Digitalization

I feel that people make a big deal out of digital books, perhaps because they don't hold as much character as a physical book. However, for me, the character of the book is within it's text, it's content, and what it can teach me. I have never been one who wrote in the margins or highlighted certain quotes of books frequently, but even digital technology still lets you do this. Therefore, I do not see the big deal. The words on the "page" are not altered, so why should it matter whether you are holding a Kindle or essentially what could be described as a large stack of papers? I feel that it's the words that matter most.

Also, I own a Kindle myself and I find reading digitally is much easier than reading a physical book. It is always awkward when you have to hold both edges of the book open and I often cannot find a comfortable position to read in. However, with my Kindle, I am not only saved the awkwardness of it all, but also the weight of the book. Often times, I like to lie flat and read (probably strange) and the book usually tires my arms. As pathetic as that sounds, it becomes a problem when trying to read easily. And with my neck and back being all sorts of messed up, I could use as little problems as possible when trying to position myself comfortably. Also, with the Kindle I have a free hand for snacking. Who doesn't enjoy a snack while reading?

Alas, I do not believe in this "lack of mystery" that digital books have. I think it's completely appropriate to own and read digital books and hey, we could all use the trees we'd be saving.

Wales and his army of editors

Wales "has marshalled an army of volunteers who believe that, working collaboratively, they can produce an encyclopedia that is as good as any written by experts, and with an unprecedented range."

This is the main goal of Wikipedia. The intentions of the site are ultimately good, but can we achieve this is our society?

There are so many different types of people who use the internet and Wikipedia reaches them all. I feel that because of this, Wales' goal is unattainable. There is no credibility factor that is necessary in order for a n encyclopedia to be useful. There is a difficult balance that Wales intends to maintain between free and easy knowledge and credible knowledge. That's the conflict with using Wikipedia as a source - the information may not be reliable.

Despite saying all of that, If Wales were to find that balance, it would be a revolution in information technology. I think it could change our society from being ill-informed, to over-informed.

One could also argue that if knowledge is derived from experience, Wikipedia is the perfect source. It could combine the experiences and opinions of all the different types of people in the world to create a super-base of knowledge. However, I still believe this to be an idealogical way of thinking.

"Men, men, men!!!"

One of my favorite characters from these acts is Mrs. Higgins. Despite her son's mischievous behavior, she keeps a graceful and calming attitude about her. I also enjoy her character because she is one of the only characters, perhaps besides Mrs. Pearce, that can actually relate to Eliza and actually cares for her. She can see the harm the men are going to cause Eliza when everything is said and done, yet she cannot seem to convince anyone of this. Mrs. Higgins does not directly interfere, however. Rather, she lets things fall into place. I think she handles the situation this way because there is no use trying to convince Henry that he is doing wrong and she knows this. Also, there is no convincing Eliza that this is a bad idea either because she is so dazzled by the idea of moving up in society.  Mrs. Higgins does allow Eliza to stay with her after her fight with Henry and seems to become her confidant in this way. Mrs. Higgins just seemed like one of the more genuine and admirable characters in the play.

I loved the scene where Higgins and Pickering are crowded around Mrs. Higgins, shouting over one another in excitement over Eliza's progress. This really made me laugh because both men are so consumed in their perspective of the experiment that they don't even notice that they are bombarding Mrs. Higgins. Instead, they just fuel each other to become louder and more obnoxious. This is one of the only times where I saw Mrs. Higgins lose her cool as she shouts at the men to stop bothering her and then claims "men, men, men!!!" as an end to the act. I thought this was an interesting way to end the act. The hysteria of the men has caused Mrs. Higgins a sudden outburst against them. I'm wondering what Shaw meant to imply by doing this. I also wonder if there is some tension between the genders and if Shaw is playing on this idea.