possible but probably not probable papers

I haven't given much thought to the topic of my research paper, nor have I done much research. With that being said I have a few ideas that may work as possible topics....

1. The aesthetics of the book. I would like to focus on what makes a book a book. The binding, the shape, the portability? I'm not sure. Also how does one feel when reading a book as opposed to when reading online text, or any printed text that is not in the form of a book. To me the book as an object is aesthetically pleasing. There is something exquisite about being able to sit down with a cup of coffee and a book (one in each hand) and immerse yourself in a world of literary wonders. A book also holds a concrete physical state, more so than printed pages. For example, two people are in a park, one reading a book, one reading a newspaper, and it suddenly starts to rain. The person with the newspaper is most likely to throw the paper over their head and run to the nearest shelter, only to realize that page after page of text is now unreadable, and black ink is smeared across their face. The book reader can simply tuck their book into a coat pocket, a hand bag, etc, move to a dryer place and continue to enjoy their reading. I like the fact that a book has a cover because not only does it help to make it a 'book' but also it offers protection to the precious words of your favorite story. There are so many aspects of the book compared to every other form of text, and i think it would be interesting to explore these aspects.

2. Computers in the education system. This is actually the topic of m website presentation. If I were to write a paper about it I would look at how computers have affected the learning process. I can recall playing 'educational' computer games as a child in elementary school. My parents never played computer games in school. In fact I don't think they even owned a computer until shortly after I was born. Computers used for education is a fairly new idea, and I would like to explore how it affects people students ie: children, high school students, college students, etc. I personally have attended some classes and realized that I completely forgot to do the assigned reading for that days class. In a matter of seconds I can pull the reading up on my computer, skim it over, and appear not completely ignorant in a class discussion. Although this aides me in appearing more intelligent than I really am, it does not aid in my learning. Had I not had the accessibility of a computer I may have written down what I needed to read and read it ahead of time, instead of skimming it over in class looking for a clever line or topic that i can recite and discuss just for the sake of saying something.

I have a few other ideas, but I think this is enough for now. Any insight/critique would be very helpful.

Hamlet's Tables

I went through an array of opinions throughout the Hamlet's Tables reading. I began by thinking this could be interesting because I had never thought of erasable books as opposed to erasable writing utensils. As I continued to read I found the explanation of the making of the writing tables to be interesting and informative. I read on and eventually became bored because a discussion of every minuscule aspect of writing tables took place. In my state of distraction due to boredom I started to contemplate the permanency of words...
Before writing tables or erasable writing utensils, written words were much more permanent. You could not erase, you could not back space, and scribbling out was probably not an option either. Before written words became temporary, they must have carried a great deal of importance. It made me feel that my use of a computer for writing is trivial at best. Even after this blog is published my words are in no way permanent. I could delete the whole blog, and every idea, every thought, every typed word would be virtually non existent. Rather depressing... but back to the reading.
I originally thought writing tables were probably very well favored by accounts and other such occupations that require mass amounts of writing and calculating with little to no room for error. However there was no mention of accountants using writing tables but rather they were used by merchants to keep track of sales. They were exchanged as gifts by the aristocrats, as is the case with any nouveau and expensive invention. And of course the tables were associated with puritanism as is everything else during the 17'th century.
If nothing else this reading inspired some thought as to how completely trite modern written words have become due to their lack of permanence.

Deibert

There was so much information in the Deibert reading that I felt the need to focus on small and probably insignificant parts. I liked the over all story more than the actual information. It never occur ed to me that the church controlled all written work because clergy members were basically the only people that could read and write. With the church's ability to control all texts it must have been quite easy to exert power over the people. I also found it interesting that writing was said to be the trait of a god. "In the point of view of those who first developed writing-- a capability that 'could not be credited to mere mortals.' " It was once though that the gods invented the alphabet so writing was a form of divine inspiration. This idea as pleasing as it must have sounded at the time, now just seems trite. This goes to show how very few people understood writing. It's surprising to me that writing was revered in this way because in modern times writing has always been merely an everyday part of life. The fact that writing was thought to have medicinal purposes was just absurd. People prone to fevers would wear strips of parchment around their necks with a small prayer written on them. It is not the prayer that I find absurd because many religious people pray for good health, but the idea that writing the prayer and wearing on your body could cure you as if by magic... i don't get it.
I've successfully gotten through about 1/4 of this reading and I've already written a bunch of nonsense and arbitrary ideas. I'll have to finish blogging later because it's time for class!

Darnton and Levine

Darnton's take on the mother goose tales is highly analytical, and I think takes away from some of the enjoyment of the actual story. When reading little red riding hood, I don't want to be reminded of the fact that the wolf if symbolic of a predatory pedophile male figure.
I was shocked to see how much the stories have changed over time. It wasn't until last Thursday's class discussion that I realized that the stories mirrored the time period. At the time that the little red riding hood story on the first page of the Darnton article was written, vulgarity was more widely accepted. In that story, not only did the wolf kill the grandmother, but he also cut up her body, drained her blood, and then served it to little red riding hood. Is it necessary to add an element of cannibalism to a child's story? No... but it definitely makes it more interesting. In modern times no parent would dream of reading a story about little red riding hood consuming her own grandmother to their child, but I'm sure it would make a great twisted horror movie. In many modern day little red riding hood tales, both grandma and red manage to get away, and it is actually the wolf that dies. The story has changed to fit the values of the time period.
In Levine's article however, it is highlighted that the stories never change. I found this to be an interesting contrast from Darnton. You can change a fairy tale to cater to the times, or to the children. However, a slave story has little room for modification since it is mirroring actual events. As fairy tales change from vulgar to semi appropriate, to PG cookie cutter clean, a slave story will always be a slave story. It will always be horrific, terribly depressing, and undeniably truthful.

I found Howsam's book to be monotonous at best. However, the fact that her writing was completely dull forced me as a reader to find some deeper meaning and read between the lines so as to keep from falling asleep. I believe that her objective was not to blatantly state that history, literature, and bibliography, are separate entities, but rather to point out their differences in hopes of having the reader connect them (if that makes any sense at all). Literature and history prove to be quite similar where as bibliography is the only one that could be considered a separate discipline. Howsam points out that history has a primary focus on agency, power, and experience, and literature focuses on texts, and criticism. However I believe that literature relies on history. A book, or rather a story focuses on events of the time, surroundings, and a basic history of whatever the story happens to be about. Without history there is no literature. History is a literature of past events. The two are interchangeable. Howsam states that literature focuses on texts and criticism, but through the text there is a criticism of history. My ideas may be slightly obscure, but Howsam's writing was quite elusive so i found it difficult to form any sort of viable opinion.
I was excited when I bought this book because I hoped it would actually outline the history of the book both as an object and an idea. Instead it gave a dull overview of the differences in three disciplines which were actually quite similar and I found myself skimming pages because it became hard to concentrate. It was frustrating that the book was a short overview. Every time Howsam came close to making a point she would change her focus to something else. My mind started to wander much like the way her writing wandered.