Is Google Making Us Stupid?

This seven page article, which I was dreading to read, made a ton of sense. Nicholas Carr goes on to explain that people are not thinking the same way that they did before the invention of the internet. He writes " I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I'm always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle." I honestly believe that this is true. Since the creation of search engines such as google, it has become easier for us to find information, but in fact, it has also affected how our brains function and how we comprehend things.

Throughout the entire article, Carr uses things from the past to show how different people are now because of new technologies. He talks about the printing press and all the problems that people thought were going to come along with it. This is exactly what it is like with the internet.
People rely so much on these things, that they forget about the importance of reading and writing.

Not only does the internet affect people and the way that they do things, but it also affects other traditional media. Like Carr said in the article, "Old media have little choice but to play by the new-media rules." This is so true. Whenever the internet makes revisions, old media has to step up and do something so it will still exist.

Overall, I agree with what Carr said. The internet does have an affect on our brains, and really is changing how we do things. I know that I am one of those people that will go online and skim things and not read the entire thing, but after reading this article, I think that will change. I wouldn't go as far as to say that Google is making us stupid, but the it has, in fact, played a huge role in how things in society have changed over the years.

Skunk Dreams?

I can honestly say that I judged this reading before I even began it. I was almost positive that I would not like this; but in fact, it was actually very intriguing. I may not have entirely understood the basis of the story, but I got the main point.

It started with Edrich talking about an experience where a skunk decided to fall asleep on her. I had no idea where this was headed. Once she began talking about how we don't know about the dreams of other species, let alone our own, I started to see the real meaning behind this story. Dreams. She writes that "If dreams are an acutal dimension, as some assert, then the usual rules of life by which we abide to not apply." I thought that this made a lot of sense and it started to explain the story.

I think the main purpose of this story was to show that not only in real life, but also in our dreams, that we have obstacles. She has the same obstacle throughout the story; the fence. She could see everything past the fence; the trees, the animals, and the landscape. She realizes that this place isn't a sanctuary for the animals, but it's rather a hunting ground.

In the end of the story, she finds a way to overcome this obstacle and finally go past the fence that she had been longing to do. She desired doing this and therefore was willing to do whatever it took to do so. She writes "the obstacles that we overcome define us. We are composed of hurdles we set up to pace our headlong needs, to control our desires, or against which to measure our growth. This right here, to me, sums up the entire story. She wanted to go beyond the fence and see what else there was from the beginning, and the more she wanted to do so, she had to be willing to overcome her obstacle; the fence.

Talk of the Town

September 11, 2001. This is a day that most people probably remember exactly what they were doing at the time that the World Trade Center was attacked. John Updike takes an emotional approach at explaining what he saw that day and how it affected not only him and his family, but also the entire nation. Susan Sontag takes a different approach. She doesn't focus on how she felt during this, but rather at the laziness of the government and how they were not taking the right actions to deal with the attack.

John Updike uses his experience from the attack to show us what that day might have been like for someone living in New York. The way that he described the event was a way that you could close your eyes and picture everything that he was describing. Updike also shows that the United States can be strong and move on from this unfortunate event. He says "we have only the mundane duties of survivors--to pick up the pieces, to bury the dead, to take more precautions, to go on living." I really do think that this is what needed to be done. The United States is a strong country and can pull through terrible times, so that we may have better ones.

Susan Sontag is in a completely different ballpark with her writing. She doesn't use an experience like Updike did, but rather uses criticism on the government. From the start she talks about how our government is trying to tell everyone that everything is going to be okay. She says "We have a robotic President who assures us that America still stands tall." I don't think that she should be criticising the government because they believe that we can stand tall after such an unfortunate event. She has so much negativity in this piece of writing to express her viewpoint. I can't say that I agree with what she said, but I also understand that everyone has their different views on different events that occur in our country.