linguistique

new literacies in a digital age

2007-04-02T18:41:00.000-07:00

After the readings, I found myself wondering if there has been research on the use of hypertext to improve reading comprehension. Just imagine if a student reading a text with words he is unfamiliar with could click on them to view the definitions as he reads in class. Not only could he view definitions, he could see related artwork, information on the author, period information, theme explorations, etc. Everything would be embedded in one text! We have this already on the Internet, but we don't have enough computers for every student yet, so the texts we provide in class pale in comparison.
Being the mother of a three-year-old, I get to walk into Half-Price Books and unabashedly purchase postmodern children's literature in great quantities. I am amazed at how cool children's books are becoming. One of our favorite authors is Neil Gaiman. His illustrations mesh with text, and the text is usually presented in a way that depicts sounds or feelings. Here are two illustrations, one from Wolves in the Walls and the second from The Day I Swapped My Dad for Two Goldfish.

more to come...

Television: A Tool for Literacy

2007-03-27T13:13:00.000-07:00

I must admit that my views of mainstream television are quite biased, as I subscribe to the ideology of mass culture, which Storey described in the assigned chapter. I say "mainstream television" because I tend to lump television programming into several categories, which can then be broken up into categories within themselves:
1. news
a. unfiltered (BBC)
b. filtered (FOX)
2. information
a. entertainment (E!)
b. education (Biography Channel)
3. mainstream television
a. reality shows (The Bachelor)
b. sitcoms (Friends)
c. dramas (ER)
4. intelligent television
a. sitcoms (Extras)
b. dramas (Six Feet Under)
Of course, there are many other categories, but these are the main ones that come to mind. I tend to veer away from mainstream television because it doesn't make me think, or at least I feel that way. However, as Johnson pointed out, today's shows, even mainstream dramas, put more cognitive strain on viewers than ever before. One of the reasons I love the ability to record programs is that I am not a slave to what is on at the moment. I have always wanted a cable package that included all the "extra" channels but not the "basic" channels because I rarely ever go to those. I never watch mainstream sitcoms because they just don't do it for me, and I don't have time to get sucked into a mainstream drama. I feel they are a waste of my time. However, I don't have any qualms about getting sucked into what I refer to as intelligent television. I will fill up my recording list with The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Family Guy, Six Feet Under (when it was still on), Extras, etc. Of course, these all fall into the category of entertainment, but it is the perceived intelligence of these shows that keeps me coming back. I don't believe that any emotional realism, which Storey described, plays a part in my selection of these shows, as I don't feel any kind of connectedness with any of the characters--I am so unlike any of them. It is the well-written script (Extras), the satire (Family Guy, or the deep characters (Six Feet Under) that draw me in and keep me coming back to watch more. Six Feet Under has mastered "televised intelligence" and intricately weaves multiple threads throughout the program.
With all that said, it is a bit embarrassing to admit that I do enjoy watching a reality show that piques my "melodramatic imagination." The show is called Wife Swap, and it involves two wives swapping lives with each other for two weeks. I am able to watch this show as an "ironiser" because I realize it is an example of mass culture, and I basically mock it. I think I am drawn in by the sheer shock and amazement that their are people like the ones on the show actually out there. Sometimes I question whether these are real families. I also view it as pure entertainment, something I can watch without thinking after a long day of cerebral push-ups.

My favorite part of the readings was the following quote: "Realism is an illusion created by the extent to which a text can successfully conceal its constructedness" (McCabe, 1974).

As for the Hip-Hop sites, I liked H2Ed was my favorite, especially the mp3s on the site, but none of them had enough information for my taste. However, I did find some cool lesson plans on JustThink.

literacy is a commodity

2007-03-14T12:41:00.000-07:00

I especially enjoyed the Shannon and Lessig readings this week, as I had an idea of how much our literacy is regulated, but not to the extent that it was put forth in the readings. When I taught journalism, I always started with its history and pointed out that free speech and free press are part of what makes us America. The majority of other countries control what is published, written, and even spoken, so, I would tell my students, we should be very thankful that we live in a country that honors our freedom of expression. However, after these readings, I see that I had no idea the extent to which we are being controlled.

As a teacher, I wholeheartedly believe that ideas should be encouraged and shared to foster learning, but if, as Lessig points out in Free Culture, we allow law and technology to limit our freedoms, we are asking for trouble. By trying to prevent abuse of freedom, everyone, regardless of how he uses his freedom, is being stripped of the right to make choices. Like Lessig, I agree that creators should be rewarded for their creations, but no one will benefit from those creations if copyrights extend indefinitely. We cannot learn from one another if ideas are off-limits. The next thing you know, schools will have to pay a fee every time a teacher uses a particular short story in class. How can we learn if information is kept under lock and key?

Lock and key is precisely what Shannon described in her "Marxist Reading of Reading Education." The intense control over texts that Lessig describes has already filtered down into the schools. There are many reasons and ways that schools are turning into factories producing drones, but turning literacy into a commodity is truly subversive, what Marx calls "the fetishism of commodities." I know my teaching is being controlled by standards and rigid lesson plans that are handed to me each week, but I always felt that at least I could choose what my kids read. But if I use the textbook provided, am I really choosing? Are my kids really choosing when they go to the school library to pick out a novel of their choice, or are they being controlled by what books are available to them there? What politics are in play regarding the collection of books in our library?

That students are being "dumbed-down" and turned into drones is not something I question; however, now I can see where my freedom to teach has been stripped from me. I, too, am a drone, controlled by even the tools I use to teach.

"Every tool is a weapon--if you hold it right." --Ani DiFranco

2007-02-25T21:02:00.000-08:00

The overall idea that struck me throughout the readings is that everything is symbolic. Whether it is what we say, the tools we use, or the act of writing on the page (or typing on the screen), everything has a greater meaning in and of itself. Although, as Haas states, writing is "inextricably based in the material world" (p. 3), the act of writing (using tools) has philosophical (Plato & Derrida), historical (Havelock, Ong, Goody & Watt), and sociopsychological (Vygotsky, Scribner & Cole) implications.
The ideas generated by Haas and Eisenstein were illuminated by Prof. Bomer's research on the use of tools to build literacy. He revealed the bare-bones idea posited by Vygotsky that a tool transforms the internal to the external, and in doing so, creates cognition in the individual because he uses his reasoning, intuition, and perception (which has been shaped by culture) to determine what to do with said tool. As Bomer points out, "The person uses an object outside her skin to organize her inner thoughts and states of mind" (p. 225).
I also realized that without tools we would lose communication altogether, for orality is just another tool. Without any means to express ourselves, we would be forever trapped inside our minds and would probably, eventually, go crazy. Imagine not being able to say how you feel (even if it's a groan or guffaw), not being able to make a mark to represent something you are trying to externalize, not being able to use body language to convey meaning. Thankfully, we are all tools (no pun intended). We can move our bodies, roll our eyes, make noise, move things with our hands, stomp our feet, etc. We have an intrinsic need to express ourselves, and if we lack a tool, we can find "unintended affordances" in objects to communicate.
I found it interesting that Bomer mentions Norman's idea of affordances because I just finished reading his Design of Everyday Things, and I can totally see the relationship between the Vygotskian perspective and Norman's perspective on design. Objects (tools), if they are designed well, constrain the user so he or she uses it correctly. Further, affordances (what the user can do with the object) are made clear so as not to confuse the user. Designers study our use of objects to improve on design, and that use comes from our externalizing our internal desires for those objects. It is interesting to note that Norman originally called his book The Psychology of Everyday Things because the way we engage with objects is also manipulated by the way we think and feel. Physical, semantic, cultural, and logical constraints teach us what we can and cannot do with tools (objects). Feedback lets us know if we made the right choices and if the tool is working properly or improperly. The use of the tool correctly creates meaningful relationships in our memory when we use our procedural knowledge, which we glean from our ongoing practice using the tool.

Writing as an Art Form: A Dialogic Response to Olson

2007-02-18T21:52:00.000-08:00

Let me preface this by saying I am mainly discussing the RTE article, as that was what really got my wheels spinning.

In my opinion, writing is an artistic form of communication, just as drawing, painting, singing, acting, or sculpting are. All forms of communication should be, and I believe are, dialogic in nature. They are all open to interpretation, which is what makes them great learning devices. None of these forms of communication is better than another, but I do believe some lend themselves to learning more than others do, writing being the top provider.

Olson tends to put more weight on orality than I think he should. He puts much weight on there being a “complex set of procedures at play for producing a common understanding” in oral discourse, which made me immediately ask, “And there aren’t in writing?” Thankfully, Nystrand reinforced my assertion that writing is just a different form of communication with a different set of tools—paragraphics—just like the painter with his brushes and palette. For me, speaking and writing are interdependent, yes, but they are also two very different modes of communication. So why are we arguing about the ways in which the orange is unlike the apple?

Olson argues, “Writers must invest considerable effort in making the linguistic properties of the written form capture . . . the meaning he or she intended.” Why is this bad? The extra effort makes the writers better communicators, both written and oral. I argue that we end up communicating better (and learning more and expanding our ideas more, etc.) because of the effort we put into writing, and we DO have a set of tools to frame our writing; it’s not like we’re flying by the seat of our pants anymore. The more we use the tools (the pen, the brush, etc.), the less effort it will take. Does Olson think it doesn’t take considerable effort to get our meaning across in speaking? Is everyone an inherently good speaker?

When Olson said, “The belief that the construction of such self-interpreting texts was in fact possible is a defining feature of Modernism,” I asked, “Am I a Modernist?” I do believe texts are self-interpreting, which is what makes them an art form and a learning tool. But then Olson clarified that Modernists believe that the text holds the “true and ultimate meaning,” and I disagree with that. Okay, so I’m not a Modernist. I think texts should be OPEN “invitations to interpretation.” I don’t think there is one true meaning EVER. Everyone gets something different out of a text, as it should be, because new interpretations create new ideas. He also says that texts are “surrounded by a penumbra of oral discourse.” Texts SHOULD be surrounded by oral discourse; they SHOULD become “invitations to interpretation.” Just as paintings invite the audience to interpret them, so should texts.

Just as I was starting to dislike Olson’s train of thought, he came around and admitted, “Carefully crafted documents are often a better indication of the intended meaning than an interview with the author himself.” Okay, he earned one brownie point so far. But then he turns around and says, “One’s beliefs and thoughts are fluid and interrelated in ways that writing is not,” so I took his point away. I disagree. I think we can write fluidly and interrelate our beliefs and thoughts in our writing. Whereas Olson thinks writing “imposes additional structure,” I don’t believe it has to. I would argue that what we write is often better than what we would say. Writing may take more work, but it is often a more effective method of communication because it requires forethought, organization, and reflection.

I also disagree with Olson when he says, “Misinterpretations of imprecise or unedited expressions are unlikely to be contributions to knowledge.” I disagree again. We learn from our mistakes and those of others. It is through those disagreements and misinterpretations that we open a dialogue to create a high level of precision. Too, writing allows us to formulate our own opinions, no matter how imprecise. These are not problems; they are benefits—a learning device.

Olson ends his discussion by saying, “Thinking for writing is a kind of literate thinking that, once mastered, is useful even in oral discourse." So, I guess he came around to see my point at the end after taking me on a long journey full of disagreeable statements. Did I learn something? Yes. Then how could my interpretation by any less valuable than someone else’s?

I hope to have time to rant about the implications of what Wells had to say as it relates to education today. I voiced a resounding, “Hell, yeah!” after reading his section.

World on Paper, Ch 1-5

2007-02-10T16:41:00.000-08:00

If I'm wrapping my head around this correctly, Olson is saying that reading and writing in and of themselves are not what make us literate; rather, it is the attempt to learn how to read and write and the ways in which we do read and write that makes us literate. Is that write? (haha) Personally, I believe that orality and literacy go hand-in-hand and are enhanced by each other. I believe that writing has more of an effect on cognition than speaking does, even if writing lacks intonation. Part of learning to be a good reader is figuring out the author's intention, the tone of voice, the mood of the text, etc. The cool thing about text is that the reader creates his or her own interpretation about what is written, just like we do with a piece of artwork. It is in the analyzing and interpreting of a text that we gain knowledge. I can't seem to believe that a culture that lacks literacy can be as intelligent as a culture that utilizes both orality and literacy. As Olson pointed out from page one, we live in a world on paper; therefore, it's imperative we are literate. But Olson complains that texts lack intonation. Are we going to go back to having town criers instead of newspapers? I would argue that intonation is explicit in the text because we have advanced as a literate culture and know how to write so as to make the intonation clear. Also, it's what a text "fails to represent" that is formulated by the reader, which is a skill that benefits cognition.

context is everything, IMO

2007-02-04T18:33:00.000-08:00

For my storytelling assignment, I recorded my best friend Jace explaining why Watchmen is the ultimate graphic novel. When I began recording, I was not sure if he would even tell a story, and it was only after he was well into the story that I realized he was involved in a performance. The story, he explained, was about deconstructed superheroes in an altered history of the US who were more costumed vigilantes than superheroes. These characters face ethical, moral, and personal challenges while trying to solve a murder. What I, as a spectator, got out of the storytelling was not the synopsis of the graphic novel but the elements that make the novel great. Because of my interest in literature, my background of studying and teaching literature, and my love of literary elements, I wound up focusing on Jace's explanations of what made the novel so amazing rather than his summary of the events in the novel. He wove them both together, but I selectively listened because of my own context. I also focused on those moments when he discussed motifs, themes, symbols, montages, etc. because he seemed to stress them in his speech. I don't know if this was because he knew I understood what made great literature great or if it was his own love of literature that made him slow down and carefully choose his words when discussing the literary elements of the novel rather than the storyline.

As Bauman and Briggs point out, "decontextualization from one social context involves recontextualizaton in another" (74). This statement, to me, means that stories have many layers of meaning depending on the context in which they are told. The author wrote the book in one context, Jace read it in another context, and he told me the story in another context. Therefore, the story goes through a never-ending cycle of decontextualization and recontextualization, which is pretty cool because it's like the story takes on a life of its own as it interacts with different people in different contexts. We tend to think of texts as static--words on a page--but when a person attaches meaning to those words, the texts become dynamic.

reflection on readings

2007-02-03T10:05:00.000-08:00

"Speech Act Lumber and Paint"

The most important information I gleaned from this article is that content in and of itself is not enough to analyze a speech act. Structure provides rich points that must be addressed in order to make meaning out of the content. A perfect example is the transcript from my "stolen conversation." Because I was present when recording the conversation and because I have personal knowledge of these students, I already have knowledge of the structure. However, a person who did not see the conversation take place, may imagine a completely different structure. Even if the person could hear the recording of the conversation, he or she would miss many structural clues, such as body gestures, facial expressions, etc. It is the information missing in the transcript that provides the key to creating meaning in the conversation. For example, someone reading the transcript may think that Robert and Lexis are being mean to Eduardo when they make comments about his sexual orientation, but the playful tone of their voices indicated that they were only teasing Eduardo, and my prior knowledge that these three are close friends who often tease each other helped me to understand that this was a routine speech act among the students. Further, having knowledge of prepubescent children, I know that sexual orientation is a big topic among middle school students, which probably has something to do with their sexual awakening. As you can see in the conversation, the students refer to things they don't like as "gay," and it is common to call anything from an assignment to a student who says something silly "gay."

I completely agreed with Agar when he discussed how difficult it is to perfectly transcribe a conversation. I, too, found myself adding words that were not there or making corrections to what was said. For example, when Eduardo mentioned "System of the Down," I left out the word "the" at first because I know the band's name is "System of a Down." However, when I listened to the tape again, I discovered Eduardo had indeed changed the name of the band to what he thought it was. I had to listen to the tape three times before I got the transcript correct, including all the "ums" and pauses in just the right place.

The article also made me more aware of speech acts I have throughout the day. I have an assistant principal who constantly Garfinkels when I talk to her. Ironically, it is she who starts the conversations. She will ask me how my day went, and I will say a short sentence or two to summarize the day's experience. I expect her to react to what I've said in some way, but she often walks away, starts talking to someone else, or says something completely new. I find this extremely frustrating because it tells me she doesn't really care how my day went or doesn't want to be bothered with the information she asked for in the first place. So why does she keep asking me?! I want to ask her, "Do you really care?"

After the last class, I better understood that Garfinkeling is when you purposely do something unexpected to study the reaction. My A.P. does not purposely Garfinkel to figure out some greater meaning to our conversation. Therefore, I must conclude that she's just self-centered in her conversational skills and just plain rude. :)

Conversational Style

I really had a personal experience with the assigned chapters of this book because I ended up analyzing the way I communicate with others and why I get the reactions I do. I often use mutual revelation to show that I understand what other people are saying. I find it annoying when I use mutual revelation and others do not; I want to get the feeling others understand what I'm saying, too. I also enjoy cooperative sentence building and relate it to a great conversation. I feel like we are on the same wavelength and walk away satisfied.

My father hates talking to me. He says I'm too loud, and the more excited I get, the louder I become. This is the enthusiasm constraint. I believe that if I get more excited about what we're talking about, he will share my enthusiasm, but, instead, he gets turned off and stops talking. Like the author, I fully expect others will talk over me. He wants me to totally change the way I communicate, and he says that other people are turned off by people who talk the way I do, but I have found that the majority of people I talk to are drawn to me because of the way I talk. My enthusiasm has served me well in my classroom because it "rubs off" on the students. I find that if I'm excited about something we're talking about, they tend to get excited, too. I also expect that when I'm persistent, the other person will be verbally aggressive if he or she has something to say, but I realize that isn't very productive.

My style of conversation shows that I have a low tolerance for silence. I have to fill up space with talk, and I hate waiting for others to respond. I find myself trying to pull information out of people who take forever to form what they want to say. Ironically, I can effectively use a Socratic questioning method successfully in my classroom, which forces me to be patient and wait for students to think and form answers, but in informal situations, I expect answers right away. In reflecting on this, I see that I probably intimidate some people so that they feel "bulldozed" in the conversation.

Honestly, I resent that I have to change the way I communicate to some people, which is pretty selfish of me. If I value the other person, I should be able to have enough self-control to adapt the way I am communicating. I believe that, instead, I just avoid people that I can't communicate with effectively, chalking it up to lack of shared interests or a clash in personalities. In the case of my father, however, I have a conundrum. I do value him as a person and want to be able to communicate effectively, but I walk away from our conversations feeling irritated and disappointed, and it even lowers my self-esteem because he's so hypercritical of my method of communication. I find myself saying, "This is the way I am. This is how I've always been. Why can't you just accept it?" But, if my purpose is to have an effective conversation with him, shouldn't I be willing to change my style of conversation?

"Opening up Closings"

I found this article extremely hard to read, as it was very dry and scientific. I hope I at least got the gist of the article. I think it's about using topic shifts to close conversations rather than traditional closings, such as "goodbye" or "you're welcome." I did think of how annoying it is my father never says, "Goodbye," when we close a phone conversation, which I think is necessary but he believes is superfluous. I can't recall the number of times I have continued talking after he's long hung up the phone, and I get so angry that I call him back just to demand he say, "Goodbye," and explain that it's rude not to close the conversation properly. The article addresses this, too, because we have different types of speech acts depending on the frames provided. Because we are related, my father may think it's not important to follow the normal closing routine. In talking to a stranger, however, he may ensure he properly closes the conversation. (My father doesn't fit in the group of people who do this, however, as he forgoes any expected closing with whomever he is conversing, regardless of the occasion.) The article also illuminated how we use pre-closing devices to signal that the conversation will be coming to an end soon and that using these devices depends on the organization of the conversation, the occasion, and the episode.

a stolen conversation

2007-02-03T09:59:00.000-08:00

The following conversation comes from two sixth-grade students (and occasionally a third) talking over lunch. I sat behind them, so they did not know they were being recorded. I wanted them to give me a genuine conversation sample. Although the lunch room provided a great atmosphere for relaxed dialogue among the students, it also caused me problems because of the noise level.

Eduardo is an eleven year-old Hispanic student, Lexis is an eleven year-old who is part Hispanic, and Robert is a twelve year-old Hispanic student. The conversation is mainly between Eduardo and Lexis, with Robert sporadically inserting comments during the dialogue. This portion of the conversation lasted approximately four and a half minutes. The students were eating lunch at the same time they were talking.

Note: Underlined words mean the student added great emphasis to them.

E: So . . . is she going out with someone?

L: Well, I don’t know if she’s going out with anyone, but I can find out.

E: Is she?

L: I don’t know if she’s go—

E: Is she?

L:...I know who she likes. I—

E: Who does she like?

L: I know that she um . . . I know someone likes her, and I um don’t know if she likes them back. Actually two people like her . . . well now you, too.

E: There’s a second person? (sounding surprised; voice very high-pitched)

L: Huh?

E: I’m the second person?

L: You’re the third.

E: Oh.

R: So now three people like her.

E: So he is going out with her?

L: I don’t know. I don’t know if she said...no she said, “No,” to the first that asked her out because what if her friends like that person, too?

(long pause)

L: How do you know her?

E: (to Robert) What are you doing?

(pause)

E: (to Lexis) Jerri.

L: How does Jerri know her?

E: Uh . . . cause she’s in her class.

R: (to Lexis) What are you doing?!

L: (to Robert) Shut up, stupid! (yelling)

E: (to Lexis) Lexis likes Robert? (in a playful, sing-song tone)

R: What? No . . . no.

E: And you want to go to his house at night to—

L: Hell, no! I have a boyfriend that I actually like.

E: His name is Sammy (sing-song voice). . . and he got a referral yesterday, and I had to take him like a baby to the office (laughs).

R: Ha ha ha!

E: He had this personal note about you we were writing last time—

L: What?

E: He didn’t want to . . . (in response to something Robert was doing) Are you mentally retarded? (very sarcastic tone)

L: I don’t know what you’re talking about.

(Eduardo and Robert engage in an argument about something for about fifteen seconds. I could not pick up what they were saying.)

L: So . . . wait . . . what happened? I’m a little confused.

R: Eduardo’s gay! (very loud)

L: So what boy do you like?

E: None . . . my dog.

L: So what did he get in trouble for?

R: He likes his dog!

E: Cause remember when we were passing the notes about you going out with him and stuff, but he didn’t want to give it to Ms. B . . . and she’s like, “You either give it to me or you get a referral,” and he’s like, “I’d rather get a referral.”

L: What did it say?

E: The note we were writing! (yells)

L: Oh!

E: I think it was . . . I think it was because it had a big “NO.”

L: Oh.

L: No, cause passing notes is naughty.

E: What was it about?

L: None of your business!

E: This tastes (pronounced taste-is) weird now.

L: Yeah, it does.

L: It’s not my fault you have germs—

E: I don’t have germs!

L: . . . and that your mouth is infected with rabies.

E: You know a boy I like? My dog. His name’s Cookie.

L: Ewwww!

R: Ewwww!

L: You’re sick!

E: He’s my dog!

R: A sick animal!

E: You’re mean!

L: Oh . . . well he rolls around like an animal . . . so . . .

E: Don’t you have a cat?

L: I have a dog, thank you.

E: A dog? I . . . (R, L, and E start to overlap)

L: You know what, Robert? (yelling)

R: I’m just kidding!

R: (singing) I walk it out like Usher . . .

L: (singing) I walk it out . . . I walk it out . . .

E: Are you bisexual?

L: (shocked; to Robert) Did you just ask me if I’m bisexual?!

E: Robert!

L: Robert! That’s a personal question!

R: I didn’t say it; that’s him. (sounded more like, “I idn’t sayitim.”)

E: Robert! Stop blaming me for your own mistakes. (laughing)

L: Be responsible for your own actions, and, no, I am not bisexual.

R: (singing) I want you to blink . . . the night she rolls (hard to make out exact lyrics) . . . Eduardo, don’t drop the soap. (laughs)

L: (laughing)

(pause)

L: What kinda music do you listen to, Ed-weird-O?

E: Heavy Metal and Hip-Hop.

R: I listen to Rap and Hip-Hop.

L: Most Rap is gay, and so is Hip-Hop and Pop.

E: Have you ever heard the System of the Down?

L: Yeah.

(pause)

L: (singing) System of a Down . . .

L: I listen to a lot of stuff . . . I listen to Rap, Screamo, Indie, Alternative, Metal . . . yeah, that’s basically it . . . oh, and a little bit of Power Pop Punk.

R: (listing some types of music, but I can’t make out what he’s saying because he’s mumbling)

E: I listen to sometimes Golden Oldies.

R: Why do you always listen to like croodie stuff?

L: Croonie?!

R: Croodie-ish.

L: Oh.

L: Yea, Heavy Metal is . . . yeah, it’s okay . . . I’m a big fan of Heavy Metal, but—

R: Hip-Hop and Rap—

E: It’s okay—

E: . . . and some music . . . cause in some music they talk about the Devil—

R: Hip-Hop and Rap, dat’s tight—

E: . . . yeah, and like some of it like System of the Down it’s okay—

L: My Chemical Romance rocks my socks—

E: Yeah.

L: Cause MCR’s the best . . . they’re just awesome. Oh my God, do you know a band Drop Dead Gorgeous?

E: Yeah.

L: Oh my God. I love them. They came here last time—

R: (mumbles something)

L: Robert, shut up! Robert! Shut up before I take your head off!

R: Take my head off, then.

L: Robert! Ugh!

(pause)

L: Look, I have this like bruise on my leg and it hurts. Ewww. Ewww.

(pause)

L: Do you like . . . Do you like . . . Do you like . . . Look, I’m going to name a bunch of bands and you tell me if you like them.

L: Drop Dead Gorgeous?

R: Nope.

L: My Chem?

R: Nope.

L: Thursday?

R: No.

L: From First to Last? Gym Class Heroes?

R: No.

L: Under Oath?

R: I don’t know them.

L: Fall Out Boy?

R: Yeah.

L: Yeah?

R: Yeah.

L: Huh, what was I going to say? Oh, I know what it was. Thirty Seconds to Mars?

E: Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. I . . .I, I kinda like their music, but they’re—

L: Three Day’s Grace?

E: . . . one of my cousin’s favorites.

L: Their song “Pain” is kinda stupid . . . it just goes like, “Pain Pain Pain Pain.” It goes like, “Cause I’d rather feel pain than nothing at all. Pain. Something. Something. Something.” The whole song they just say, “Pain.”

(pause)

L: Um . . . Do you know who um Norma Jean is?

E: Stop asking me these questions! (sounding flustered)