Engagment

How can you judge engaging writing? Is it determined by the subject matter? The word choice? The speed at which people read? How much people enjoy reading? It could be any and all of these, but are there writings out there that aren't engaging? Sure, but I thought that a book was never as boring as the reader.

As writers, if we think of it this way then at least we know that what we write about will always out-duel the audience. But does this mean that the audience, essentially, has no say, no opinion important enough for the matter? How can stories be more important than the people who read them?

How will we settle this discrepency, or needn't it be settled? The premise for our Literature class is that the stories we read are more interesting than our real lives. Our lives and the lives everyone around are living aren't interesting. There's little worth mentioning in real life compared to stories of Literature and the issues they cover.

That being said, we must learn to read boring books because they may seem more boring than real life, but they're not. If we accept this idea then we will sift boredom out of our lives, but the problem is that people still believe that Literature isn't that important.

"Imagination is declining..."

"...people are popularly and unhealthily are relying more and more on facts." This quote, or something like it, was presented by the one-and-only Professor Sexson.

There are many instances where this holds true, but this depends on the definition of imagination. For instance, we can examine a broad topic, college majors. This example has two sides: Liberal Arts vs. Math, Science, and Technology.

I'm an English-Teaching major in a Lit 110 class. Of course I believe that literature, English, and writing contain substantial amounts of imagination, but who's to say that Mathematicians or Scientists don't have imagination? Can math, science, and technology be considered art? In their case it depends on whether their work goes beyond logic to solve problems, create solutions, and make their conclusions useful. Math, science, and technology field-workers use imagination because they constantly use inductive reasoning to study or create...something.

Essentially, inductive reasoning is assuming. Logically, there's a problem with induction. Therefore in this case, if inductive reasoning isn't logical then studiers of math, science, and technology are using their imagination because their ideas are being conjured in their minds, on paper, and then played out thereafter.

Hence, math, science, and technology can go beyond logic to create new facts on which people rely. The problem is that facts are created because of imagination.

Math, science, and technology has a lot of effort put into it, but it doesn't always have the facts and the studiers set out to find them. Alike writers of literature, imagination is used to create stories, to create finished products.

A fact explains a phenomenon and a book explains a story. They're both a part of our world and they're both useful, but who's to say that imagination is declining? To a liberal artist like myself, imagination may just be becoming more polluted because math, science, and technology cannot find all the facts. People either want all the facts or they just let go.

Just -in my case

In my case here I have a story about springtime. The main character being the "lame" balloonman.

My case: The balloonman is simply going about his work in his workplace, the park or something along those lines. Point is, he's around the random occurrences which shape people's days and we set them in the back of our minds. Marbles, dancing, hop-skotch; these are everyday, social activities which people just do. The balloonman likes his job, he whistles, whistles of joy.

Case-in-point: What's your case, then?

A recent retelling of this has just come out on the big screen. Most of us know of UP. In the movie there was once a man who enjoys his job as a balloonman. Yada yada yada.

E.E. Cummings, balloonmen are not lame!

What's crackin'?

When you flip through a book you acquire less information than reading a synopsis. I'm a synopsis-sucker, but the assignment was to flip through the textbook.

I did the assignment, and, unsurprisingly, I didn't read any stories. When flipping, the smaller things are more sticky, and a single word [or expression] caught my attention.

Fin de siecle - French for "end of the century" or commonly used when describing a change in an era, or something along those lines.

I caught this saying in the Jekyll/Hyde segment on page 1441 and decided to provide a quick context for the expression.

I think that I need to develop a sense of patience for literature. Then, immediately, I can stick to page 1 first, not to the one before the appendix.

Times They Are Achangin'

We should do an experiment. We'll corral up some present-generation lab-rats and tell 'em to describe Bob Dylan's current, physical features. My educated guess would be that our current-generation's rats will screech descriptions like "poofy, curly, dark brown hair," "all-black sunglasses," "carries a gui-tar," and "he's hippy-lookin'." Etc. Etc. He looked like this way-back-when? He looks a bit different now.

Now this generation, in general, did not grow up on Bob Dylan. Sure, some can sharply name 5-10 songs, recognize Bobby's voice, or occasionally recognize him in a picture. And sure, there are those Bobdylanist know-it-alls, but there are those pure ignoramuses. Nonetheless, our generation, naturally, will always have a lack of exposure, even knowledge, about Bob Dylan.

All things considered, the cops, part of the present-generation, who arrested Dylan may be excused for not knowing whom they arrested. They may be excused for not knowing Bobby, but they're flat-out silly, too. Moreover, Bob Dylan doesn't quite look the part he did in the 60s and 70s. He's old. I mix up my grandmammies and 'pappies sometimes.

These cops really prove Bob's patented-point of "Times They Are a Changin'."

Do Biddley

Bo Diddley, that's the correct spelling I believe. Bo Diddley has this pleasant song with a serial killer as the main character. Supposedly Bo Diddley lyrics for this pleasant song were inspired by actual, true, real, events...involving such killers.

Firstly, this song-involved killa is rewarded style points for his snake-stuffed home, but that's the only fragment where I can escape from what I'm hearing in this song. My man, Bo, I'm sorry but how did this killer inspire you to write such a song...with a first-person narrative?! If you're going for something with an awe-inspiring, sadist taste then more power to you.

Now, I'm sorry, I've been far too conservative. Let's talk about something more libertarian. Love. Who do you love, Bo Bo Be? How can we love when we're killin' our lovers? Killin' lovers is irrational, BOy; 'nuff said.

Needless to say, the lyrics were awe-ful, morally. Artistically: awe-inspiring.

Eavesdropping: Golf Chatter

"Whoa. Whoa! That's perfe...ct...Noo! (Bleepity bleep) this, man!" said one playing Mario Golf. "You know, you're right. (Bleep) that," announces another. I would presume that this crowd didn't have that much fun playing video games this weekend. That Sixty-Four can be quite the pain, I suppose.

This eavesdropped conversation consistently consisted of constant cursed-banter and video game appraisal; and/or dismay. Is this what it's like to be a true gamer? A life of whining, creative cussing, pissiness, and many others not listing. What's to like so much about video games if they trigger some of people's strong emotions? It's the struggle. A mock-struggle on a screen helping gamers vent and/or control various acute emotions. Video games contain inventive stories for people to play and struggle through. To learn through. Whether the game is non-fiction or fantasy, realistic or unrealistic, people learn through gaming. The trouble is, how can and do gamers apply their game-experience in real life? They may struggle in real-life, but that's what's happening while gaming. The struggle.

Did these players suffice by the 19th hole?