English in the Digital Age

Reflection on Bolter presentation

Chapter 5: The Electronic Book on Prezi

Overall, this presentation was a delight to research and produce. I found my fellow presenters to be motivated and intelligent, diligently absorbing their fraction of the chapter and crafting a suite of Bolter quotations that would best describe his intended meaning. I found myself at ease with the thought of presenting the work, not only because I had confidence in our group’s ability to accurately summarize the text, but because I felt I had a grasp of the entire chapter’s assertions that I could effectively speak and answer questions.

The most challenging (yet exciting and rewarding) task was the use of the Prezi software in crafting an accompanying visual. Before we created the presentation, we knew we’d have to establish a logical sequence of thought that complemented the chapter’s form. Due to Prezi’s nature, it was difficult to move the relative position of each textbox after it’s placement, but easy to establish a path through each point. We decided that we should arrange the points in a circle around the main title as a typographic reproduction of the world, in chorus with Dan’s concluding point.

Retrospectively, I would have preferred to break from our group’s sequential presentation and opt for a more impromptu, collaborative relay of the chapter’s content and implications. Yet, this would require a deep understanding of the entire chapter for each presenter and a comfort with improvisational methods—something we did not all possess. I would have also preferred to wean our presentation off of Bolter’s exact words and use short summaries instead.

Summaresponse to Chapter 6 presentation

Observe
This group adapted a turn-taking style that mimicked the form of the Bolter chapter, providing an effective representation of the writing. The approach was effective because it was straightforward, but suffered from a lack of connections between presenters. Even still, the chapter was effectively communicated and each presenter’s topics were excellently described.

Infer
The group took a distinct position on the new methods of communication and discourse in contemporary society. Using the Internet and new media as a frame, they compared old styles of “dialogues” from Plato and Socrates to scholars such as Wittgenstein. Their main points included: 1. Alternative forms of dialogue exist in Western musical notation, where tonal information is presented alternatively and effectively; 2. Writing and reading do not have to be sequential; 3. Oral storytellers have more control over their content as they tell the story, leading to unique performances and varying content subject to various factors; 4. The “anti-book” is a genre of writing in which traditional themes of narrative and typography are ignored; 5. The inclusion of images and illustrations in essays, although new, presents a transformation of the writing form.

Question
Why did Bolter choose to bring up oral philosophers in this chapter, and what do they have to do with digital media? How is oral storytelling related to hypertext? How can such things as the “exchange of ideas” be refashioned? While the Internet can facilitate the exchange of ideas, how will it transform that exchange? What does textual direction and sequence have to do with dialogue? What does it have to do with anti-books or new practices in essay-writing?

Summaresponse to Chapter 4 presentation

Observe
As an analysis of Bolter’s chapter, the group produced a well-organized and planned presentation. The thrust of the chapter was well communicated, but some details were lost. Definitions were occasionally underdeveloped, but their meanings could be deduced based on each presenter’s use of the terms in their analyses.

Infer
The presentation’s main points were: 1. In some ways, ancient illuminated manuscripts were more effective than early books (and recent revivals), due to their lack of imagery; 2. Today, control of readers is split between the verbal and the visual; 3. The concept of “ekphrasis” and “reverse ekphrasis” concerns the interoperability of print media and the image; 4. Designing text for the web has no longer been a “remediation” of graphic design for print—animation, streaming audio and video, and other multimedia present a “hyper-media” concept of their own.

Question
As the prevalence of digital media increases, will “old” writing practices be replaced by multimedia? How will (or won’t) the publishing industry respond to this change? How will “filmization” of novels contribute to the larger visual media market? If the “ideal image” is a graph, why is an artful for emotional image effective? Is it? Will verbal expression ever expire? How will the use of spoken language conform to Internet-based multimedia?

Summaresponse to Chapter 3 presentation

Observe
The presentation made use of good references from Bolter, citing useful snippets helping the audience wrap their head around questions like: What is hypertext? How is it different from books? What is hypertext’s function? Yet, the addition of futile demonstrations diluted the presentation’s effectiveness. Often, presenters would rephrase themselves to convey repeated topics while explaining differing concepts. As a metaphor for hypertext, this practice worked well. In terms of evoking a feeling of presentational progress, the technique fell short.

Infer
The presentation’s argument, and, in turn, Bolter’s argument, centers around the stark contrast between “text” and “hypertext,” claiming that the latter is an effective “remediation” of the former. The main points included: 1. Hypertext’s representation of “structures” can be more flexible on the computer screen, as opposed to speech or writing; 2. Despite hypertext’s reading difficulties, it presents itself as a formidable opponent to traditional print; 3. Hypertext can be placed in the space between written narrative and visual arguments: it may represent the human mind better than formal constructs; 4. Hypertext can inhibit or exhibit the “natural associations” that a traditional narrative almost always induces, for better rather than worse.

Question
What is so important about the concept: “hypertext is a process as much as a product”—i.e., what’s the big deal about “operating” the text as opposed to just reading it? Keeping the age of Bolter’s writing in mind, how has the difficulty in regards to reading electronic text declined, and what impact does the shrinking of that issue have on the “remediation” process? If hypertext is more akin to human thought, how might that change the linguistic habits of future cultures? How does it change current-day culture? Hyperlinks among hypertext: do they “[give] the illusion of control” (as Bolter says) or doe they actually hand over the control of the narrative to the reader (or “operator”)? Is there something “natural” about the traditional narrative process, or can any reader learn how to read hypertext? What difficulties does the “remediation” of traditional print into hypertext present to the English language and readers? How can this concept of hypertext ripple into young authors who choose to publish in physical format (read: antibooks)?