hypertext=intertext, paper=fast and inconvienient, digital= slow and sleek

In the first reading I did—The Evolution of Web-site Genres by Eva-Maria Jakobs—seems to discuss the concept of intertextuality. The first sentence she addresses the question of technology in everyday lives and what is new about them (354). Then she goes on to discuss texts and their evolution into the Internet. The words aren’t new. The language isn’t new. If a restaurant has their menu in print (in house) and then they put up a website and put the menu online, does that change the writing? Does it make it new? Then she goes as far as naming a practice hypertextuality and that really just parallels her theory with intertextuality—which then does not make it orginal either. Then Sosnoski, in Hyper-readers and their Reading Engines, discusses this concept of printed text to digital. He talks about the preferences of people who are reading. When he wrote a paper and sent it to a friend, he was asked to provide a paper copy to facilitate that individual’s preference and he argues against it, but then he implies he actually prefers paper too. As time progressed he found himself reading off a screen more and more. So my point with both these writers on this is that the transgression of making the printed text into a digital form doesn’t necessarily make it new writing, but rather it appeals to new groups of people by giving them access through their preference, say if a person was to want to eat out or order ahead rather than dine in. Perhaps, a critic would like to see the menu prior to reviewing an establishment.  Sosnoski states, “hypertexts are not given the same authority as printed ones because textual signatures become blurred in the unending surge of intertextuality called the World Wide Web” (171). I would have to strongly agree with this statement. I think with Internet is a huge conglomeration of other published works, paraphrasing of those works, essays about those works, and other unoriginal constructs—hence why plagiarism is such a big deal online and why as scholars “dependable” sources are required for citation. On the other hand, I would strongly disagree about hypertext as a means for reading faster. I think writing online (such as news) may generally be shortened with a link “to get the full story”, but digitally it is harder to read or notate and therefore takes much more time. I hate reading digital—I have done several semesters with a tablet or kindle and I find it convenient for the lack of carrying 100 books around, but there is something to be said about the “feel” of the paper and turning the page. So I can get where these writers are coming from too. I prefer paper, but find myself in front of digital text all the time.

  This is my point exactly!!! enjoy this video!

Have a little Fisher with Porter

In Porter’s article, there are many valid (and comprehendible) ideas explored. I enjoyed how it argued that all writing is intertextual and students should be taught to utilize this as a tool  [for rhetoric]. We (as students) are given texts to read and analyze and then have to “create connections” with in those texts and, as Porter argues,  “intertwine codes [the learning] in new ways” (41) and write those connections down in a “mundane…explicit citation” (34). Within every class environment, sometimes the same students: sometimes different, same with professors, there are different constraints and discourse communities. If I am in a  class such as this one, I am bound to write differently, in my opinion, than if I were sitting in one of my Lit classes. One reason for this may be the assertion that one of those lit professors is extremely intimidating to me and there fore my comfortablity to write in that class maybe significantly impacted by that intimidation and feeling of inferiority. This would align well, I think, with my potential as a “pre-socialized” (42) writer. My audience to which I am writing for influences my writing based upon a multitude of variables, versus; I feel less constrained in my writing to write for a professor that I am less intimidated by. This assertion could possibly be called Writers Response Theory. If Readers response Theory is how a reader responds to writing, then arguably Writers respond to a whole mess of variables that influence how they write or why they are writing the way they are. Side note: (if this exists as a theory already, I’m not plagiarizing! This just makes sense to me and are my own thoughts unfolding before my eyes faster than my fingers can type!) Which if this is a theory somewhere else would just prove the theory of intertextuality—my writing would then be including “traces” (34) of something else that I am not yet aware of.
Ok back to my main point here; If a student is writing for a particular class, in a particular fashion it can be argued that the student has presuppositions surrounding their writing—such as the assumption that some things need not be expanded on as heavily because the professor or a fellow student even has the same or similar knowledge surrounding the writing being done. If the writing were being written for an audience that is not assumedly informed on the topic being written about, then perhaps more summary or background knowledge would need to be included in the writing. Because a group of students are reading the same text and listening to the same lecture they become their own discourse community and share some foundational “common knowledge” of the material. Then to compound this ideology, each student may come from a variety of other discourse communities—at least three or four other classes as an example. And maybe they bring connections from “outside” texts from those classes—which then gives them a different edge, but nonetheless may influence how they write or speak in the class. If a student then is a senior in a class of peers versus a senior in a class of underclassmen—this may also influence their writing or authoritative voice while speaking within those communities… I apparently had a lot to say about this, huh… who would have thought. Some of this ties into something that stood out to me in Fisher’s Piece.
            On Page 388 Fisher argues “feasibility in regard to administrative approval”. Well here we go, college is bureaucratic and students do seek admins approval (a grade) based upon some strategic scale.  However could writing in a class be considered public? I think so. If the writing is written for any kind of audience—professor or peers—it can be considered public. And on page 385 Fisher discusses the hierarchal system as “a community in which some persons are qualified to judge and lead and some other persons are to follow”. This module is the epitome of  the discourse community I was attempting to dissect. I am surprised at how much I had to say about these articles and feel like I could keep going, but since I am over 700 words at this point I am going to desist! I am just really interested in applying this theory to “real world “scenarios and how does this apply to us now mentality…

Intro Video

theory as a sport

Fish, Grant-Davie, and Geisler et al—Readings of week one

First I might like to say that reading the first reading, by Fish, is much like playing a game of tackle football. It is so strong and dense and leaves you curled up on the playing field asking yourself "wtf?!"—much of which could be argued for most theory text. As I read Fish, I wondered for someone who is 20^th century—and therefore not entirely “old school”, he seemed to derive quite a lot of his conclusions from much older inspiration. This officially hit me when he begins discussing the prototype for serious man vs. rhetorical man. “Rhetorical man manipulates reality, establishing through his word the imperatives and urgencies to which he and his fellows must respond, he manipulates or fabricates himself, simultaneously conceiving of and occupying the roles that become first possible and then mandatory given the social structure of his rhetoric has put in place…” (127). In this passage I cannot help but think of the courtiers in a court during the 16^th century and how they used wit (or was it really rhetoric) to manipulate their positions in regard to the kings they served? These courtiers were loud and boisterous with full intention to be noticed and then utilizing rhetoric (obviously their wit) to persuade the Kings that they were likable and in fact were certainly only acting in accordance of manipulation and for their audience.

The next reading, Grant-Davie, seemed a lot less like a contact sport and more like a game I’d just never played before, but quickly the rules unfold and it became easier and easier to engage in. One passage that gained my intrigue right off the bat—pun intended—is that “rhetors not only answer the question, they also ask it” (265). This demonstrates to me just how much control and thought it takes to play the game of rhetoric. They know about this insider-secret and use it to drive their point home to their audiences or in Grant-Davies terms constituents.  However, the further you delve into their arguments the webs of rhetoric become more and more complicated and intertwined until you realize rhetoric is everywhere and almost inescapable—and then Fish begins to make more sense and realize you can play contact rhetoric too!

The last piece written by Geisler et al was like trying to play something like World of War Craft.  Can it really be considered a game at all? It utilizes technology and a TON of repetition and feels a lot like that movie Rollerball—you know that terrible movie about a futuristic sport that they are enslaved to and use rhetorical situations to persuade and control the audience that watches—if you haven’t seen it, I wouldn’t waste your time and if you have seen it then I’m sorry. Perhaps, Running Man is a better example? Anyway…I did think it was interesting that it argues because Rhetoric is a design it needs to be ethical—which seems appropriate for more contemporary times and in the frame of today’s society. The readings seemed to be in some sort of chronological order to me, but beyond that it also is in some sort of contextual order for deriving conclusions and making connections. Doug, how rhetorical of you :)