March 13th, 2008
Again, I read a number of articles (cited below) and was posed relating questions:
Warnick, Barbara. 2005. “Looking to the Future: Electronic Texts and the Deepening Interface.” Technical
Communication Quarterly 14(3), 327-333.
Welch, Kathleen. 1999. “Technologies of Electric Rhetoric.” Electric Rhetoric. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Zappen, James P. “Digital Rhetoric: Toward an Integrated Theory.” Technical Communication Quarterly 14(3), 319-
325.
___________________ Read the rest of this entry »
March 6th, 2008
McLuhan, Marshall. 2003 (orig. 1962 & 1964). “Two Selections by Marshall McLuhan.” In The New Media Reader.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Postman, Neil. 1992. “Invisible Technologies.” Technopoly. New York: Vintage Books.
After reading these noted articles, I had the following two questions posed: Read the rest of this entry »
February 29th, 2008
Heim, Michael. 1999 (orig. 1987). “The Theory of Transformative Technologies.” Electric Language, 2nd edition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ong, Walter. 1982. “Some Theorems.” Orality and Literacy. New York: Routledge.
Here are a couple articles/chapters and the questions I was asked related to them: Read the rest of this entry »
February 27th, 2008
A few weeks ago, I read the following pieces from Feenberg and Foucault.
Feenberg, Andrew. 2002. “The Critical Theory of Technology.” Transforming Technology: A Critical Theory
Revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foucault, Michel. 1984. “Truth and Power” & “What Is an Author?” The Foucault Reader. Ed. Paul Rabinow. New
York: Pantheon Books.
Following this reading, I had three questions posed: Read the rest of this entry »
February 3rd, 2008
Last week, I had three questions posed on recent readings of Derrida. Here are the questions and my responses.
While Birkerts lays out a clear demarcation between electronic and print writing, Derrida writes in the pre-Internet era. If you were to hypothesize how Derrida would treat the relationship between print and electronic “text,” what would you say his treatment would be and why? Read the rest of this entry »