Hey, speaking. of. hypertext. fun!

So, I have been thinking about Lindsay talking about Kress's book/essay/lecture/presentation having some sort of multimodal companion. And this site immediately jumped into my head: oldschool text-only hyperlinks to other cool stuff!

Maybe you find something good (marxist/communist criticism of _The Smurfs_? The Transformer Kama Sutra?? 87 different uses of the word...fuck!?!?...how could I not like this site!).

Enjoy:

www.memepool.com (Nikki...I don't have tabs like you do on your blogspot window to make hypertext links...are there any ctrl- functions that I can use to do this? Anyone? Bueller?)

E-rizzle.

Changing media require a change in theory

Check out this blog post from Publishing 2.0 blogger Scott Karp:
"The evolution from linear thought to networked thought"
http://publishing2.com/2008/02/09/the-evolution-from-linear-thought-to-networked-thought/

Karp asks:
What if the networked nature of content on the web has changed not just how I consume information but how I process it?

What if I no longer have the patience to read a book because it’s too…. linear.

Wysocki pushes us to asssess "how our materials have acquired the constraints they have and hence why, often, certain materials and designs are not considered available for certain uses" (p. 56). She continues by noting the ambiguity of her text's title, "Did you read  my title as 'a way with words' or 'away with words'? The potential ambiguity, I think, shows how a particular visual space has become natural to how we now read" (p. 56). She argues that we need to notice how "we use space on pages affects how we read and understand" (p. 57). In addition, Wysocki notes the pedagogical importance of asking such questions: "If we are to help people in our classes learn how to compose texts that function as they hope, they need [sic] consider how they use the spaces and not just one time that can be shaped on pages. The also need to question how they have come to understand the spaces of pages so that they can, if need be, use different spaces, potentially powerful spaces that...have been rendered unavailable by naturalized, unquestioned practices" (p. 57). 

Wysocki's arguemnt brings to mind Kress' discussion of the power of design. Kress argues, "one effect of the social and the representational changes, practices of writing and reading have changed and are changing...Reading has to be rethought given that the commonsense of what reading is was developed in the era of the unquestioned dominance of writing, in constellation with the unquestioned dominance of the medium of the book" (p. 17).  In order to remedy this rather disjointed relationship (new media texts and traditional theories of reading, and others...), Kress argues that we "cannot continue with existing theories of meaning given the facts of the changes in the social, economic and cultural domain. At the moment, our theories come from the era dominated by notions of conventions and competence, whereas we need theories apt for an era of radical instability" (p. 20). Kress then argues that we need to include design as a conceptual element to a new theory of reading, writing, etc. 

To connect Wysocki and Kress with Karp's comment at the beginning of this post, let's consider a few things:

1) Karp's questions and concerns (detailed in his entire blog post) provide a good example of the problems that arise from the application of "old" theory to "new" [media] texts. He's assuming all reading is linear, and this causes problems when "reading" new media texts (specifically online). 

a) When considering this in context with Kress' argument, interesting things arise: again, we can't continue to apply traditional theory to new and rapidly changing technologies and ways of making meaning. This seems similar to an attempt at applying 15th-century physics to explain dark matter: gaps and problems arise. Not to mention that a Stargate episode would be radically different if they relied on 15th-century physics to explain an "outgoing wormhole" (nerds will understand me here). 

This isn't to say that we need to throw out past theories of reading and learning, but I do think we need to make an effort to constantly assess the relevance of such theories in a new media context. And, I do not think that such theories are always applicable to traditional print texts either. Any multimodal text (as opposed to the King James Version of the Bible or text- only versions of the Wall Street Journal) probably requires different types of reading skills, but it seems easy for many people to assume (i.e. Karp) that reading is completely linear and has "evolved" only in relation to linear print texts. 

2) Both Kress and Wysocki seem to argue for this reconsideration of theory in context with new media texts. Wysocki specifically addresses the pedagogical applications of this (p. 57), while Kress emphasizes the importance of design. 

a) A consideration of design as a theoretical concept addresses the problems noted here. Wysocki's use of "spaces" should be a rhetorical concept applied in these new theories, as it points to much of what makes meaning in multimodal texts. Spaces between words, letters, images, pages, sounds, etc. should be used with rhetorical purpose in mind. Silence, emptiness, proximity, etc. are all powerful tools with which to make meaning, and thus fit into Kress' idea of design. 

My point is that we need to seriously rethink our application/creation of theory with respect to the textual context at hand. 

Fortune and Moran Responses

Ron Fortune’s response to Kress focuses on how instructors can teach how the visual and verbal relate to one another. He argues that the tradition view of this relationship is either illustration (the visual illustrates the verbal) or explanation (the verbal explains what is seen). He argues that there are more relationships than just these two. He notes Kress’s notion of the “semiotics of synesthesia.” This seems to refer to the simultaneity of the visual and the verbal. However, Fortune never explicitly lays out other relationships. I began to think transitions in writing, which represent relationships between ideas. What would a cause-effect visual / image relationship look like? Maybe it would look like this: a verbal message “Global warming is real” with a picture of some of the effects. Other relationships could consist of similarity, difference (even irony), exception, etc.

While I believe Moran has a point when he highlights the important of the oral, I believe that technology has enhanced discussion in some ways. Moran argues that Kress’s move from print to image has helped us to ignore the importance of the spoken word. He argues that voice and class discussions will be thrown out of English classrooms. I wish he would have said more on listening because I think this is such an important feature of communication that is often ignored. I know for me it has been a relationship skill that I’ve had to develop. I find it difficult sometimes to not jump in with my thoughts before the other person has finished. Also, finishing other people’s sentences is not necessarily the best way to show that you’re listening. In any case, Moran emphasizes the importance of the oral, especially in discussions, and how it may be being displaced by a focus on technology and the image. However, if we embrace technologies such as threaded discussions and chats in the classroom we might note some unexpected outcomes. One that I’ve heard and experienced is that threaded discussions really help to give more introverted students the chance to express themselves with less anxiety. I’ve seen quiet students make really long posts online and never say a word in class. This is not to say that oral performance is not important. I know for myself, being a more introverted student, that it is a challenge for me to speak out in class. It really does go against my typical way of being. However, threaded discussions may offer students the opportunity to see that their contributions are meaningful, which may encourage them to speak in class.

more actor-network theory

It was nice to see actor-network theory applied to something that’s a seemingly less-complicated (in its history, at least) artifact than Aramis—and if it wasn’t, Ittersum certainly made his approach a little more coherent. I’m going to credit the smaller space of the article, along with the fact that a translation isn’t getting in the way of meaning (at least I think it isn’t). So this article ended up being a much better introduction to actor-network theory than Aramis—sorry, Latour.

Anyway, this quote on page 160 stuck with me:

“The case of the NLS, then, suggests that judging writing technologies solely, or even predominantly, on the criteria of ease of learning tends to support existing infrastructures and practices.”

A lot of the failure behind NLS stemmed from its method of input; even though it was more intuitive than the keyboard; and the fact that it required the user to learn it like an instrument (seriously, it seemed like guitar lessons would have come in handy) made it less appealing. As Ittersum indicates, people would rather produce things than learn a system—and I’ve had very similar experiences in my own life. My friend was talking about learning the Dvorak keyboard a while back, and I saw it as a waste of time because of the training required. I’d have to break some part of my brain to let go of the muscle memory that allows me to use the Qwerty keyboard blindfolded; Gitelman calls this "cultivated motor automatism," and it seems like I’ve completely ingrained the use of a less-than-optimal input method into my brain.

Note: As my loudness has indicated in class, I’m also proficient with Vista (not the Windows variety), and that definitely feels like the cumbersome, giant-wheeled bike of teaching tools. And for all of my efforts, girls are never impressed with my Vista wizardry.

So is the keyboard the “macho” bicycle of writing technologies, when compared to Engelbart’s creation? It could be; and there’s certainly something to be said about how we have to contort our wrists to an unnatural angle when sitting at most keyboards. I actually have an “ergonomic keyboard,” which is considered non-standard, but really shouldn’t be (and it was much more expensive than a traditional keyboard, but also a necessity due to how much I write). On my keyboard at home, the keys are split down the middle and slanted at 45 degree angles, which is a huge improvement, even though the underlying technology is still built on a foundation that was created based on the mechanical work of metal hitting paper. But I still have to take one of my hands off of the keyboard in order to use the mouse; and after reading Ittersum’s article, this action does seem counter-intuitive.

In the end, I’m left wondering how much of this will apply to me project, or if I’ll even use actor-network theory. It would be nice to use something new, but I’m still unsure if I can do ANT justice. Hopefully we can hash this out as we do more reading.

EDIT: It looks like I might have done the wrong readings, but I was going off of the most recent syllabus (sent on Oct. 6). Were all the assigned readings on Vista? That's what I printed out.

"One order of Kress w/ a side of social-cognitive-economic mayo please"

So we got back from the Watson conference last night. More about that in the second post probably. Here I’ll address several comments from Kress’s article. Please forgive the piecemeal nature of this; I’m running low on energy and brain power (not to mention time) at this point.

[A related aside here—interesting that Kress has downplayed the role of time and sequence. These are still tremendously important in my day to day life… and I do expect that newness plays a significant role in how people who are “regulars” to particular sites examine the pages. i.e. registering to be alerted of favorite blogs being updated…]

Anyway, first observation. Kress suggests that traditional written pages have one entry point onto the page, which we don’t even notice. Online pages have multiple entry points. This suggests the possibility of readers coming from various perspectives and social groups. Consequently, he posits that the site author(s) assume a fragmented audience. Kress states that the order of the site is open (p. 10-11). He does suggest that the site’s authors “imagine the possibilities of reading” (p. 10), but he insists that these possibilities are only suggested, as opposed to managed with little opportunity for reader/ “visitor” resistance.

However, I think Kress is being a little too generous (idealistic?) here in a claim which seems to hint at the possibility of the web as a democratic place. I would argue instead that one needs to take into account the economic machinery in place. There are definite assumptions being made about users’ paths. This is evidenced by the placement of advertisements on online pages. Marketing research is used both to steer and to predict where users’ eyes will go.

Kress also suggests that the logic of space is a different approach from the traditional logic of reading, which relies on a sequential/chronological approach. This differentiation seems crucial as it hints at the possibility of significantly different cognitive processes involved in reading/analysis between image and text. While on many levels I embrace the social turn in our field, I do hope that we can find places for cognitive analysis too, because when cognitive approaches are set within the social, this seems to me to offer a powerful tool set for insight.

The final observation I want to discuss is Kress’s claim that the “elites will continue to use writing as their dominant mode” (p. 18). I found this claim particularly interesting in light of Cindy Selfe’s warnings that we need to pay attention to the questions of access—who has and does not have technology. At the Watson conference, one of the plenary speakers, Omar Wasow, suggested that the gap is still really a literacy gap, not a technology gap. However, another speaker, David Kirkland, described the ways and places he has observed underprivileged youth (declared illiterate by elites such as their school teachers) becoming authors on the web. This dovetails with Kress’s comment that “everyone can be an author” on the screen (p. 19). Kress also suggests that this decreases authorial authority.

But, taking these differing views together, I wonder if we’re seeing technology and literacy both set up as parts of Graff’s literacy myth. Perhaps we’re imbuing too much power in the social goods (Gee) of literacy and technology themselves. Instead, I think a whole lot more attention needs to be focused on the economics of literacy. Brandt’s sponsorship work provides one way into that.

kress & co

I know that Pam encouraged us to be “generous” as we read the theorists, but I think because the other scholars are in dialogue with Kress, that taking issue with him is appropriate in this week’s post.

I find myself agreeing with Wysocki as she questions Kress in positing that the temporal/sequential are within the domains of words, while the spatial and simultaneous are within the domain of image (p. 57). I would argue that the image is made of individual elements, such as strokes, shapes, angles, perspectives that are broken down and even processed in much the same way as the alphabetic. Anyone familiar with whole language approaches to reading—as opposed to phonetic approaches—understands that the words are read as units and not as separate letters or sound once the system is internalized. I think the same is true of our reading of other images as well—and I do think that words are images, as wells as syntactically structured phonemes. I think we learn that a picture of a cat (which looks little like a real cat) represents a cat. I think though that the language-like qualities of picture reading has become invisible to us. I also agree with Prior that images are not as Kress charges—infinite, specific, natural, and transparent. Images, too, are designed to be read in a particular way, but are not necessarily resistant to interpretation. That is the function of perspective, foregrounding, composition in a triangle to encourage or privilege certain relationships among parts of the whole. It is not only words that construct relationships. Classic representations of the Madonna and Christ-child have connotative meaning based on relations of power. I don’t think that any representations are disinterested—even the most abstract. Prior notes that “even single images may have preferred vectors for sequential processing” (p. 27). Not only do they have preferred vectors, but Kress and Van Leeuwen focus on systemic functional grammatical readings of multimodal texts in both Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, and in Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. Norman Fairclough does the same in his texts on critical discourse analysis. I also found myself thinking—as I read Kress’s argument—that magazines, newspapers, and catalogues also have multiple entry points. The difference is their material instantiation. Prior also mentions this fact (p. 25) and includes hymnals, menus, quilts, atlases, books of poetry, field guides—and many other genres. These print texts are not necessarily coded by order. Their order of presentation in terms of traditionally privileged reading practices might be fixed—but that is merely a matter of convention. They do indeed have multiple entry points—and readers use the texts to read in a manner they choose—to suit their needs. And readers are not bound—even in traditional texts—to read in a strict order as Kress claims (p. 9). Readers often skip paragraphs, pages, sections, chapters.

And while this “traditional” manner of reading might dictate how the writer writes for the reader, it is the manner of reading and not the text that determines this manner. Kress is quite correct when he notes that rhetoric accounts for audience needs—but that is their need within the realm of the conventional manner of reading the genre, not of the genre itself. Kress argues that the the IoE assumes its traditional structure and the knowledge” and that needed by the reader are one and the same (p. 9), that this old way presumes to know—even dictates—how readers from their own “life-worlds” will read. But that also seems to be the case when the IoE shows up on the Web. The constraints for the reader are still the organizing principles as imagined through the website’s author. The page construction—whether in word, image or combination-- always imagining and consequently constructing its audience and what it assumes will be agreement between her/himself and the visitors. In this way, a web page is not “open,” as Kress avers, but rather IS “relatively open” (p. 10).


I also took issue with Kress’s comment that with images, we can “draw whatever [we] like when [we] want to draw it” (qtd. in Prior p. 28). In fact, we cannot draw whatever we want. We can attempt to put down on a surface what we “mean,” but that meaning is never any more “specific” than a word, nor is an illustration more specific than a descriptive paragraph. Kress argues that “[s]peech and writing tell the world; depiction shows the world” (16). I have to take issue with this. Fiction can indeed show; bad fiction tells. In either case, it is the writing on the mind that the reader does. Fiction AND EVEN depictions can only suggest via print or visual text.

I have more, but I’ll save it for class. There are other articles.