In the podcast “Making Radiolab”, hosts Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich discuss the importance of sound in radio shows as a means of storytelling. They reference a clip in which developmental psychologist Anne Fernald says, “Sound is kind of touch at a distance,” and then delineate how this is so. The air that pulses into a listener’s ears causes vibrations and bending of receptive hair within the ears, then charged particles send electricity to neurons to create the sounds we hear. Jad and Robert distort Fernald’s sentence through filters by extending the effects, vibrations, and breaths of the sound clip- subsequently demonstrating the capabilities of sound effects and illustrating the story of sound as a travelling journey to the ear.

To further exemplify the use of sound in story, Abumrad and Krulwich refer to an interview done with pilots facing G-forces in a flight simulator.  One “raw” interview with a pilot (“raw” meaning not edited) is then compared to an interview reinvented with editing. Through music, juxtaposed vocal tracks, and various sound effects, the edited interview clearly creates a more colorful story of which the listener associates with a work of art, as opposed to any other typical recording. As they word it, they’re “manipulating reality to a degree” in order to stir emotion and connection within the story.

The hosts then use historical events to discuss the reception of sound on a physical and biological level. In 1913, the play Rite of Spring used new music that did not sit well with its audience. Riots arose in response to music that was unheard of at the time. The reason for this is scientifically speculated to be caused by a massive release of dopamine exerted when the neurons in the auditory cortex cannot accurately decode the new sounds attempting to be processed. This release literally caused insanity. However a year later, when the play was re-introduced, the crowd was openly receptive… possibly because the music had already been introduced, and therefore able to be decoded.

Abumrad and Krulwich use this event to represent how the brain processes sound, and uses art as a means to create new meaning based on what has already been introduced. To further exemplify this idea, a clip of sound designer Walter Murch is played on the podcast. In this clip, Murch tells how he accidentally adjusted his neuronal musical receptors to solely understand Gregorian chants (for a project he was working on at the time.) He discovered he had reset his brain when hearing a later piece by Bach, which he momentarily interpreted as rough noise. Murch’s story shows the listeners how, as radio hosts and sound editors, one must reset how they’re able to tell stories, just as their brain resets to understand new sound. The auditory effects used in Adumrad and Krulwich’s examples further illustrate the connection they’re trying to create between the listener and story.

As they say, if they’re doing their jobs right, there is no need for visuals in storytelling. 

Do you think stories are best told in a blatant and "raw" manner? Or best told after editing, elaborating, and embellishment?

Have you ever listened to stories told solely through audio, if not would you? If not, then why not?

As for creativity and innovation, do you believe our brains reset themselves based off of what it already knows in order to create new work? Or do you believe it is one continual stream of creation?

Problems Plaguing Memoirs

Over the years, society has become aware of a situation involving aspects of the truth in literary culture.  The “memoir” has become the lightning rod for the majority of scandals that rock the book industry, and is the most publicized.  In the past decade, the most notable case of an issue with the truth within a memoir would be James Frey’s A Million Little Pieces.  The main reason the major fallout in this case centers on that the memoir had the initial backing of TV personality Oprah Winfey, which was later recanted.  The point is that the lack of truth in a person’s memoir is a more understandable phenomenon than people think.  In my chosen blog post, I came to the decision to examine an article that explains how memoirs are inheritably flawed.  The article, The Problem With Memoirs, is by Mano Singham, the director of the University Center for Innovation in Teaching and Education at Case Western Reserve University.  Singham had his interest peaked in memoirs after learning about a new book by David Maraniss titled Barack Obama: The Story, which challenges some of the details in Obama’s memoir.  Singham then goes on to explain why he was not surprised about this new turn of events.  He believes that since memoirs are based on memoires and on the author’s perception of the world, instead on research, memoirs are automatically untrustworthy sources of the truth.  Singham points out that since we are human, we have a natural tendency to make our stories more dramatic as the result of attempts to make the memories more meaningful to ourselves.  Also, over time, we start to the believe the lies we have told ourselves, and Singham cited several times where his vivid childhood memories could not be substantiated by his family.  As a result from this evidence, Singham came to the conclusion that all memoirs should not be considered bastions for the truth.  He took this in consideration when he was serving on he used to serve on the committee that chose the first-year book that all freshman had to read. He attempted to block the decision to use the memoir Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortenson, but was unsuccessful.  It was later discovered than large parts of the memoir were false. 

So as this issue is becoming more and more common, do you feel that the credibility of a “memoir” is stained beyond recovery? Do you feel the author’s are totally to blame for the problems with the truth, even though the process is flawed?  Should an author conduct more research into their own memories, even though that will take time and resources?  Would you still read a person’s memoir?  Any additional commentary would be greatly appreciated. 

Truth in Memoirs

Truth in memoirs is topic that over time has become more and more talked about in our society. In the past 10 years we have heard of plenty of literary scandals that have unfolded, such as James Frey’s, “A Million Little Pieces” or Norma Khouri’s, “Forbidden Love;” but why is there such a rise in being untruthful and what can be done to stop this? Fern Kupfer, an English professor at Iowa State University wrote an essay called, Everything But The Truth,where she explains how there are three kind of “lies” that are not only acceptable, but also necessary in memoir writing.

She begins by explaining how although many of us would like to read good stories, we also don’t like to be lied too. Kupfer then goes on to tell a story about a student she once had in her nonfiction seminar class, Chris, who told an elaborate tale of his family, where his father deserted them and his mother was left alone with his siblings to survive. Chris eventually got an A in that class, and the following year Kupfer happened to have his girlfriend as a student. Through talking with her and hearing how she was going to visit Chris’ parent’s for the holidays, Kupfer became confused, because from Chris’ story, that didn’t seem to add up. As she began to dig deeper, she realized Chris’ has lied to her in his memoir, and his parents never separated to begin with. Kupfer felt betrayed, and seeing how you can accessorize the truth to make your story seem less dull, Chris in fact “did more than our creative judgments could have allowed…Chris had constructed exclusively from his imagination. Chris had lied” (292). Kupfer then moves on to explain how she get questions from her students all the time about how they feel they can’t mold their stories in a way they feel in which they aren’t lying. She then tell us how there are three kinds of lies that are acceptable, and how we “need to give memoir writers permission to lie, but only when the reconstructed version of the story doesn’t deceive the reader” (292).The first lie that is deemed acceptable is little “white lies” that you make up when you are unable to remember the minor details, such as the color of your coat, the dress you wore on your birthday, and so on. The second lie is one that “narrative structure often demands: composite characterization, compression of time, omission of unnecessary detail” (293). Where some details could take up too much time, or clog or overpopulate your story, it is better to compress characters or take out information that allow you to get straight to the point. The last lie is that called “the gift of perhaps.” She describes how you can imagine the “what if’s” of your story, to help you better understand characters feelings, thoughts, desires, etc. Your story is to be told from your perspective, and so shaping the truth without having the reconstructed version deceive the reader is an acceptable aspect of this type of writing.

With that being said, do you agree with her methods of acceptable lies? Do you think they are necessary when formulating your memoir? Is okay to use your imagination in writing and how much? How does one formulate boundaries when writing memoirs? Should any type of “lying” or shaping the truth be acceptable?

"When Patents Attack!"

     The web audio show This American Life, hosted by Ira Glass, features in the episode “When Patents Attack!” first hand interviews, research, and commentary by NPR correspondent Laura Sydell and This American Life producer Alex Blumberg. The focus, as the title of the episode suggest, is patents and their unintended use as springboards for countless lawsuits.

     The show begins with host Glass introducing the story of a man named Jeff Kelling. As a software developer, Kelling explains how he and his friends (also developers) started their own business creating a way for user to share photos over the Internet. After years of success with this business, Kelling receives a letter stating that his business was in violation of patents that another company was holding and therefore owed them money. The choices Kelling had were to either go to court which was too expensive for his business, or settle outside of court which he did.

     The reason this case is mentioned is to point out a key factor: the company that sent the letter bought the patents from someone else (the original inventors, even before Kelling) but wasn't using the patent to make products, instead filing lawsuits against others who did. This leads to the authors introducing a key term “patent troll” coined by Peter Detkin who at the time was a lawyer. The term refers to an analogy that Detkin makes with the fairytale Three Billy Goats Gruff, “cause the whole Billy Goats Gruff thing, it’s someone lying under a bridge they didn’t build, demanding payment from anyone who passed. I said, “How about a patent troll?”(Detkin).

     The majority of the show follows Sydell, and Blumberg as they investigate further into the issue of patent trolls. The commentators focus on the patent buying and usage company Intellectual Ventures. Examination of interviews containing dialog of people in relation to Intellectual Ventures or knowledge of patent law rights forms the authors' argument against patent trolls. The authors use this large company as an example of just how big an influence the patents can have on creativity and innovation. Even large corporations like Google, Apple, and Microsoft will spend billions of dollars to obtain patents to use as “protection” against lawsuits. Stated during an interview about thirty percent of patents (in the U.S.) cover roughly the same technologies and ideas which can really cause legal issues. This is suppose to be a system to protect inventor and allow them to profit from their ideas but the audio show suggest instead that they are now stifling innovation as inventors fear of being sued.

     I find the issue to have a lot less significance to our class than the closely related issue of copyrights but the issue itself seem to be very important to our economy here in the U.S. There should be a regulation to combat the role of patent trolls, decrease the chances that one company can control so much intellectual property becoming similar to a monopoly.

So what do you think about the patent troll strategy, an effective way to make money or a damaging practice to the industry of inventors?

The trolls use a strategy of threatening to take people to court knowing that they would lose but take advantage of the fact that small companies don't have enough money to pay for court fees. Do you believe that this is a flaw in our judicial system?

Culture and Self-Expression

“Culture and Self-Expression,” written by Heejung S. Kim is how speech and self-expression are correlated and how they are expressed differently through distinct two cultural contexts. Kim’s main concern is related to, in the “more collectivistic cultural contexts” such as in the East Asian society, how speech and self-expression are not considered to be important to the same degree as in the U.S. Kim explains that it is because these East Asian cultures more value the thoughtful and self-disciplined silence. In other words, what the writer wants to tell the readers is that these different cultural assumptions affect how people express their thoughts and feelings, and then, how ways of expression influence both psychological and biological results. To further explain this, the article focuses on two things which are “the influence of speech on thought and the use and effects of social support.” Two studies are conducted on two different cultural groups of participants to discover the influence of speech on thought. The first study, which examined cultural influences on cognitive problem solving, instructed the participants to solve problems from the Raven’s Progressive Matrices. The outcome of the study reveals that the speech works as a primary means to express and clarify one’s thoughts in the Western cultural context while it works as a significant distraction to thinking in the Asian cultural context. The second study is conducted using the participant’s saliva examples for cortisol analysis along with the first study. It turned out that remarkably higher cortisol levels, indicating a measure of biological stress responding to the task, were shown for Asian American participants than European American participants. Then the participants did surveys about how they had coped with recently experienced stressors. As a result, Asian Americans/Asians answered that they were less likely to seek social support for coping with stress than European Americans were because they concern that seeking social support would cause them to interrupt group harmony, cause them to be embarrassed, and receive criticism from others. As a conclusion, the writer warns that “high levels of stress and other problems may arise when institutional practices expect a particular cultural meaning of speech from people who do not share the same cultural meaning” since they are based on Western cultural assumptions in terms of education and health practices and the society would only favor the cultural majority.

Do you believe that the institutional practices, which expect a particular meaning of speech from people who do not share the same cultural meaning, that are based on Western cultural assumptions in terms of education and health practices would be solved somehow not to only favor the cultural majority in the United States? Then, which cultural context do you think should try to develop their cultural practices?

“A Critique of Politically Correct Language”

In Ben O’Neill’s article, “A Critique of Politically Correct Language,” he discusses the challenges of political correctness in society and how difficult it is to determine what is right and what isn’t.

           O’Neill’s most important assertion is that political correctness is determined by the connotation of a word. A word or phrase becomes politically incorrect once someone is offended, which in turn gives it a negative connotation. Words and phrases with negative connotation are automatically frowned upon by society, so if you were to use a politically incorrect term you would be looked down on and would be expected to change.

            Politically correct terms are always changing. O’Neill explains in his article that it is nearly impossible to please everyone at once, so there is always that one person or group of people that don’t like something that is said so they demand that a different term is used. He compares this process to a “euphemism treadmill” because it is never ending cycle. O’Neill explains the “euphemism treadmill” as starting with a polite expression (euphemism) that turns into neutral expression (orthophemism) that turns into a nasty expression (dyphemism). After this cycle, a new word is created and it starts all over again. O’Neill also discusses in his article that eventually words that were once seen as nasty expressions will be seen as polite expression due to that society is going to run out of new words and will have to recycle past words.

           O’Neill also suggests that political correctness is always changing because people focus on the connotation rather than the intent. He uses an example of a school yard bully who is calling another child a “retard.” Instead of people brushing it off, or explaining to the boy that it is not nice to call someone a mean name, they jump to the conclusion that he is directing his comments towards the mentally disabled. After jumping to conclusions, it is demanded that the term is to be changed. The intent of the bully wasn’t to degrade anyone except the other child. O’Neill believes that theoretically there are people that sit around all day looking for ways to make everything in society correct.

 

Do you like the idea of political correctness, why? Do you agree with O’Neill’s idea of the “euphemism treadmill?” Can you think of a situation that political correctness was taken to an extreme?

Accent Training for the Work Place

In today's corporate American business world finding and maintaining a job position can be both difficult and challenging, especially for those who are struggling with their grammar and communication skills.  Competitive jobs require employees to have strong speaking skills, this is so because if one cannot communicate well with others, it can lead to difficulties in business relationships.  For my chosen blog post I decided to examine not an article, but the web page of a company devoted to training employees in the area of speech and communication.  Capital Accent is a professional company which was started by owner Laurie Aurelia, an accent modification specialist.  Capitalaccent.net is an online service meant to provide employers and employees with the opportunity to strengthen a one's communication skills for the workplace.  The company's over all goal is to assist people with the proper tools and training needed to overcome language barriers that may arise in a business setting.  Services provided by the company include both personal and online courses dealing with accent training, grammar and speech analysis, and overall training in communication skills and techniques.  Aurelia started the company in response to her own personal experience with overcoming a language barrier.  Prior to the company's launch, Laurie had spent several years in Taiwan where she discovered first hand, how poor grammar and communication skills can present a variety of issues when trying to accomplish a simple task such as basic conversation.  By starting Capital Accent, Laurie was able to improve the lives of those experiencing the same difficulties she did.  Since today's business world is so competitive Laurie's services give people the chance to compete with other workers at a high level by training them to lose their accent and reach their fullest potential in communicating in business.  Her company and its mission relate to my topic for my paper because it highlights the importance of grammar skills in relation to one's success in the workplace.  Without proper grammar it can be difficult for a person to advance in the workplace since so much emphasis is placed on communication.

So for conversation, do you feel like a service like this is needed for success in a competitive company?  Should companies not hire a person based on their speaking and communication skills?  Would you use a service like this if you were struggling with a language barrier in the workplace? And should a service like this be offered to someone by a company that wants to help them advance and improve their skills for the workplace, or is that crossing the line?  Any additional comments or views on the topic are helpful.