This entry was posted
on Tuesday, October 2nd, 2007 at 12:35 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I enjoyed your humorous “interactive” approach to the podcast–the live interview.
You’re also right about the difficulty of not being able to rely on a shared text; I very much have that in mind as I prepare classes at this point, too.
Your overall reaction reminds me very much of my first experience reading PG. I hated the medium in the way of my interaction, but once I figured out the software or maybe simply got used to it, once I knew better how to control the links, I could pay better attention to the content. Then I started to get in to it.
I’m fascinated by this need for control, and you commented on it very well in your podcast. When the theorists of hypertext promise interactivity, they don’t explain very well that there isn’t an attendant aspect of control. Or maybe it’s that we pass over that b/c we associate control with being a part of things. We think interactive, we think “tool,” we think control. This makes me think of early conversations in our class and how we like to keep technology defined to its nature as a tool. But here we have a prime example of how a tool doesn’t always deliver on its promise of control. Interesting. And important for really understanding what it means to be a cyborg (or at least to live in the cyborg age).
I also appreciated your insights about endings and how and why we long for those. Even when I started enjoying PG, it wasn’t the same way in which I enjoy a book. I knew I had to, in some way, read each screen for itself b/c there wasn’t a sense of wholeness or pacing or location I could rely on.
October 4th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Lily,
I enjoyed your humorous “interactive” approach to the podcast–the live interview.
You’re also right about the difficulty of not being able to rely on a shared text; I very much have that in mind as I prepare classes at this point, too.
Your overall reaction reminds me very much of my first experience reading PG. I hated the medium in the way of my interaction, but once I figured out the software or maybe simply got used to it, once I knew better how to control the links, I could pay better attention to the content. Then I started to get in to it.
I’m fascinated by this need for control, and you commented on it very well in your podcast. When the theorists of hypertext promise interactivity, they don’t explain very well that there isn’t an attendant aspect of control. Or maybe it’s that we pass over that b/c we associate control with being a part of things. We think interactive, we think “tool,” we think control. This makes me think of early conversations in our class and how we like to keep technology defined to its nature as a tool. But here we have a prime example of how a tool doesn’t always deliver on its promise of control. Interesting. And important for really understanding what it means to be a cyborg (or at least to live in the cyborg age).
I also appreciated your insights about endings and how and why we long for those. Even when I started enjoying PG, it wasn’t the same way in which I enjoy a book. I knew I had to, in some way, read each screen for itself b/c there wasn’t a sense of wholeness or pacing or location I could rely on.