when i was younger, we used to watch this show called ghostwriter. it was pretty old fashioned; right about when computers were first getting popular, and the internet had just recently been introduced. i don't remember much, but i do remember that it was not a show about presidential speeches. rather, it dealt with a "real" ghost, which was CG animated (i believe). the ghost was basically a white misty dot that flew across the screen. anyhow, this ghost worked together with a group of kids who formed through writing (???) and together they solved mysteries/crimes. it was not the best show, but i'd have to admit it was interesting.

ghostwriting is a awkward subject because in a sense it is not quite plagiarism. the use of ghostwriting pieces vary also. most people think (me included) that ghostwriting is morally unethical. my take is that you should not claim for that you could not produce. it's almost like hiring someone to go to school for you, and then you show up on graduation day with the cap & gown. so why is it that ghostwriting is accepted in society? then again, why is gay marriage banned? why is gambling legalized? why does racism persists? questions upon questions. it's funny because many people have, are, or will engage in ghostwriting and not even know that they are doing so. for those who do, they are probably making a living out of it.

the word aura has always intrigued me since around middle school when i first learned about it. back then i really didn't understand exactly what the word meant, but i had a rough idea. now that i think about it, the word still doesn't make full sense to me. the question is, will it ever? probably not. an aura is a concept, which makes it more difficult to grasp, along with the fact that there are different meanings for different types. concepts can still be fun though. let's take the color red for example. you know that the pigment red exists, but really it only exists in your mind. one cannot go and collect a bucket of red; it is just a perception from our mind. the same is for an aura. you cannot see an aura, not to mention collecting it, but it exists as a perception in our minds. auras are a radiance of whatever the outward quality is, which is felt by others around the emitter.

someone mentioned in discussion that in order for someone to feel certain auras, there must be a connection between the giver and a receiver; that connection must be physical and mental. in fact if both of those connections are not acquired then there is no aura. no aura can be felt if the person/object is not present, and no aura can be felt if there is no perception of it. when you do have both, there is satisfaction/fulfillment from Picasso's original painting, or one's favorite sports idol, and yes, even one's significant other.

so what of this Roland Barthes? is this guy insane, or is his intelligence far from perceivable? who is he and what is he trying to accomplish? questions stem from questions. perhaps that is what Barthes wants. a philosophical piece of teaching, maybe not. maybe there is no goal to seek/accomplish-no message-no portrayal, maybe he wrote out of thin air; perhaps he was under the influence. with that, we are where we began.

"Death of the Author" a most notorious piece. a painful reading; can't imagine it's construction. was Barthes just writing or was he tying to relay a message? was it both or perhaps neither? what if he desired it to be both and neither. what lies in the middle? an unknown.

Barthes wrote/thought to accomplish this unknown. why? he doesn't want an author, nor a reader it seems. a piece of work just out there-no evaluation, no analysis, that is unknown. little understanding, barely readable. that is unknown. but as i stop typing, i have done exactly that which Barthes did not want me to do. is it inevitable or unknown?

Interesting Class?

so it seems that i have again stumbled into what i may consider a fun and interesting english course. previous experiences at the UW have proved the opposite, but this one begs to differ.

the content of the course breaks from the classic concept of an english course, which is basically to read a book a week, write a follow-up 10 page paper, take some midterms related to the readings, and end with a cumulative final comprehension.

this course seems to have less readings, which is a plus for my time and my money. on top of that, the assigned readings and the course agenda look pretty interesting. i'm actually looking forward to plagiarizing a paper as part of the coursework.

i must not forget that the very action i am performing right now is also part of the coursework. blogging. this shows that along with technology, our education is advancing in many great ways. it looks to be that another course may gain the right to be placed on my list of worthwhile things in college.