In this article, Joe Porter give us a very in-depth account on his experiences with technology over the years. The way he has written this article is in a very personal and intriguing manner because he doesn't just give his reader facts and the history of technology from one period to the next. What he does is he explains to us how technology has changed his own life and his writing over time. However within this personal narrative, is the underlying argument that yes, technology is significant to writing. I was not familiar with many of the computer systems that he spoke, so his decision to include images to his article was very beneficial to me as a reader because I was able to put a visualize what he was writing about. This saved me alot time; it prevented me from having to open up another web tab and search for this system on google. If I had written this article, I would have included a chart somewhere that depicts the evolution on writing from the pencil, to the typewriter, to the computer. Personally, I think this would have been a great addition for those readers who need that extra visual component to understand a writer's point. His use of computer jargon could be bit confusing to someone who is unfamiliar with the terms "ram", "TRS" or "interface".
Porter's argument of Barron's point that indeed that the pencil as well as the computer, were simply instruments used by a writer was a valid one. Porter stresses the revolution currently being caused my the networking computer that is changing writing even as I type this. The network computer allows from an entire different world in which writing exists in the context of many many communities. Take this blog for example. Although the computer I am writing on is simply the tool I am using to type, the fact that I am writing to a system that can viewed immediately, without edit, to a global audience, impacts the way in which I write. Yes, I am aware of grammar and structure, but now I am also more conscience of the sentences I put together, of the ideas I express and the way they are presented to those reading this. This "awareness" changes the way I would write this response. It might be significantly different if I was to simply be writing it to my professor. Now, that I have posted this on our course blog, my ideas are open to the critiques, arguments and opinions of those who choose to read and comment on the blog. They are the subject of a digital conversation and even a learning community. And this is something that is occurring everywhere, not only within the school setting.
Dancing
14 years ago
I also enjoyed the author's personal tone in compared to the other article by Wysocki which was very dry. I think a lot of the author's computer jargon may have been confusing, at least for me, because his venture into writing began before my time.
ReplyDeleteMyT, I also enjoyed this article. I especially liked that it was, for the most part, simply written in a chronological narrative style and so was suitable for reading on the train (where I seem to spend most of my time these days). I didn't agree with everything he said, but I did like the way that he talked about collaborative learning. I also liked what he said about post-humanism being feminist. It made me think: If post-humanist view is feminist and queer theorist does that make humanists a straight males?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the big question seemed to be how will we use or design and engage technology. My big question is who will use, design and engage technology? Will it end up being the same people who always decide what gets used, designed and engaged in? Or is technology finally a way to even that playing field.