Feedback

After hearing the feedback Mr. Tangen gave my paper I thought different things. First, i wasn't really amused when he said my essay had some typos and that it was all over the place. I struggled at first finding a topic to talk about and changed my initial topic to the one I used. Even though it was a topic I knew I could spend a long time talking about, it was a very broad topic and didn't exactly know how to lead the idea of my paper. I did struggle with the organization and topics I was going to talk about in it so his feedback regarding this didn't surprise me very much. I realized too that I made a lot of general statements, and i'm glad he made me notice that so I can further improve my writing skills. 

Are We Calibans?

After I read this article from Barnard College, I realized that behind the characters from Shakespeare's play, The Tempest, there is a deeper meaning. I came to believe that the play as a whole is a representation of the colonization in North and South America at the end of the sixteenth century. Caliban and cannibal can be easily be confused as being homophone, by sounding almost alike, however they are not as they do not sound exactly the same. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is a connection between them. Possibly being that "Caliban" originated from the word "Cannibal" and noting that Caliban is treated as he were an aborigine or a savage.

In the play, Prospero enslaves Caliban and is treated as a primitive person be being a native to the island. He is forced to work towards Prospero's own benefit without any chance of escaping. Caliban is constantly tortured by "Prospero's demons" and he is constantly afraid of not being submissive enough for Prospero and facing her magic. Caliban and Prospero can be translated to the Native Americans and the European colonizers. This case specially serves for the Indigenous cultures of Latin America, such as the Mayas, Incas, Muiscas or Aztecs who endured many hardships during colonization. Their land, culture, community and resources were stripped from them without much mercy. Just like Caliban, they were enslaved simply for being natives and seemingly inferior to their colonizers. They were forced to learn a new language and adapt to a completely strange culture. Prospero teaches her prisoners English, just like the Spaniards taught the natives Spanish. Nevertheless, being forced to a new culture as an adult is harsh and it made a new identity rise in the America's: "the mestizo" as it is most commonly known. Their own culture as simply forgotten and eliminated.

Colonization shaped the way our country is nowadays. The way we talk, the color of our people and even the widespread knowledge that without the colonization of Spaniards we would be in a completely different situation right now. Some claim there would be no violence and that we would be a much wealthier country right now. Many Latin Americans can connect with Caliban and feel their country's history identified with Caliban's situation. However, as harsh and barbaric as our country's history might be it formed our identities and made our country be what it is today. As Latin Americans we all share the same history and heritage. It is impossible to not compare, and relate our story to Shakespeare's last play, The Tempest.

Em Ahh Amm Eeeh...

I have always noticed how people  tend to use the ellipsis a lot during texting.  However, I never gave it much importance because I thought that though people tend to write like that while texting, they don't when writing a formal text, or paper. After reading this article from Slate I liked the theory that the ellipsis mimics the same pauses we tend to make while talking. After reading other articles about modern messaging I noticed that the ellipsis isn't the only thing that is currently being abused of, and that mimics spoken language. Nevertheless, they aren't as exploited in other kinds of writing. 

After recalling countless texting conversations with a friend of mine, I realized he uses the ellipsis a lot. I had previously noticed that he is the kind of person that vacillates throughout a conversation. Rather than expressing his idea fluently, he tends to make some (or many) pauses and say "emm" or "eeh" very frequently. Likewise, I have noticed he is a constant abuser of the ellipsis.as I now make the connection that he unconsiouly used the ellipsis as a replacement for the pauses he uses when he talks. On the other hand, I really don't abuse of the ellipsis a lot; rarely I employ them in my texting. Nonetheless, he made me realize that I abuse of the enter button. Instead of using periods, or the ellipsis I divide my texts or ideas by sending different texts. Rather than texting "hey, what are you doing? do you want yo go eat something? tell me...bye." 

I text: "Hey

What are you doing?

do you want to go eat something?

tell me!

bye"

It seems annoying right? I don't exactly do it to that level, but I do send many messages dividing my phrases. I know that even though we both have weird texting patterns, I am certain we won't write like that when writing a book report at collage. Moreover, I read Cristina's Angel blog, and I quite disagreed with her. Though she agrees with the fact that "people of  this time are writing as they would speak..." she doesn't agree with it, or acknowledge the fact that the ellipsis can be used to make a pause of ideas. There's a reason why they are also called suspension points. I know people nowadays are bewildered on how people text because the are channging the conventions and rules with what punctuation marks are used. 

Just because the ellipsis isn't used in the way its strictly meant to be used, it doesn't mean its meaning can't change to adapt. Texting is the next most familiar register of writing after familiar and informal. Simply  because it has never been used before, and is new and weird it, its no reason to not accept it as a new register. I don't agree with the ellipsis being used for everything or as a replacement of things like questions marks. But, if people don't over abuse them, or utilize them in formal writing pieces, I think there is no problem with it. 

@!nt nOboBy got time fo LANGUAGE

I believe it is deploring how present generations are approaching language and proper writing. In this article from Slate it explores the future that commas are facing, and the unfortunate reality that awaits us. People, but adolescents especially, are becoming lazier and swag has taken over control. There should be a limit to which language is permited to change. For instance, I agree with casual writing an texting, or bloggers, but I don't agree with those that take writing as a joke and underestimate its power.

Wait, what? There aren't going to be any more commas in the future? Hah, This is one of the most absurd things i've heard before. With technology language has been changing and new forms, words and ways of writing have been developing. It is okay to understand and accept how people are starting to write nowadays: very informally. However, there is a border where informality crosses and writing becomes pure barbaric slang and what has been known as proper english, crumbles down.  If deleting commas is the next step towards accepting change, in the future: "y'all be t@lk!nG l!ke tHiZ, c@uz @!nt nOboBy got time fo DAt" 

I believe people should acknowledge the fact that if a text isn't formal, it doesn't mean its wrong. Many people live from of profits made in their writing blogs, or social networking accounts. Language  is declining and going downhill towards a language where LOL is replaced by a comma, and where the "i" is replaced by an exclamation mark. Those prescriptivists who are easily irritated by the absence of an oxford comma, should

help stop this atrocity. We shouldn't let a old and prestigious language such as English decay into that state of embarrassment. What would Shakespeare or F. Scott Fitzgerald say about how teenagers are writing nowadays? Y'all. 

Color? or Colour?

Nothing ever stays the same. People change through time. Clothing twenty years ago isn't the same as it is nowadays.  Neither is music nor technology the same as they were before. Accordingly, language changes too; the difference is that people don't want to accept it. People have a perception that language nowadays is rough and blunt. American writers admire Shakespeare even though they don't understamd half of his texts without extensive analysis. Nowadays, we find the debate between people who believe language should be accepted to change and adjust, and stubborn people who don't dare to listen. 

After reading this debate from The New York Times about changes in language I realized there are terms for the two kinds of people that argue about change. I have always been a "descriptivist", which says I agree with the fact that language is constantly changing. I am a descriptivist because then words such as texting and chatting wouldn't exist or be printed in dictionaries. Those are rather old words, but I believe that in 10 years new worlds like facebooking or instagraming will make part of dictionaries like chatting and texting do today. "Prescriptivists", on the orher hand, are known as those who are stubborn and deem everything that is not strictly formal, as wrong. They focus more on how the language has to be used. It something isn't a rule it is wrong. Prescriptivist writers have to learn that even if they don't want language to loose its elegance and want it to be rightfully used, they have to learn that what's understood as correct is purely subjetive. A formal essay will be written with a different syntax, vocabulary and form today as compared to a text from the eighteen hundreds. Probably, if someone from that time would look at how I am writing this blog post, they would think its atrociously informal and unpoetic. What is considered correct is based solely on the time period and culture. Consecuently, if it did work lile that, utilizing the oxford comma could be understood as correct writing? 

I believe there should be a constant change in what is perceived as right or wrong. Maybe a formal text today, will be better comprehended than one written in 50 years. I agree that there should be "a set of standard conventions everyone needs for formal writing and speaking, because if not language will be destroyed in a mattrr or time. My argument is that language should be flexible and open to changes, because unlike german (who hasn't changed at all in 100 years) english must change and adapt, but not get to the point where it loses its elegance and conventions.