forum readings

Kayla

Gopnik

"the internet was the first new medium to move decisively backward, for it is, essentially written" (180)

who hasn't spent a couple minutes every now and then reading through friends' facebook notes and myspace blogs?

Gopnik argues that email has made us more literate. Before that, he claims, most of our communication was through telephone calls and sparse handwritten letters. It helps us renew forgotten friendships; in a second, you can pull up contact information from the address book that can never be lost. But all we really want is to connect without intimacy; this is why the telephone and email succeeded, and the "videophone failed miserably" (181). Another medium, another intimacy mask.

Landow

"reading on a computer screen...lacks many of the pleasures offered by the printed book" (215)

Personally, there are too mnay distractiong icons and ads flashing around the text. They pull your eyes and attention away. I cannot read an article online either; I have to print it out, because the electronic copy does not allow you to highlight and make notations.

each form of physically recording a text has its peculiar strengths and weaknesses, to be sure. What, then, are those associated with the new digital technologies of cultural memory/' (217)

Let me just say that I wish I'd read this selection before turning in my paper last night. It's so relevant in all 3 categories. I also wish I'd readit before my midterm paper as well. I could have used the cultural changes section (2. Printed Books are technology, too). I cannot believe someone is so ignorant enough to say that "technology, particularly information technology, can never have cultural effects" (218). If there weren't any cultural changes, then waht did we just spend a semester learning about? What about the freeing of the mind? Rationalizing thought? 

 "These marks, which so obviously created a visible physical record of invisible sounds, provided a technology of cultural memory that, as Plato and many others since have pointed out, has had defining effects on human culture" (220)

oh my god. I am kicking myself for not having found this reading earlier. What a great quote for my midterm paper.

"the person who would preserve information in a manuscript age does so by preventing readers from having access to the text" (220)

and what a good argument against manuscript for my final paper. Now I'm getting kind of angry,

The materiality of the manuscript made it easily degradable. But I don't think it makes sense to throw out original copies when transferring to digital preservation. For public access's sake, I think digital transfer is essential; that way, the origianl document can be removed and preserved in the proper equipment to use when needed, which hopefully isn't often. But, just in case, it's there. It will still decay, but a whole lot slower. I have a battered copy of the Worthen Anthology of Drama that has pages falling out, tape all over the spine, and (yes, this is true) a squashed fly on the opening page of Fences. And I've only had the book since August. My copy of IANS (you all remember this from news writing) has been in my posession since the same time, but not used as often. I took care of both books. I don't dump my bag after each class. Normal wear and tear accidents happen over time; the pages in Worthen are Bible-print thin and very vulnerable. Would I read an electronic version? No. Only if I could print it out and mark it up; that way, I could have my copy and the reassurance that there was a backup I couldn't screw up.

"duplicating a manuscript requires that one expend an amount of time and energy similar to that expended in the creation of the text one wishes to copy" (221)

which can also lead to the wearing down of the paper, and the exhaustion of the human copier, which leaves the error/mistake gate wide open. For the sake of a more uniform content in distribution and durability of printing machines, the computer wins. But, "digital textuality also permits far greater ease of manipulability and reconfigurability" (221)-now that one applies right to one of my final paper arguments...!!!@!@!#

To sum up Landow, he writes a lot about what I did in my final paper, without mentioning Down and Out or 1984.

Sunstein

"The internet gives you the oppourtunity to meet other people who are interested in the same things you are, no matter how specialized, no matter who weird" (455)

would would have thought that the MUD's grandchild, the discussion board, would spawn political activist groups? The problem is that any nut can form a group or site. Are there any internet regulation rules? Becaue there's a lot of messed up stuff out there. Stuff like the Terrorist's Handbook is cause for government interference, from my point of view. There's filters out there, but nine are fool-proof. I remember once during 5th grade we were doing research when this one kid accidently (or not) pulled up porn. And this got past a filter that wouldn't even let you pull up your e-mail. 

Because the internet is faceless, people can experiement with thoughts without fear of being judged (sort of). It reminds me of that Simpsons episode where Bart creates the fake identity of Mrs. Krabopple's boyfriend with pictures and letters. Identity can be faked, so if people get angry and offended, you can pretend they are rejecting the "internet you", which may or may not be fake.

The separation and lack of interference from opposing groups allows these groups to segregate and remove themselves further from the mainstream. News blogs not regulated by the AP can be as biased and partisan as they like. People like being catered to, so the public is probably going to favour those who favour them.

The "information super-highway" is also a super highway for gossip. Any person with basic blogging skilles can post their thoughts on a subject as fact. chances are, no one will report them, if there is anyone to report them to. I guarantee you, if I posted a blog that said something like "robots eat oranges" and used some creative citing, eiditng, and composition, I could get people to believe it. 

 The rumor mill churns day and night with the internet. Because of the fact that anyone can publish, citing information found on a personal sight is not considered a reliable source for a paper.

Stormy

Since I said all I wanted to say about Lesser during my last presentation, here's a link to that entry: The Conversion

Johnson:

"a link is a way of drawing connections between things, a way of forging semantic relationships" (198)

This article would have been great to read alongside the Media Lab story. Web surfing is preferable because it usually links to more information on the same subject, whereas the television has a much more limited content. Links can take us far away from something that may not have been very helpful. Case in site: Wikipedia articles. While Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, the end of the page usually contains several links that can lead you to a place more reliable.

The story that the columnists for the NYT wrote on McCain would not have bee as biased if they had provided links to the past subjects they were now paraphrasing. Their paraphrasing is dangerous because it reminds people slightly of the past; they may not remember everything. The information provided may muddle together with a distant memory to form something that people may believe is truth.   

Afternoon is a brilliant example of what links can do to literature. A story that have countless links in it and changes constantly would never work in the television medium. People have become accustomed to the fast paced linearality of televised works. Afternoon, because it is a text, can be read at whatever pace the reader prefers. There is no rush to comprehend like when watching a play or tv show. But, Afternoon cannot be recorded and reviewed like the other two can. Only in the original viewing is this game best understood. 

*and that, my journalism friends, is my last blog of the year. My brain hurts from sitting at a computer since 1 pm*

au revoire, I'm going to be in Paris two weeks from the day