So it appears that Rice is getting the lion's share of posts, which leaves Brooke and Krause (and my map) outside in the cold. There's not alot for me to say in that area, either, since I too find Rice's issues more easily assayable.
Here's what my minimal thinking (after a long weekend of thesis-ing) has come up with. Brooke says that Yancey claims we should focus on the deitic way that tech can help us as compists/rhetists.
He defines blogs as deitic systems, claiming that "... even when the moment has passed, the terms are capable of referencing that moment" in order to show us that blogs have this ability to conceptualize "now" in different ways.
I'm thinking that in the same way, though, they're automatically "then". While there seems to be some claim that these times are indeed timeless, and always in the present, it appears to me to be, unless you're the AUTHOR, always in the past. While I always buy "social" for social's sake, this doesn't appear to be social to me, at least in the ways that he says it is. I'm not sure I'm being clear...Brooke talks about how Yancey's writing occurs in three different "nows" in the article--and he connects them to himself as the reader/imaginer in his current "now". But come on, HER "now" is THEN, no matter how we try and social it up.
I dont' think there's anything inherently wrong about seeing it as "then", since "then" isn't so bad--plenty of "thens" can influence us "now", but it doesn't, to my mind, make them "nows".
Again, I'm all for "Aaron you've missed the point" sort of responses here. I've been writing for pretty much 48 hours, and I'm pretty brain fried, but in the mean time, I've also read Rice and Brooke, and they seem to be, particularly from the scattering of posts, "blowing things out of proportion"...
Like the other folks, I'm all for treating things outside the comp classroom as academic, but some of the bits this week seem really forced....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Like you, it seems, I'm operating on little sleep and I, too, might be missing the big picture, but I think your assessment of the conflation--or rather interchangeability--of "now" and "then" in the Brooke article is spot on. I get why Brooke (and Yancey, actually) does it the way he does, but I think it could easily--and perhaps more productively--go the other way, precisely for the reason you describe.
I don't think you're missing the point. I think you made the point. As you see it, which seems a fair assessment to me. Sometimes, all these things just seem tend to run together or over emphasize a small thing.
Post a Comment