I struggle with Lanham and some of his theories. However, if I say communication is defined by words and means of expression, then what about the meaning of intent? Do we discard the purpose? The clarity, brevity, and sincerity of communication are not so easily understood (sometimes by design). Does the electronic book emulate the same context as the hardbound style? I do take a personal offense to calling books, “Stuff.” Nevertheless, Lanham has a point in that what the messages (stuff) convey does not meet well with the digital form of expression (138). If I am to understand Lanham, the “stuff” is affecting the conveyance of the message. Lanham suggests since the invention of printing, the presumption of “stuff-based” humane communication is reinforced. I feel since the beginning of time, society has created the “stuff” to enhance the message. How can we strip away any form of “stuff?” “Go ask Eve!” As for brevity (the politicians could practice this), Lanham discusses how this C-B-S model is not useful in conveying communication (137). I think the author of War & Peace might agree. There is no “sanitized” way to convey or transmit a meaning. Contextually, it would be down right scary to “put it out there” for all to read. That might affect the sincerity and the context! Back to calling things, “stuff.” Lanham suggests that the “stuffy’ old book will share the stage with the electronic version. He states, “The new spaces for words will be competitive and self-conscious” according to Lanham (145). I agree that the new medium is in fact competitive and is inclusive. Like all shifts with technology and the “orality” factor, there is no way to predict the outcomes. The model of communication is outmoded; as with some of the fears, that technology is going to rot our children’s minds. As with Eve, everything is interdependent. Words and language will always question the medium.
Cited Works
Lanham. "DTC|English 355: Schedule." Paul Muhlhauser, Ph,Doctor. 2010. Web. 19 Oct.
2010. .
No comments:
Post a Comment