This entry was posted
on Wednesday, October 14th, 2009 at 5:18 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.
How convenient to end your podcast about how the “new” net essay poses more questions than it answers with a question!
I’m not sure I entirely agree that Vielstimmig’s essay doesn’t have a thesis or decisive point–I think we COULD evaluate their argument as effective or not–but I must say that it’s very interesting to listen to your podcast while everyone is working on the Hypertext Hotel. For example, Chris mentioned that he would appreciate Vielstimmig’s essay more if he had experienced it as it grew, that coming to it as a finished product is perhaps too overwhelming. Certainly this will be the case for our HH. Can you imagine how a “reader” would respond if they stumbled into and beyond the lobby? Which speaks to your other point about the danger of such net literacy–writing in this style can get overloaded very quickly. I’m pretty sure that the essay Vielstimmig wrote was only possible BECAUSE there were just two collaborators. They could allow themselves to inhabit multiple points of view knowing that they each understood the focus that was keeping them on track; each “hyperlink” in the essay was striving to sketch out or explore one particular aspect of net literacy. The more people you have, the more the essay would “devolve” into Hesse’s example of the listserv. Without a serious editor, you do have too much sprawl, too much openendedness, too many questions to qualify for an essay (though Sirc might disagree–on the other hand, I bet he’d wind up bored, not enough “here and now and fast” bang).
So here’s a question for you: if you place Vielstimmig’s work next to the Hypertext Hotel, does it not begin to look more like an essay after all?
October 14th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
How convenient to end your podcast about how the “new” net essay poses more questions than it answers with a question!
I’m not sure I entirely agree that Vielstimmig’s essay doesn’t have a thesis or decisive point–I think we COULD evaluate their argument as effective or not–but I must say that it’s very interesting to listen to your podcast while everyone is working on the Hypertext Hotel. For example, Chris mentioned that he would appreciate Vielstimmig’s essay more if he had experienced it as it grew, that coming to it as a finished product is perhaps too overwhelming. Certainly this will be the case for our HH. Can you imagine how a “reader” would respond if they stumbled into and beyond the lobby? Which speaks to your other point about the danger of such net literacy–writing in this style can get overloaded very quickly. I’m pretty sure that the essay Vielstimmig wrote was only possible BECAUSE there were just two collaborators. They could allow themselves to inhabit multiple points of view knowing that they each understood the focus that was keeping them on track; each “hyperlink” in the essay was striving to sketch out or explore one particular aspect of net literacy. The more people you have, the more the essay would “devolve” into Hesse’s example of the listserv. Without a serious editor, you do have too much sprawl, too much openendedness, too many questions to qualify for an essay (though Sirc might disagree–on the other hand, I bet he’d wind up bored, not enough “here and now and fast” bang).
So here’s a question for you: if you place Vielstimmig’s work next to the Hypertext Hotel, does it not begin to look more like an essay after all?
Check.