June 22nd, 2010
O’Donnell, J. J. (2000). Avatars of the word: From papyrus to cyberspace: Harvard University Press.
In this chapter, O’Donnell discusses the instability and, in some ways (un)reliability, of the written word in both printed and electronic form. The printed format is generally a far cry more consistent than the pre-Gutenberg manuscript format. However, upon closer examination, there exists a possibility for much inconsistency and even access ephemerality. “It is surprising what variations can occur between one printed edition of the same book and another…” (44). Read the rest of this entry »
May 19th, 2009
Following a meeting with my dissertation committee, it was drilled-in that what I am calling “Humanness”–the elements of face-to-face communication, such as visual (gesture, facial expression, attire, location, etc.), audio (voice intonation, volume, emotion, etc.), ability to be participatory– is really not represented well (or accurately) by that term. I need to come up with a better term (perhaps my own) for it. Read the rest of this entry »
October 8th, 2008
Continuing the conversation on Residually Cyclical Styles (the cyclical nature of orality and literacy), I realize the next (or most recent) cycle.
Read the rest of this entry »
July 30th, 2008
In past posts, I have established digital orality as relevant to the way we communicate using non-textual (largely oral), computer-mediated communication forms, such as podcasting and vodcasting. I have juxtaposed this concept to writing, noting the differences between the two and why communicative writing tools, such as IM and Chat cannot be forms of digital orality. I have been careful to not form a binary (”orality vs. writing”), since one of the foundational points I want to examine is how the two interact in given situations and media. However, looking at the many forms of communication media and trends that arise seemingly weekly, I question how something like Jott fits in with this structure. Read the rest of this entry »
December 17th, 2007
“Narrators narrate what audiences call for or will tolerate. When the market for a printed book declines, the presses stop rolling but thousands of copies may remain. When the market for an oral genealogy disappears, so does the genealogy itself, utterly.” (66).
This is certainly logical in consideration of the printed word. When the call for a given text declines or subsides, it remains, since it is a tangible form. Conversely, an oral genealogy will vanish if the need and the members to carry it on are gone. However, this is not the case with digital orality Read the rest of this entry »
