Lethem post response

Thanks for trying out this experimental blog post assignment with me. I wasn’t sure what you might find, but some of you had very insightful things to say about the differences between Lethem’s concerns and those of his sources. Of course, the purpose of this assignment was twofold: one, I wanted you to begin to familiarize yourselves with library research tools, and two I wanted you to continue to work on your close reading skills, particularly your ability to make connections while simultaneously drawing distinctions. I hope that, in addition to looking for the title of the source that Lethem used, you spent a bit of time trying to figure out where you might locate that source. It sounds like some of you were able to find books and articles online, but I’d also encourage you to find out where you can go in the library to get physical copies of such things, since not everything you’ll want to research will be available online. We’ll work on that more when we hear a Rutgers research librarian’s guest lecture in October. Regarding close reading, I think you all would benefit from even greater specificity when you explain the significance of a quotation. Shreya does a good job providing a detailed close reading in her post, which deals with an article about The Velveteen Rabbit as a metaphor for the importance of circulating ideas. By working through different aspects of the metaphor, she’s able to draw out the connections—and their limitations—more clearly. One could also consider, for instance, the ways in which re-use deals more with adding on new elements than stripping away elements of the original idea, in contrast to what happens to the rabbit. Pointing out such distinctions puts you into a better position when you’re trying to explain the significance of a connection. In your blog posts and your papers, you should be answering the question “so what?” Why does this point matter? For instance, is Lethem pointing out the absurdity of treating ideas as property by drawing a comparison between ideas and physical objects? What does it mean to “own” an idea? Is it even possible to be original, according to Lethem?

Lethem Response

In the section, Usemonopoly, Lethem claims the word "copyright" is a euphemism that disguises its true character as a "monopoly on use," (Lethem 218) hence the title. Lethem draws from law professor Jessica Litman and her critique, Digital Copyright. Litman describes how the act of copying was never inherently invasive, even before the Internet Age, but was instead a useful measuring stick to see how much an author's work was being used. She argues that now, since copies are so readily made and available, the number of copies holds no weight in the discussion of intellectual theft. Litman's ultimate point is that the laws regarding copyright infringement contain outmoded restrictions require much-needed reform in the face of new technology. Lethem focuses more on the initial claim in  Litman's sequence of argument, the claim regarding how copying a work was never fundamentally invasive. Lethem removes changing times and technology from his discussion of intellectual property and simply argues that copying and building upon a work does not take anything away from the author. Enforcing such strict copyright laws only allows for "the rapacious expansion of monopoly rights" that have "always been counter to the public interest." (Lethem 218)

the ecstasy of influence: a plagiarism

The passage I chose to look at was the 4th paragraph of the section “Contamination Anxiety” on p. 214. I thought it was interesting how they talked about the value of plagiarism as a source of inspiration to create other works. In the passage, Lethem even says, “if these are examples of plagiarism, then we want more plagiarism,” after reviewing a number of hit TV shows, movies, and books that wouldn’t be around had their producers and authors not been inspired by a similar work. For example, he notes that without the Charlie Brown cartoons, South Park would likely cease to exist, at least in the form that it does today. By putting such a positive spin on plagiarism, it changes the idea of Lethem’s entire essay; the reader now is able to see plagiarism not as an act of theft, but instead as the use of a source of inspiration, in each case Lethem presents. This passage clearly demonstrates the ways in which plagiarism can be considered a good thing; even appropriation, which highlights the idea that the plagiarism was not approved of, can be seen as a benefit to a fan of TV, books, movies, or other forms of entertainment (but maybe not the producer of the original work).

Lethem discusses the positive impacts of plagiarism on the media (namely TV, books, and movies). The topic of plagiarism in music just happens to be something that my friend and I have spent a lot of time arguing about (whether or not plagiarism is inspiration or theft, specifically). So I googled “hit songs with stolen beats” and I got a number of results of some of the biggest songs from the past few years, that all used a unique beat that was really similar to another older song. Some of these included Yeah 3x by Chris Brown, Blurred Lines by Robin Thicke, Viva la Vida by Coldplay, Roar by Katy Perry, and Uptown Funk by Bruno Mars. Those were all chart-topping hits, and one might argue that it’s a good thing that their influencing beats were there to inspire these hit songs to be written. Also, it’s very common in hip-hop and R&B music for artists to take a popular song and remix it, where the remix becomes more popular than the original. Some songs that I’ve noticed this in include All of the Lights by Kanye West, Hold You Down by DJ Khaled, and Back to Sleep by Chris Brown; these songs are commonly played on hip-hop/R&B radio stations instead of the original song. In fact, in most of Lil Wayne’s mixtapes there will be at least one or two songs where it’s just Wayne rapping over a beat of a popular song of that time.

The Ecstasy of Influence

In the section "The Beauty of Second Use", Lethem quotes an interaction between the Skin Horse and Velveteen Rabbit from the story of The Velveteen Rabbit on page 219. Since I was unfamiliar with the story, I looked up the book and found a website that had uploaded the pages and illustrations to the story, which I read. It turned out to be a lovely story about a toy rabbit that held fears of not being as good as the other toys and becoming "Real", and then the story follows how "the Boy" loved the Rabbit and made him Real.
Initially, I did not see why Lethem choose this story and how it connected to his point about The Ecstasy of Influence, but after rereading the section, I realized the connection lied in how the Rabbit only became Real after multiple uses and losing his shine and gleam from being a new toy. Lethem argues that, like the Rabbit, works of art, literature, etc. only become real or truly notable when they inspire others to take what has been put out there and give them another use. The Velveteen Rabbit itself has inspired 13 adaptions ranging from animated short films to musical productions.
By comparing the appropriation of a person's work to love a child gives him stuffed animal, Lethem gives this act of plagiarism a positive connotation, with the rationalizing that you wouldn't tell a child to stop loving his toy when it gets worn-out, therefore people should be able to build off of what other people before them have done.

Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism

The passage from Jonathan Lethem's "Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism" that I chose to focus on is "invention, it must be humbly admitted, does not consist of creating out of void but out of chaos." (Lethem 214). This passage originates from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, a novel initially published in 1818. Having already read this novel, it was easy for me to identify and fully understand the context which this passage is used. However, I took it upon myself to refresh this previous knowledge and type it into google search. By doing so, I was given the full paragraph in which this section is included. Shelley uses this passage within her explanation of the way invention can only derive from objects previously made, that "it can give form to dark, shapeless substances, but it cannot bring into being the substance itself." Lethem recycles this concept in his explanation of 'contamination anxiety.' Lethem describes to his readers that true artistry does not emerge solely from originality, but also the acceptance of the opinions of others. Lethem tells that in order for an artist to truly recognize his or her own individuality, he or she must be open to the "adopting and embracing of filiations, communities, and discourses" (Lethem 214).

While Shelley and Lethem describe two different concepts, Lethem is able to use Shelley's words in order to clarify his own original ideas. Through borrowing her words, he enforces Shelley's original concept that true innovation is created through the use of already created subjects and objects. Lethem was able to arrive at his own conclusion with the assistance of Shelley's statements. This transformation teaches me that the use of previous ideas is necessary, must be viewed not as stealing, but as building blocks to the creation of even more insightful concepts. 

Lethem Post

Under the section, Containment Anxiety, Lethem describes Muddy Waters recording a song and then when asked if it resembled any others of that genre, admits that there are other similar songs. On page 264, Lethem notes that he got the basis for that passage from a piece called Copyrights and Copywrongs by Siva Vaidhyanathan, so I looked into that piece. Upon a google search, the internet lead me to amazon where an description of the book was provided. The piece that Lethem uses on page 213 is from a book that discusses quite literally the opposite of his essay. Copyrights and Copywrongs is a piece about how copyrighting something goes beyond economic interest and copyrighting defends cultural values about various subjects such as race, class, etc. While Lethem uses the piece on Muddy Waters as an example to argue his point that we all plagiarize in one way or another and that creative pieces should be used as a basis to build upon new ideas rather than as private property upon which an outsider can't trespass, the same piece is likely used in Copyrights and Copywrongs to discuss a problem within a specific industry where it's easy for artists to steal ideas from one another and gain from those stolen ideas. Lethem can tie his example of Muddy Waters back to his earlier discussed exemplification of Bob Dylan (earlier in Lethem's essay, that is) and it teaches us that appropriation  is widespread and very subtle in the ways which it can act. I, as a musician, don't believe that songs which sound similar are necessarily products of plagiarism, but rather that a combination of influence, genre characteristics, and intention while writing, could create similar songs. The same goes for all forms of art, in my opinion. Certain characteristics can describe certain genres of art (romanticism for painting, surrealism, rock music, etc), and can blur the line between artists and make some pieces seem more similar to others than the artists had intended - even if the artists had no idea of the other piece.

The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism

The paragraph I've chosen to analyse is "In the children's classic..." to "...its loving use." on page 219. In the original text, Textual Poachers, Henry Jenkins uses a comparison to The Velveteen Rabbit by Margery Williams Bianco to illustrate how reworking and adding to popular works does not detract from their value but rather adds to them, just as the Velveteen Rabbit could only become real through repeated changes ("most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the joints and very shabby"). He compares the perspective of the toymaker to the perspective of the protective creator of a text- both of them view the changes in their work as acts of vandalism. However, to the child, the changes to the toy did not represent damage but rather traces of fondly remembered experiences, evidence of his having held the toy too close and pet it too often, in short, marks of its loving use. Similarly, the fans who rework and try to continue the stories of their favorite authors or TV shows are not damaging the original work. This modification need not be understood as textual “disintegration” but rather as home improvements. The text becomes something more than what it was before, not something less.

In Letham's text, he uses the passage in largely the same way that Jenkins did- he emphasizes that creating new art from already existing models should not be considered as theft or vandalism, but should be appreciated. A novel that can fuel its viewers to create works of their own inspired by it should be considered a success and the works created should be considered as a homage to the original. Artists who seek recompense for every second use make the mistake of punishing their best audience members for exalting and enshrining their work. The second use of stories adds to their value by cementing their place in culture and society, and there is enough space in the world for both the original and the additions.

Letham's use of his work didn't go unnoticed by Jenkins- the latter made a blog post about Letham's article, saying that it "tickled him pink" to see his writing included in an essay written by the author of one of his favorite books. Both the authors seem to hold one common viewpoint- the beauty of second use is something rare and appreciable, not a crime. 

The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism

Jonathan Lethem’s third paragraph in “Contamination Anxiety” is an excerpt from Dave Itzkoff’s New York Times’s article “The Bear Who Was There at the Start of It all”. Itzkoff uses “The Simpsons” courtroom scene as way to introduce his articles main idea. In the scene, the cartoon producer of the show Itchy and Scratchy exclaims “Animation is built on plagiarism! You take away our right to steal ideas, where are they going to come from?” Itzkoff explains that with this scene, the producers of “The Simpsons” were alluding to William Hanna and Joseph Barbera, the creators of Yogi Bear. This animated character was inspired by the Yankees catcher, “The Honeymooners” Ed Norton, and the behavioral traits of Bugs Bunny. Just like the creators of Yogi bear “borrowed” ideas from previous shows ad personalities. Many other cartoons surged that way. Likewise, Lethem incorporates the excerpt in his essay as an example of how “appropriation, mimicry, quotation, allusion, and sublimated collaboration” become an absolute necessity when it comes to the creative act (Lethem 214). It is interesting how Itzkoff uses the paragraph as his article’s introduction while Lethem uses it to exemplify his argument, but both sustain the same ideas: extremely successful cartoons are the product of plagiarism. This transformation of appropriation taught me that Lethem had to invest a lot of time and dedication in order to complete his college text. It is amazing how he found and connected all these excerpts from interviews, articles, and book reviews and created a complete, interesting, fluid essay. Some people view plagiarism as a crime, but Lethem showed that if you combine different texts or ideas, you generate a creative, new project. By “borrowing” from other authors he did not change or affect the original piece, he just copy-pasted them into a new context.   

ecstacy of influence

I find that Lethem is making a point about plagiarism that isn't necessarily focused solely on plagiarism alone. My interpretation of his words are that drawing from the texts and words of other figures is not necessarily plagiarism, but rather a means to draw on the various avenues available to people that others have offered. Works and writings are for people to read and apply, not read and discard. In that sense, writings SHOULD be used much more often than we're taught not to. Sometimes, pulling from the words and phrases of others actually helps best explain or express one's thoughts and ideas. Sometimes it is best to make use of what already exists to better come up with an original conclusion. Personally, I always found it difficult to balance my research papers when my teacher would say to be as original as possible, but back up everything I say with a quote and evidence from another text. The only way to back up my words would be to use the words of someone else. I can't make a fully original point because if it's COMPLETELY original, then that means I'm the first one to think of that point, therefore I can't back it up because no one else will have written about it! I always found it confusing how limited I am in being original when everything has to be traced back to someone else's writing, and yet I had to find away to keep plagiarism under 10%. Plagiarism, in my interpretation of Lethem's words, is literally copying from someone else in the hopes that someone believes it's your original writing. Plagiarism isn't plagiarism if all the information is used to make a point, even if 99% of your work is drawn from someone else. Writings are made to be used, not discarded or ignored.

"The Ecstasy of Influence: a Plagiarism"

I chose to analyze the passage that begins with "The surrealists believed . . ." and ends with the quote by Walter Benjamin. The key cites this passage to be from Christian Keathley's book Cinephilia and History, or the Wind in the Trees, which details the way Joseph Cornell was "as fascinated and distracted" by a certain Hollywood movie as he was with its average rated star, which ultimately alludes to the idea that a viewer incorporates their subjective preferences into a filmmaker's work. Keathley argues that criticism of works should be performed with reasoned tact, not surrealistic delirium.

In "The Ecstasy of Influence: a Plagiarism," Lethem adds his own ideas to Keathley's argument. By explaining our tendency to see the world in a frame, in terms only of how objects are meant to serve us, Lethem establishes Keathley's text as the foundation that holds together his own original ideas. He  encourages us to place objects in unexpected context in order to "reinvigorate their mysterious qualities," and explains that the process of framing objects in a lens in photography and cinema could do this automatically.

This transformation demonstrates that plagiarism should not necessarily have a negative connotation as long as the author appropriates a text for the sole purpose of bolstering his/her own original ideas. As a collective society, we bounce ideas off each other constantly in day-to day communication, and writing should function the same way.

"The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism"

For this assignment I chose to look at the paragraph on page 213 that begins with "Literature has been plundered..." and ends with "...no plagiarist at all." In the key Lethem cites the passage to be from "God's Little Toys" by William Gibson. In "The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism", Lethem uses the passage to provide an anecdote that contrasts what teachers instill in children and what the world is actually like. During the first read of this essay, the reader assumes that the anecdote is that of the author, but once the end is reached, the reader realizes that it is in fact someone else's childhood memory. Lethem provides a clarification that his own first encounter was less epiphanic because his father was a painter and encouraged influence and methods like the "cut-up method" described by Burroughs. Gibson uses his own anecdote in his article in order to introduce his amazement as a child and to enforce the profound impact Burroughs' writing had on him as a future author. He continues on with the article by explaining that everyone owns the world and that he believes everything he writes is some form of collage. He explains that the digital age has made remixes and collages the norm and the originals are rare.
The purpose of the passage is similar in both texts: to show the reader that "plagiarism" is a good thing and influence is inevitable. I think this passage is a good example of how appropriation can change how something is meant. By inserting this paragraph into his work without any quotation marks or in-text citations, Lethem essentially claims the memory as his own. He leaves the pronouns as "I" and "my". This related to another part of Lethem's essay where he claims "Inspiration could be called inhaling he memory of an act never experienced". Lethem directly exemplifies this by using Gibson's memory as his own in order to enforce his point in the essay.
In reading Lethem's essay I learned that "plagiarism" and influence are essential and inevitable. And authors often use many different people's ideas in order to support their own, different individual idea. This is basically exactly what we did in our last paper by coming up with an original idea and using the ideas of Davidson and Johnson to help support our argument.

Search for Shared References within The Ecstasy of Influence

     I really enjoyed Lethem's "plagiarized" essay because it proves that ideas should not be privately owned, but shared. The passage I chose to search was on page 215, "...early in the history of photography..." to "...without compensating the source" (Lethem 215). I chose this passage because comparing visual photographs of common areas to abstract ideas helped me grasp that you can't really "steal" an idea if the original is still intact. I began my search for the original piece, written by Lawrence Lessig, by typing the beginning of the first sentence into google. The fourth result that came up was a link to chapter two of Lessig's book, Free Culture. It did not take me very long to find the original passage within Lessig's book. Originally, this passage was about the early invention of photography and how, when it came into public hands, it did not require the permission of the subject being photographed.
      Lethem made a few changes to the original, especially by omitting sentences that were irrelevant to his own point. He also changed some of the sentences around including, "was the photographer stealing from the person or building whose photograph he shot, pirating something of certifiable value?" (Lethem 215). In the original, Lessig only stated possible arguments that might have come up in court, but by transforming this sentence into a question, Lethem allows people to make their own judgments about photography as theft. Lethem also added "the existence of real mice" (Lethem 215) to the list of originals that Disney drew inspiration from. There is no one to cite for the existence of real mice, except maybe God, so this addition proves that not all sources should have to be compensated if they are readily available to the public. Lethem incorporated Lessig's passage into his own essay very smoothly by adding opening and closing sentences to the original and by shortening the passage to keep it relevant. The new context emphasized that not all sources should have to be recognized when crating art.
     From this "plagiarism" I learned that, by making a few changes here and there, it is possible to take someone's work and use it to strengthen a point that you are trying to make, which may or may not be similar to the original use of the passage. Information is out there and we should be free to use it in order to learn more and strengthen our arguments.In a way Lethem's argument supports Davidson's idea of crowdsourcing because they both encourage using all of the ideas available to the public in order to discover something new. Plagiarism should not be penalized if the copier is able to incorporate a new meaning or perspective from the original work.  

Peer Review Feedback

I thought the peer review process was very helpful. The packet was set up in a way that I knew exactly what to look for in my peers' papers, and through this I became aware of what my own paper was lacking. I liked being able to read others' papers because it allowed me to become familiar with a style of writing different than my own, which I used to my advantage when I was editing my own paper.

Peer review feedback

Personally i really like how the peer review packet is set up i just think it would be better if we randomly received papers to review rather than have the chance to work with those immediately around us because then we get more perspectives on our paper if we by chance keep sitting near the same people.

Peer Review Feedback

I thought that the peer review process was mostly helpful because of how I got to read other students papers and see where they were strong or lacking. This part was more helpful than my peer's comments on my paper because the comments were minor things when really the big issue with my paper was the thesis so I ended up redoing it anyways. But I especially liked the sample papers that received different grades. They were very useful to use as guides for what to do and what not to do.

Peer Review, Review

I learned a lot from the peer review, mainly I was able to have a stable reference for my essay. I was able to map out exactly the areas where I was lacking ta the time based on the strengths in the essay we graded as an A in class. This was extremely helpful, especially since I usually feel stuck when I am unsure what components I feel belong or should be included, and to have those example essays served me very well.

Peer Review Reflection

The peer review gave me a new perspective to my paper. My reviewing partner gave me a lot of insightful tips in toward word choice and syntax as well as picking up the slight typing errors. I enjoyed how my partner focused more on the flow of my essay, rather than the grammar, since grammar is easy to locate while revising, but it is harder to know if my essay makes sense when others read it since I know the full thought I am trying to convey. I disliked the extensive review question sheet though. While it contained good questions, I prefer to have a guiding list of questions available instead of being required to answer them. In my opinion, having to answer questions makes the review more about the questions than about giving constructive criticism to the essay that is being reviewed. It also increased the time I spent reviewing an essay because after reviewing the essay by itself with overarching themes of revision, I had to go back and find the parts in the essay that answered the questions.

Peer Review

I found the peer review process to be very helpful. Seeing my paper from someone else's point of view showed me that some points which were clear to me wouldn't be quite as clear to another reader. It also helped me identify where and why my essay was flawed and needed more work. It was an interesting process where I got to see my writing from the eyes of another person. I got a more objective viewpoint on my essay and that helped me make changes where they were needed. Reviewing someone else's paper showed me multiple areas in which I could improve my own paper to make my argument stronger. Overall, it was a very constructive process which definitely gave me some useful insights on how to improve my paper.

Comments on Peer Review Process

I found the peer review process to be very helpful with my essay. My peers helped point out moments in my paper where summary became a problem and they also gave me useful advice on how to strengthen my argument by using less examples and more original ideas. I found grading the sample papers to be the most helpful part of this process. By reading another paper, I was able to see what organizations and references flowed, and was able to apply these concepts to my own work. I found moments in the sample papers (good and bad) that were similar to my own paper, and now I understand how to avoid mistakes and emphasize my points. All in all, this process was very helpful in revising my rough draft!

peer review

I learned much from the peer review! I learned more about sentence structure, how to cite correctly, and how to use the details of my account to better express myself. Personally, I enjoyed the peer review a lot. It gave me a way to find and see an even balance between my habits of mistakes and my other habits of mistakes that I couldn’t have gotten with just one person. They bounced off of each other nicely in that a wide range of my mistakes was brought to light and made it easier for me to see where I need to put more effort. I can improve in all aspects, but it is mainly learning to express my thoughts on to paper that is most important and noticeable in my writing. I see my paper in a new light in that I don’t just stare at the paper, proud and with a smile on my face. I look at my paper and can see where my mistakes are and how I could best fix them. The peer review was fun and easy and simple and helped to see a lot of what I was doing wrong.

Peer Review Evaluation

At first I did not believe the peer review evaluation was going to be helpful because in the past my peers would just fix my grammatical errors. However, last week my peers really gave me insightful information about my essay. They told me where I still needed to support my ideas, how to improve my thesis, and to be careful with summary. Thanks to their comments I was able to organize my essay in a better way, understand where I needed to improve, and fix my thesis. I also had grammatical and MLA formatting mistakes which they pointed out. Additionally, by reviewing their essays, I was able to find flaws on my own paper. I noticed some mistakes that could be seen in mine and observed how they transitioned from one paragraph to the next and connected their ideas. After finding errors in their papers, it made it easier for me to find errors on mine. It actually proved to be a helpful and enlightening activity.

Notes on Sample Papers

Thank you all for  your comments on the sample papers, which I found very insightful. I wanted to write up some of the suggestions we discussed for revision based on the tendencies of the sample papers.

As you can see, Paper Z/A does something quite different from the other two, in part because it’s dealing with three texts instead of two. This example, not from my own class, shows the way that working with multiple texts forces you to move beyond comparison and contrast between others’ arguments and instead makes you place emphasis on using the texts as support for your own independent, original argument. I particularly like the way the example of the yogurt, for instance, doesn’t seem connected to the writer’s topic sentence except in the way that the author interprets its significance. It’s not an obvious connection, in other words, and is all the more interesting because of that.

Hopefully this exercise, along with peer review, has given you some direction for your own paper revisions. I’d also like to offer you a few suggestions based on what I’ve noticed from reading your rough drafts. Judging from your blog posts, it seems that a number of you have noticed a need to cut down on summary—I agree wholeheartedly. In many cases, students were summarizing the arguments of Johnson and Davidson before turning to their own claims, which is unnecessary. As someone pointed out in their comments on the sample papers, the A paper has a “captivating” argument, whereas the B paper’s thesis is somewhat obvious and/or broad. Given the amount of prefatory material that was in some papers, you might find it most effective to take the claims at the end of your paper and make them the starting point for a new, more specific thesis.

Another area that needs work in many of your papers is organization. As you can see from the sample papers, strong papers make connections within the paragraphs organized around a particular topic. Furthermore, Paper Z/A did not follow a formulaic structure, but instead changed the length and organization of paragraphs according to their role in the argument. As you go through your rough drafts, you should be isolating each paragraph and asking yourself, “what is my claim here?” If it’s a claim you develop in another paragraph, consider linking those paragraphs together. You can also try isolating your topic sentences and quotations from each paragraph in a separate document. Then, in a few sentences, explain why you need those quotations to support your topic sentence. Both of these techniques are a version of what’s called the “Post-Draft Outline.” We’ll have time to talk about it more in the future, but feel free to try it on your own for this paper.

9/13 (Johnson Reading) "Complexity"

A running theme in Johnson's writing is complexity. At first, he uses the term to describe the ant colony. Despite the enormous number of moving parts (ants), the colony works collectively as if it were a single entity. He points out that the mother ant is queen in name only, in that she does not dictate the tasks or activities of the individual worker ants. Each ant seems to carry out its component part in creating and maintaining an intelligent, complex network.
Johnson switches topics without transition and seemingly at random to the city of Manchester. This enclave had no central organization despite its location and importance during the Industrial Revolution. The bustling town filled with exorbitant amounts of trade, vice, and people was under no specific leadership, guidance, or planning. Yet the city seemed to organize itself in a logical, if not elitist manner. Johnson takes the time to discuss how complexity comes in two forms. Firstly, there is the complexity that confuses or confounds. In other words, a system is complex if its user has to put some effort into understanding it. The second type of of complexity is simply a characteristic of the system itself. The way a system, like a city or anthill, organizes itself with order and design.
It's interesting to point out that Johnson is seemingly interested in disorganized complexity, the kind without a grand designer, and yet he praises it for its orderedness and methodology. While this appears to be a contradiction (how can there be order when no one is ordering?), his point I believe is that individuals acting on similar principles or towards a similar purpose, can, without the help of a planner, can make individual decisions that interrelate to realize the shared goal.

Steven Johnson's The Myth of the Ant Queen, Key Term: Organized Complexity

Within his essay "The Myth of the Ant Queen," Johnson uses the term organized complexity in order to describe the most intricate level of scientific study. Johnson first defines organized complexity as the region involving "all problems which involve dealing simultaneously with a sizeable number of factors which are interrelated into an organic whole" (Johnson 204). Johnson's story describing Deborah Gordan's ant colonies demonstrates the idea of organized complexity. Each ant in the colony acts as a contributing factor, which when placed together with the rest of the ants, carries out the ultimate goal of protecting the ant queen. No ant receives any command but acts naturally toward the collective understanding that protecting the ant queen takes precedent over anything. This directly correlates to the concept of organized complexity the way that each ant acts as its own individual factor in the grand scheme of things. 

Johnson provides his audience with another story that embodies the idea of organized complexity. He describes Alan Turing's thinking machines as complex products which work out many individual problems and situations. Each individual task these machines would perform would work together to carry out the ultimate goal of cracking codes the way a human possibly could. Specifically, Shannon's idea to incorporate musical concepts in the hopes it would assist in solving equations and cracking codes.  

Organized complexity could be found among Davidson's iPod experiment at Duke. She held her app designing contest with each student designing their own specific app with its own design, all to work towards the goal of incorporating technology into everyday learning.  Each individual factor working towards carrying out a common goal. 

Response to Johnson posts

Hello class, and thanks again for your latest round of blog posts. Many of you have done a much better job of including quotations (and analysis of them) to back up your points. Keep it up! Once again, many of your points could be made even more convincing by the citation of a particular example. In some cases, for instance, students said that the way Johnson used a term like “emergence” or “complexity” changed, but didn’t cite representative examples to illustrate the differences from different parts of the essay. This brings me to my next point: connections. You all did an excellent job of making connections within Johnson’s text and, in many cases, between Johnson’s text and Davidson’s. For example, Katie does a good job of explaining how the patterns Johnson is interested in reinforce themselves (I think he refers to them as a “feedback loop”), and then wonders whether Davidson’s educational system is stuck because past patterns reinforce themselves. The next skill to focus on (particularly in your papers!) will be to qualify these connections, or in other words, to draw distinctions within the broader connections you’re making. That is, it’s not just important to notice that the two texts are doing similar things, it’s also important to think about the limits of that similarity, because oftentimes the differences within them lead you to a significant insight. For example, Shreya does a good job of explaining the parallels between ants an Manchester, but begins to draw distinctions between them in terms of the way the city maintains a hierarchy. Continue to work through the logic of the connections you make as you begin work on your rough draft: where do distinctions emerge? Why might these distinctions be important? What do they tell us about the limitations of the concepts Davidson and Johnson are dealing with? I look forward to reading your drafts!