I wish I had
read Solomon before conducting my A/V short.
The concepts laid out here are exactly what I knew to be true, but
didn’t have the knowledge to articulate.
“Punctuation directs tempo, pitch, volume, and the separation of
words” (Solomon, 282). I think most of
us are aware of this fact, however we tend to keep these literary tonalities in
our heads, because we are too self-conscious to portray them out loud. If we had to read the sentence, “Are you fuckin’ kidding me?!” in our
heads, most of us would agree that the voice would be some combination of
strained/shrill/disbelief, possibly yelling or whispering harshly. However, if asked to read this aloud in front
of the entire class, I bet more than 75% of us would read it fairly monotone,
with only a slight vocal inflection at the end to identify it as a
question. If we are to become “Creative
Composers” as Bernhardt puts it, shouldn’t we shed our vocal insecurities and
embrace the tempo/pitch/volume that the page implies? My band teacher always used to preach (mostly
to the woodwinds, because they are modest folks) to PLAY IT AS IT’S
WRITTEN. You can’t play every note piano just because you’re afraid of
honking every note that’s forte. Similarly, reading blatant punctuation in
monotone is…well…monotonous. It
completely bastardizes the composition that the composer intended. I would even go so far as to say that those
who lack the ability to properly vocalize texts shouldn’t be reading aloud at
all. None of us want to listen to
“Bueller…Bueller…Bueller…” 
I thought it was
fascinating—albeit arbitrary—that Solomon designated certain punctuations to Major ? ! [ ], Intermediate :
; “ “ ( ) / and Minor - ‘ *.
I think these distinctions mean different things to each
writer/reader, but I like where he’s going with this. I agree with all the intermediate symbols,
because they make you pause and ponder.
Minor and Major are something I struggle with in all areas, because often
times (musically speaking) you can slip a Major into a dominantly Minor context,
and it feels very much like a Minor.
Similarly, ?! feels
abrupt/intrusive, so I can see that as Minor in some cases. I really like the attempt at categorization
though. Maybe this can inform whatever
question I develop for the Critical Photo Essay.
“The truth of
actions is reached via the mode of writing, and the truth of how the world
looks is reached via the mode of image” (Kress, 48).
There is
something about this quote that I can’t quite pick apart, but I think that it’s
important (easy area for my group to comment on to help me out here). The truth of actions…what the hell is
that? Are we not able to speak the truth
of actions? I may be too literal here,
but I think that the truth of actions can be seen in their reactions, which
doesn’t always involve writing. If you
watch me drop potassium into water, the reaction speaks for itself doesn’t
it? In fact, I think I could mime the
results to someone and get the truth of action across, without speech or
writing. Perhaps this is what Kress
means by saying that the truth of how the world looks is reached via the mode
of image, that you have to observe something in order to see its truth. This is completely “DUH.” I think that Kress just wanted a powerful
sentence to end this essay, but this one is pretty meh. I’m guilty of doing this too, especially
after being burnt out at the end of a paper, but seriously…am I missing
something in this quote? I don’t
know. Here’s a *true* butterfly.
Alright, I am going to attempt tackling the Kress quote. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) for you, Doug dropped Kress from our reading list, so I have not read the piece, and am going in somewhat shortsighted with my interpretation.
ReplyDeleteBut, here's where my head is at: actions are always symptomatic of something else-- desires, purposes, emotions, reactions, strategies, etc. If rhetoric can be understood as a theory which encompasses human interaction, then perhaps language gives us perspectives to understand "the truth of action," the reasons, rationale, and thought processes behind what we do and why we do it. Language lends us modes of interpretation, various filters and glasses to try on and off, to get at the "truth" (albeit variable and changing) behind instances.
Images, on the other hand, do not always provide such explicit interpretation. Images, more than words, present "the truth of how it looks" by leaving much of the meaning-making process up to the viewer. I **think**, I venture, that you and I would have greater variation in our interpretations of an image versus a text. When things are less spelled out, we are allowed to make more personal and subjective meaning from them.
Perhaps that is how images show the "truth of how it looks:" truth is always changing and dependent, and therefore "texts" (and by this I mean images) which allow more dependent interpretations by including less "this-is-what-you-should-get-from-this" language, give us greater opportunities to see for ourselves, to make truth where it becomes true for us.
What do you think?
I really enjoyed reading your discussion of monotone reading! I've often had the same thoughts myself. I have a theory as to why we do that. Think about the discussion on identity and anonymity. Writing is more or less safe. There are, of course, exceptions to this. If I am writing a short story and I know that it's going to be read in front of the class, then I'm more likely to play it safe (or decide to be brave and just write whatever the hell I feel like). If I'm writing something that is just for me, no matter what it is, then what does it matter what I write? I still find myself, though, editing my thoughts on the chance that someone might see it. In sociology, we discuss the idea of how we are constantly surveying ourselves to make sure we conform to social norms. Ok...that was a bit of a tangent...back to what I was saying... I find it interesting how the 'safest' form of communication is nonverbal. Think about the shift from trying to ask someone on a date before texting or even phones...we are much more comfortable by the anonymity provided by things like texting that we are, often times, much more bold than we would be otherwise. It's kind of a funny thought because verbal communication is often (in my experience) thought of as the most direct and effective form of communication, but I have come to disagree.
ReplyDeleteLeave it to you to connect everything to music. I'm not mad, I'm impressed. As a fellow musician, I always appreciate these connections, and honestly, I've always thought writing and music had way too much in common NOT to be connected. Take a piece of writing and a song, for example. Both of them need a beginning and an end. They both need a purpose, a climax, rhythm, flow, and mostly, an understanding that is made shared by the audience. Yeah, we all interpret things differently, but there has to be some level of coherence that is recognized by those reading/listening. If a song has lyrics, that's where the clarity comes in. Just like in a piece of writing, the words need to be clear, understandable, and applicable to the song's purpose. And if one person thinks that a song/piece of writing is about one thing, and another person thinks it's about something completely different, then it may not be as clearly written as it needs to be. Or one of those people is an idiot....
ReplyDeleteDid any of that make sense?
Also, I love your mention of monotone reading. This is why I always hated going around the room reading a sentence or paragraph one at a time in middle school. That, and social interactions made me anxious already. I remember one time we were reading a story in class. Paragraph by freakin paragraph. And the kid sitting next to me had the most monotone voice while reading. I don't know if he was bored as shit, couldn't read, didn't care, or some spectacular combination of all three, but it was sad. He even read a sentence that was a question with absolutely no inflection. The teacher even stopped him and made him re-read it several times until he did it. And by then it was a barely, but we had to move on. We spent almost half a class period teaching seventh graders how to read. So, yeah, I agree with you: people who can't properly vocalize texts shouldn't be reading aloud at all.