I know that last night I said I wanted to move away from the techie stuff and pick up on something different, but I just wanted to read Stuart Selber's introduction to his edited collection entitled Rhetorics and Technologies: New Directions in Writing and Communication. I wanted to read this for a couple of reasons. First, I read Carolyn R. Miller's "Foreword" a couple of weeks ago about the Pushmi-Pullyu and did not really get a good sense of what the book had to offer. I understood her stance, but wasn't clear on where this particular text was headed, so I wanted to read Selber's "Introduction" to see if that helped. And believe me, it did.
This was one of those pieces that I wrote all over the margins. The margins are full of "YEP"s, "Amen"s, and "How true"s. For me, that means I am connecting with the text and enjoying it. This is, however, just an introduction to the rest of the chapters written by various authors, so whether or not my enthusiasm will hold true for the entirety is another matter completely. I do want to point out a couple of quotes that I feel are noteworthy and which I wholeheartedly agree with. I welcome anyone else's opinion on this quotes.
In relation to the discipline of Rhetoric, Selber notes that "technology does not really function as a separate category or subcategory of consequences. It tends to infuse each and every area of the discipline . . " (2). Can I get an amen on that one. Technology is not simply a necessary evil that we, as rhetoricians, must put up with. In fact, as Selber points out, it is "difficult to imagine a rhetorical activity untouched by ongoing developments in writing and communication technologies" (2).
Another "amen" point is when Selber explains that "rhetorical education on arrangement no longer assumes a linear organizational pattern--or a patient reader, for that matter" (2). Bingo. In today's society, many people have become extremely inpatient readers. If you do not hook them within the first few seconds, you have likely lost your audience. It this a bad thing? I don't think so. I read tons of stuff daily, including emails, and if I don't find out the point or my attention isn't grabbed in those first couple of lines, I'm outta there. I get into more trouble for reading my email this way. But dammit, I have a lot of email to get through in a days time and I don't have time to be messing around. On the other hand, I am a huge fan of Charles Dickens. One of that man's sentences can go on for two pages. But he hooks me from the beginning. We cannot expect our readers to just bare with us, or follow our linear way of thinking. We have to be aware of these things.
Another issue that Selber notes is the fact that the "Internet itself has become a robust storehouse for both individual and collective memory" (2). It that not amazing? A truly collective memory.... anyone feel like a cyborg here? And I always thought Cyborgs were bad things. Well, in the true sense of being a Cybory, they are. But the fact that we now have this collective memory is fascinating to me. I almost feel as if the internet has brought back a sense of oral tradition to our world. Yes, yes, I know it's written, but not all of it. There are podcast and videocast, and a wealth of other types of information as well. Learning it knit is a very oral tradition type thing. You need someone to explain and show you how it is done. But what if that someone is miles away, or maybe you don't know anyone who knits. The internet has it all. The oral and the visual. A collective memory.... I like that.
Ok, one more point and then I'll let this one go, I promise. This is a particular pet peeve with me actually, so I'm glad Selber addresses it briefly. When someone talks about teaching online, or hybridly (yea maybe that's not a word, but it is tonight), I get all excited. I want to know what they are doing in class and how they are doing it. More often than not, I am completely disappointed. Why? Because they are the teachers who "transfer[red] to the screen their pedagogical approaches from the brick-and-mortar classroom" (3). IT WON'T WORK PEOPLE!!! They are two completely different animals!!! If you are a rhetorician, and you have simply uploaded all of your class material to Blackboard, Angel, WebCT, D2L, or some other fancy course management system, hang it up, or to put it as Selber does "this assumption was useful to new teachers, but a non-dialogic perspective failed to emphasize the interanimations of rhetorics and technologies" (3). (I like my version better, just hang it up.)
Ok, it's late, I'm tired, and I've bored all of you to death, so thanks for listening to my rant, and good night.
This was one of those pieces that I wrote all over the margins. The margins are full of "YEP"s, "Amen"s, and "How true"s. For me, that means I am connecting with the text and enjoying it. This is, however, just an introduction to the rest of the chapters written by various authors, so whether or not my enthusiasm will hold true for the entirety is another matter completely. I do want to point out a couple of quotes that I feel are noteworthy and which I wholeheartedly agree with. I welcome anyone else's opinion on this quotes.
In relation to the discipline of Rhetoric, Selber notes that "technology does not really function as a separate category or subcategory of consequences. It tends to infuse each and every area of the discipline . . " (2). Can I get an amen on that one. Technology is not simply a necessary evil that we, as rhetoricians, must put up with. In fact, as Selber points out, it is "difficult to imagine a rhetorical activity untouched by ongoing developments in writing and communication technologies" (2).
Another "amen" point is when Selber explains that "rhetorical education on arrangement no longer assumes a linear organizational pattern--or a patient reader, for that matter" (2). Bingo. In today's society, many people have become extremely inpatient readers. If you do not hook them within the first few seconds, you have likely lost your audience. It this a bad thing? I don't think so. I read tons of stuff daily, including emails, and if I don't find out the point or my attention isn't grabbed in those first couple of lines, I'm outta there. I get into more trouble for reading my email this way. But dammit, I have a lot of email to get through in a days time and I don't have time to be messing around. On the other hand, I am a huge fan of Charles Dickens. One of that man's sentences can go on for two pages. But he hooks me from the beginning. We cannot expect our readers to just bare with us, or follow our linear way of thinking. We have to be aware of these things.
Another issue that Selber notes is the fact that the "Internet itself has become a robust storehouse for both individual and collective memory" (2). It that not amazing? A truly collective memory.... anyone feel like a cyborg here? And I always thought Cyborgs were bad things. Well, in the true sense of being a Cybory, they are. But the fact that we now have this collective memory is fascinating to me. I almost feel as if the internet has brought back a sense of oral tradition to our world. Yes, yes, I know it's written, but not all of it. There are podcast and videocast, and a wealth of other types of information as well. Learning it knit is a very oral tradition type thing. You need someone to explain and show you how it is done. But what if that someone is miles away, or maybe you don't know anyone who knits. The internet has it all. The oral and the visual. A collective memory.... I like that.
Ok, one more point and then I'll let this one go, I promise. This is a particular pet peeve with me actually, so I'm glad Selber addresses it briefly. When someone talks about teaching online, or hybridly (yea maybe that's not a word, but it is tonight), I get all excited. I want to know what they are doing in class and how they are doing it. More often than not, I am completely disappointed. Why? Because they are the teachers who "transfer[red] to the screen their pedagogical approaches from the brick-and-mortar classroom" (3). IT WON'T WORK PEOPLE!!! They are two completely different animals!!! If you are a rhetorician, and you have simply uploaded all of your class material to Blackboard, Angel, WebCT, D2L, or some other fancy course management system, hang it up, or to put it as Selber does "this assumption was useful to new teachers, but a non-dialogic perspective failed to emphasize the interanimations of rhetorics and technologies" (3). (I like my version better, just hang it up.)
Ok, it's late, I'm tired, and I've bored all of you to death, so thanks for listening to my rant, and good night.
RSS Feed
