1. The reading by Walter J. Ong titled, “Some Psychodynamics of Orality,” explains the differences between written cultures and oral cultures. Coming from a written culture, it can be hard to even imagine storytelling or fact sharing orally. However, Ong insists that oral storytelling can be very powerful and time-lapsing. With that being said, Version II of “Sundiata” gives us an example of powerful storytelling. We start off by reading Version I which is the written story of Sundiata. In this written version we are able to understand the story more due to excessive details in setting the plot up. We are able to have a feel for the characters, setting, and emotions through the words being wrote. Because we are so used to this kind of storytelling, it made sense for us and we are able to create a picture. On the other hand, Version II tells the story orally through song. In an oral culture, this version is much more easy to understand and brings the audience back in time.

One way Version II does this is through repetition. The story repeats important information to give it that effect of imagery and life-like storytelling. For example, a line that is often repeated is,

“And upwards he drew himself”

“And upwards he drew himself.”

I think that this kind of repetition is placed there for a reason. In Ong’s text he explains that oral storytelling is all about technique. This technique is often practiced and memorized by a “griot” or a storyteller/poet. The way the griot tells these stories involves technique and I can argue that the main technique in “Sundiata” is repetition. Ong argues that oral storytelling can sometimes be repetitive and I agree. However, it sort of has to be repetitive so that the information in these stories sticks with the audience and they will be able to visually understand what is going on. I think that repetition is key in oral storytelling because as humans, we are so preoccupied with other thoughts, stories, facts, etc. Having a story or line drilled into our heads allows us to better understand and better remember so that we may pass that story along.

In conclusion, I think that “Sundiata” was a perfect example of an oral culture sharing stories and re-living the past, even if that past is hundreds or thousands of years ago. Ong makes many great points and claims that convey this as well. I think that Ong’s favored take is ultimately with writing.

2. One claim that I found interesting in Young & Sullivan’s article is an argument by James Britton. Britton believes that, “writing is a means for developing important intellectual abilities, including the ability to speak effectively” (Young & Sullivan 216). I agree with this claim because I believe that writing is an intellectual act within itself. Writing requires us to access all parts of our brains and formulate our thoughts in an organized way. Anyone can talk and tell a story, but not everyone can effectively write. Further, I would imagine it would be hard to orally tell a story without the image of words or proper grammar in mind.

1. I particularly enjoyed the article “Is the Internet Making Writing Better” because I, too, hold the same beliefs as Waldman and McCulloch. Waldman suggests that writing abilities are ultimately improving due to heavy online writing presence and the use of online writing language. If not for all the freedom and platforms that the internet provides, people would have no practice with writing. As mentioned, in the past the only practice people had with writing were if they were writing letters or working at a corporate job. Now, people have much more freedom to write endless ideas, beliefs, facts, etc. I agree that our generation is much more knowledgeable with all forms of writing and that it is making our communication efforts much easier.
2. The two articles by McNamee and Tufecki were very interesting reads. Unlike Thompson, their views of the internet and social platforms is shown in a negative light. McNamee and Tufecki think of these online empires as unproductive and distracting. Both of these writers mentioned the use of advertising and money as the end goal for sites like YouTube and Facebook. Although this may be true, I also think that we as consumers are not being completely taken over by these platforms. I agree that they have access to a lot of personal information, however, they also provide entertainment and connections that we knowingly sign up for.

A. In Thompson’s article, “Public Thinking,” I think that it is apparent that he thinks of online writing or blogging as eye-opening and worth the effort. He uses the term “public thinking” in a positive connotation, ultimately arguing that it improves memory, connections, and other cognitive abilities. Overall, it can be inferred that Thompson sees the best in online or public communication and thinking. Furthermore, in Thompson’s article, “I’m So Totally, Digitally Connected To You,” he shares many examples and quotes from students who were using Facebook at the time of the “News Feed” change. A big concern for the Facebook users at this time was privacy. They felt that their right to privacy was being taken with the development of the News Feed. Despite the students’ fears, it can be concluded that Thompson was in favor of this change. He acknowledges the change in privacy, but also provides positive information on the change.

B. A claim from “Public Thinking” that I can identify with would be the idea of “audience effect” (Thompson 54). I can agree that completing a task or publishing something on your own can have setbacks such as laziness or carelessness. When doing tasks in front of a group, I often do much better. In addition, an idea that I relate to from “I’m So Totally, Digitally Connected To You” is that although lack of privacy is a scary topic, it is true that with the internet and social platforms we can learn more about ourselves. I have learned so many things about myself and the way others perceive me through social platforms. Because of this, I have also been able to adjust and change the things that I don’t necessarily like about myself. It has made me very self-aware.

C. The text that I found more interesting would be “Public Thinking” because I had never thought of online writing in this light before. I have my confusions about some of the content provided, however, much of it made sense. We are given the platforms to publically think and communicate; why not use it?

D. I can’t pinpoint a particular strength or weakness, however, I can say that there are multiple sides to every viewpoint. Thompson seemed to only express the positives of online communication in his articles when factually, there are a lot of negatives. I think that ultimately a weakness would be not addressing the negatives of it all.

E. In some of the quotes given by students or some scientists, we can see opposing viewpoints of Thompson. However, Thompson always rebuts it with his positive point of view on the topic. I think that Thompson feels very passionate about his opinions on this matter which make his rebuttals very persuasive.

When thinking about media, I care quite a bit about all issues pertaining to “new media.” It is easy to be updated in the news today with platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. With that being said, I am very interested in the various cultures and ways of writing that is seen on media platforms. I would say that I am curious about politics and would like to learn more about the media and writing tactics. I feel as if this is something that I should keep tabs on. As a journalism major, I am aware of “fake news,” and the work of online media organizations so this class should be interesting for me. Media is a very powerful aspect in our lives so learning more about it is essential to navigating and sorting it out.

Hi all! My name is Caitlyn Bettenhausen. I am twenty-one years old from Chicago, IL. I am a senior at SDSU in the IS3D major emphases on Journalism, RWS, and Communications. I am interested in all things writing, poetry, art, film and blogging. I would like to be an author some day and continue my writing career. I would like to move back to Chicago or NYC after finishing up this semester.