capital Letters... and Punctuation, with a bit of Goffman too.

a. Solomon, Punctuation, and Capitalization
Just as punctuation marks "[move] words along in proper timing and with proper emphasis" (Solomon 289), capital letters have the ability to add tone of voice and importance to words. When thinking of capitalization, some people may think of correctly capitalizing the name of a person or place, the first letter of a sentence, or certain words in a title. When I think of capitalization, I think of words or phrases that are all in capitals. These words or phrases have affect, are a part of design, and may enhance or decrease readability. For example, IF I WERE TO WRITE THIS BLOG IN ALL CAPS, YOU WOULD PROBABLY BECOME RATHER IRRITATED AND GIVE UP. Because I capitalized this sentence, all voice and flow is lost--even with the punctuation. The tone of voice, however, is loud and obnoxious. The format greatly decreases readability--readability being the ease at which the reader can move through the words. Much of reading is not all in the combination and order of the letters, but also in the shape of the word. If you noticed when you read the above capitalized sentence, you probably read it with a bit of choppiness and monotone. This is because your eyes must pause an extra split-second to gather all of the information (the letters) in each word. Furthermore, the capitalization of the first letter of a word brings concreteness and importance to something.

In regards to a new punctuation mark, I believe that all the punctuation marks we need, exist. I am fully able to express myself and add voice to my writing through the use of the available punctuation. I can ask a question, scream using exclamations and capital letters, create an awkward ...pause, and perhaps (create sidenotes or clarification). What more could I need?


b. Goffman and GenderAds
According to Goffman, there are many ways in which social weight is illustrated through advertisements. The women smile the majority of the time while the men are usually serious; men are usually depicted as bigger, taller, stronger than women; the women are nuzzlers by nature; and, women's hands are often used in presenting products (Goffman 28-80).

In advertising today, these many qualities can be found. In the Cheerios pictures below, nuzzling and smiling by the woman are two apparent Goffman-identified qualites. The man in the family picture on the right is barely smiling and he is also slightly separated from the mother and children, which can be read as the head of the family or, the security figure.

Go to http://www.cheerios.com/ to view this image at a larger size.

As the roles of men and women have begun to merge or mix and match, advertisements are still following qualities that Goffman has identified. Men are still depicted as security for women, the power in the room. This is not always necessarily true, even in Goffman's time. However, the principle of size is and status of a person is. Whether the viewer admits it or not, the relative sizing in advertisements always means something--the bigger the better.

In advertising today, many of the same qualities that Goffman identified are still present.

Works Cited

Goffman, Erving. Gender Adverstisements. Harper Torchbooks,

Solomon, Martin. "The Power of Punctuation." Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World: A Critical Sourcebook. Ed. Carolyn Handa. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2004.

DTC 355 - This is my embarrassing story

My name is Katy and this is my embarrassing story:

Just about everyone I know has been through an awkward stage. (Some still haven’t come out of theirs, but that is an entirely different story.) My awkward stage had a full mouth of metal, frizzy hair, and an embarrassing lunchbox.

Now that you have a nice visual of the main character, let’s dive into the pathetic puddle of my embarrassing story.

During middle school, my growing years, I ate some rather large breakfasts. On this particular morning I ate three bowls of milk with honey nut cheerios. I know that sounds backwards, but I like my milk and I like a lot of it. In any case, I brushed my teeth and headed downstairs to wait by the door for my friend and her mother to pick me up. We were going to go see a movie together!

As I tied my left shoe, I heard a honking from the driveway—Robin’s mother always honked when she arrived. I opened the front door and breathed in the refreshing winter air, “Bye Mom!” I yelled, skipping off the porch towards Robin’s car.

Once we hit the road, all three of us were cracking jokes and laughing up a storm. The Bell family is gifted with humor; they have a way of making anyone and everyone laugh, no matter the setting. My favorite moments are usually when one of them is doing an impression or speaking in a silly voice.

We were too early for the movie to wait in the theatre, so Mrs. Bell decided to buy the tickets and then take us on some errands she needed to run. We went across the way to a hardware store, down the street to a drugstore and then a few blocks over to REI where Mrs. Bell had an item to return. For this errand, Robin and I sat in the Jeep because it wouldn’t take too long. Besides, we were having too much fun being silly in the car.

We laughed and laughed until our stomachs hurt. There would be a moment of silence, and then we would look at each other and burst back into laughter for no reason at all.

At one point the car became quiet and I said to Robin, “I have to pee.”

Again, we busted up laughing. Here and there I would snort and the laughing cascaded further. We laughed until the only sound coming out of our mouths was the air leaving our lungs.

“Ah! I have to pee!” I yelled, crossing my legs as tight as I could to hold it in, my bladder about to burst.

“Go inside to the R-E-I baa—b-b-baaathroom! Ha ha!” Robin could barely speak.

As Mrs. Bell opened the door to the car, I jumped out of fright and immediately felt my legs heated with, well, you know. Needless to say, a little puddle formed on the leather seats.

“Mom! Look! She peed her p-pa-paaants! Ha ha!”

Mrs. Bell might have been more frightened than I was. Ready to cry, I hopped off the seat as she found a spare towel in the trunk to wipe up my mess. Because we had already bought the movie tickets and show time was in 10 minutes, Mrs. Bell wouldn’t take me home to get a change of clothes. Instead, she walked me to a store called LimitedToo. If you are unaware of this store, you should be thankful—the sight of it as a not-so-girly-middle-schooler made me pretend I was about to throw-up every time I saw it. There are far too many hearts and flowers, and far too much pink for anyone’s sanity.

Mrs. Bell hurried into the store while I wobbled like a penguin and Robin giggled behind me. Mrs. Bell was on a mission to find a cheap pair of underwear and some pants to replace my smelly, wet, and not to mention, uncomfortable ones.

To my dismay, the only pair of pants left in my size were hot pink. I could deal with the pink underwear, but pink pants? Mrs. Bell, come on!

Mrs. Bell paid for my new pants and underwear while explaining to the cashier that I wet my pants and would need to use the dressing room to change into the purchased clothing.

I left the store embarrassed for what I had done, and embarrassed that I had to be wearing those awful pants for the rest of the day.

And that’s why you should always go potty after eating three bowls of milk for breakfast.

DTC 355 - Foss and myself on rhetoric

Rhetoric, as defined by Foss in Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric, is "the human use of symbols to communicate" (1). Foss further describes each of the important terms in this definition to elaborate on the meaning. Because I find the word human not needing an explanation, I will skip right to symbols.

Symbols are everywhere. They are letters, numbers, shapes and pictures. A simple hieroglyphic character is a symbol. The grouping and ordering of these symbols are what gives them meaning; sometimes symbols standing alone have a meaning in themselves as well. This grouping of symbols is the part of rhetoric that is doing the communicating. Foss describes communication just as another word for rhetoric; however, he states, some professionals would disagree (4). I, on the other hand, would have to agree with Foss.

When it comes to defining rhetoric, the first term that occurs to me is infact, communication. Not only is rhetoric communication, but the style of which this communication is being conveyed. The rhetoric I use on a day-to-day basis, for example, would include symbols grouped to create words like "dude", "awesome". Though there are definitely exceptions, this rhetoric is generally used by a younger population. While I studied abroad in Florence, Italy last semester, the rhetoric I used there was completely different than what I use now. In Italy, depending on who I was speaking to, my rhetoric would include simple words and phrases in English, or simple words and phrases in Italian. While speaking with locals I would have to speak slowly picking and choosing my words wisely to be sure there would not be any misunderstanding from my style of communication. When writing an email to my mother or a professor, the rhetoric I use will be very different.

In every situation, every person may use a different style of rhetoric. The above mentioned are only a few that I might use on a day-to-day basis, excluding Italy of course because I am no longer there. Rhetoric is our use of symbols to communicate in every way.

"The art of using language, especially public speaking, as a means to persuade" (Rhetoric).

"The style of writing, the art of composition such that the
written piece comes to serve a particular purpose, whether descriptive,
persuasive, or interpretive" (Glossary).

Works Cited

Foss, Sonja K., Karen A. Foss, and Robert Trapp. Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. 3rd. Waveland Press.

"Glossary from the New Interpreter’s Study Bible ." 21 Jan 2009 <www.philosophy-religion.org/bible/glossary_new-interpreters-bible.htm>.

"Rhetoric." Wiktionary. 21 Jan 2009 <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rhetoric>.

I'm back!

After my fantastic semester abroad, I will be switching back to this blog to post for a class I am taking at WSU called Media Authoring. You will essentially be reading my homework assignments!