Hyper-readers and their Reading Engines, James Sosnoski

Sosnoki’s article breaks down the different (and changing) elements of using “computer-assisted reading (CAR)” (162). In the eight parts he describes the constructive aspects that differs from printed texts. As I read this article I was interested in how naturally this technology has been incorporated into the “classroom” as I was growing up. Even today, as I am analyzing this mode of reading with the use of the web, I see it as an ingrained part of how society uses technology.

1)      Filtering:

Reading is a process of selection: No matter where you align yourself in the debate about how much the text influences the reader over against how much is the text a subject of the reader’s imagination the text is usually understood to provoke the selection of the details. In constructive hyper-reading, the selection criteria employed often govern the reader’s interests before the texts are even found (Sosnoski 165-1660).

The web—the search engine allows the reader to search for a text with an intention in mind. We were taught at a young are that “Key Words” were necessary to bring up an article that we were looking for—whole sentences with unneeded words wouldn't give us the correct results.

2)      Skimming:

To find only the information relevant to the issue discussed

Hypertexts are designed so that such intelligent skimming is the norm which helps readers who have too much to read (167).

In a classroom setting, Skimming is a sin. Skimming means that we won’t be getting the whole “point” out of a text; however, when online skimming is seen as necessary to get through the whole text in a reasonable manner. (Does that get back to how we construct time today? We must skim because we don’t have time to read everything available to us on the Web)

3)      Pecking:

The coherence of the text in constructive hyper reading is more the result of the reader than the writer. As consequence, pecking is an entirely suitable technique (168).

Personally, I feel like this relates back to skimming rather easily, however it’s like we jump around in a text, and then we determine what type of meaning to get out of the jumping back and forth we do.

4)      Imposing

The information available on the web holds little significance until a hyper-readers search it for items relevant to their inquiries—readers assimilate the items to their interests and hence render them significant in the context of their concerns (169).

What I really like about the idea of imposing is that it is based on searching with the readers own outcome in mind, and not the writers. It begs the question, is the web a reader’s tool more than anything else?

5)      Filming:

“…but I saw the film”

Graphics often play a more meaningful role than words (169).

Are you guys paying attention to the text, or are you more drawn in by the images and videos that I am posting? 

The idea that graphics hold key to the Web makes me question the role of print comics, which is a image-text hybrid. If a comic is image and text does it hold more attention than just a text that doesen't have images in print? I feel like that is a very subjective concept. I personally get more out of a novel than I do a graphic novel because I am more in tune with text than images. The same is online: I read a text before I spend time on the images on a website. (I must be weird).

Comics aside, Sosnoski's reference “…but I say the film” is very relevant in the classroom today for one) people always tell me (an English Lit major!) to forget reading all my texts for class--get them on tape or "watch the film". The best example i have of this is The Scarlet Letter in the movie Easy A. In the movie she makes a joke to a teacher about not reading the book, but reading the move. Essentially, "I saw the movie…isn’t that the same thing?"

I believe that the answer is no. If a picture says a thousand word, I would rather read those thousand words because I, as the consumer, would get more out of it. (However, I'm not all that innocent of that line of thinking. When I was younger I took a reading quiz on a Harry Potter book when i hadn't read up to that point in the series--but I had seen the movie!)

6)      Trespassing:

Textual burglars- break into electronic texts and once they have found the source codes hidden from sight, steal them away with their cut&paste tools and reassemble them in their own home pages (170).

Honestly, I think that the concept of “textual burgling” or plagiarism in the classroom has always been “a big deal”. Therefore, in a class setting, a student must directly reference where we get information.

Outside the classroom: if google sees that anyone is using copywrite information on Blogger, it will get shutdown. Textual burgling is a concept that goes back to “owning intellectual rights” and is very visible on Youtube as well as other sites.

7)      De-authorization:

Dismiss the authors’ intentions by replacing them with their own (170).

When I search for information on the web, I don’t pay attention to what the author’s intentions are because I have my own intentions on reading/skimming/picking that article/site. Growing up with the web, we would search for information with our own intentions in mind

8)      Fragmenting:

Organizing textual features in patterns relevant to their own concerns weather logical, topological, or associative (172).

I feel like we are taught the constrains in how to write. I specifically remember my teacher in grade school telling me that i must know the rules of writing before we break them. However, i think that even the Web has a general rule to organizing information--even if it is different than what we are used to.

For example: I laid out my post in a very logical order (numbered). It is the same order that Sosnoski used. I was curious to see if anyone just skimmed my post, if the order helped you jump around the information. My idea was to see if my reader would think I was just rewriting Sosnoski’s chapter and respond to just a point or two.  

After Class: Re-thinking

Now that we are out of class, and broke down the discussion, I feel as if I am beginning to comprehend the argument of Fischer.

Professor Downs asks: 

Power-whose stories are powerful, and how do stories get powerful?

If I reapply that to the Absalom, Absalom! Then I must analyze the rhetor behind the story-telling? What stories are told? 

In the lasting, powerful discourse, the dominant white male “story” is the story that is told (his reasons are valued as the “good reason”).

I believe that there are authors (rhetors) that push back on the dominant story through their own counter narrative. Take A Mercy by Toni Morrison for example: in the novel Morrison pushes back on the dominant story of slavery through a narrative opposing the dominant discourse—she is opposing the idea that that which is greater, prevailingly white, is that which is better. Morrison retells the narrative of a slave through a retelling of the characters understanding of sexuality. 

"I know their tastes. Breasts provide more pleasure than simpler things. Yours are rising too soon…And they see and I see them see. No good follows even if I offered you to one of the boys in the quarter…When the tall man with yellow hair came to dine…His way, I thought, is another way…He never looked at me the way Senhor does. He does not want" (Morrison 190-191).

Morrison’s first distinction between “us and them” when discussing ‘their tastes’ draws upon the un-assimilation of Florens’ mother. She sees a distinction between the dominate culture use of sexuality and her own. The counter narrative is the mothers opposing view to the "known" dominate story of sexuality.

The slaves story is the story that isn't commonly told because of the construction of the dominant culture. 


At the end of this short analysis, I wonder if I am even addressing the same issue as we are discussing in class.

A Jumble of Review and “What the---” to Assist in Understanding my readings:

I had the worst time getting through and understanding Fischer’s argument about Narration as human communication. Eventually, I broke it down by typing it out into my Blog. (I think I am beginning to understand?) Fischer begins his argument by describing the Rational World Paradigm as unsatisfying, and then recommending the Narrative World Paradigm. This is what I gleaned from the juxtaposition:

The Rational World Paradigm: argument as product and process is the means of being human

• Humans are rational
•  Mode of decision making and communication is argument
• Conduct of argument is governed by influences of the situations (I.E. scientific, legislative, public)
• Rationality is determined by knowledge, argumentative ability, and ability to use rules of advocacy in relevant subject
• World is set in logical puzzles which can be resolved through appropriate analysis

(Fischer 378)

The Narrative World Paradigm: homo narrans

• People are storytellers. 
• The world is a set of stories, to live in continual recreation the individual chooses a narration that matches beliefs/values. 
• People claim reasons (“production”) for their decisions: influenced by history, culture, and perceptions about, all reasons are subjective and incompletely understood. 
• Rationality is determined by the nature of persons as narrative beings. 

(Fischer 383) 

I am really playing around with the two types, and I find that neither paradigm is superior to the other, but then again I might still be playing around with his ideas. 

Take William Faulkner’s novel Absalom, Absalom! : I believe that it emphasizes Fischer’s Narrative Paradigm. Essentially the structure of the whole narrative is either an eye-witness telling a story of what happened, or another person that heard the story is retelling the story. I believe that it embodies Fischer’s first point that people are storytellers because the whole of Faulkner’s text has characters telling the narrative of "what occurred with Supten", the main character.

As the whole novel is told by people in a story-telling format, the reader is completely dependent on the narrator for the “truth” in the story. The reader ends up reading parts of the novel that contradict themselves, and that are completely made up. Faulkner is emphasizing how story telling is very subjective, and that is what Fischer is arguing about how the recreation of the story is in the hands of the storyteller and their values.

If I am remembering Absalom, Absalom! correctly, then Rosa Cornfield is described to do strange things around the house because of a known “knowledge” of how things are. Each individual had their own “rationality” behind their actions.

The novel was the land of subjectivity, which is what I think Fischer is caught up in. (I know, I might be stretching "it" a bit:)

As a side note: In Wysocki-Eilola, I understand the versatility/redefining of literacy that is taking place. The argument that literacy shouldn’t be used to term efficiency in technology as “technologically literate” is understandable; however, at the end of the argument they state: “Articulation is only one among the many ways of re-presenting literacy” (368). His statement is a fallacy, and part of an argument he doesn’t help solve.

Intertextuality and the Discourse Community, J. Porter

Review

The focus of the text on intertextuality and the Discourse Community applies itself very well into the technological world of today.  Porter’s argument revolves around a few key aspects; the first concept being the idea of “iterability”, or the repeatability of certain texts (i.e. citation, allusions, references, and quotations) (Porter 35).  The example of Once Upon a Time is used to grapple with the idea that when you hear that phrase you not only think about one specific book that has used that phrase—you are in fact speaking of a genre of children fairy tales. The understood conclusion of his example is that “texts not only refers to but in fact contain other texts” (36). Then you might ask, “How does this relate to the world of today?”

Take a meme for example, the image that is selected is normally a recognizable photograph from some television show, etc. Then, the added element of text is used to create a piece of work that not only refers to the show, but says something funny about what is going on in the world around them.  

What I enjoy the most about this article is that Porter plays with the idea of plagiarism. What really can be called plagiarism if intertextuality is not only common, but enjoyed (I like witty memes)? If I use Once Upon a Time to start a novel I am writing, I am using the exact words of previous authors without giving them credit for their “genius”. Another article that explains this very well is Ecstasy of Influence where the author plagiarizes his entire article (but he cites the original authors at the end). Can a creative writer just borrow texts?

Honestly, I think that the answer is yes, but to a degree. The article that I linked into this page is an example of a VERY smart author that can over use other people’s writing to the point where you think “what did you do?---nothing?---yeah, I see that…” .

What I also would like to note is that I have discussed the differences of plagiarism and intertextuality in three classes so far this semester. This is no small topic, and everyone is interested. The end conclusions in the other two courses have been that they like allusions, quotes, and references to other writing-movies-plays-etc , but they don’t think that you should just “copy” someone’s writing. Shakespeare’ Romeo and Juliet is ok though because he “goes beyond” Ovid’s Pyramus and Thisbe (Which I think directly relates to what Porter is talking about in his section on Discourse Communities!).

An author must reside in a discourse community in which to write. The theory is that the community “shares assumptions about what objects are appropriate for examination and discussion” therefore creating a boundary for the author might write within (Porter 39). The author has a structure and a constraint to write within; however, after the author hears to normal conventions, they must “assert the will against those in the community constraints to effect change” (Porter 44). The general class “approval” of Shakespeare might come from the idea that, yes, he borrowed the ideas, but he added to the discursive community as he created his play.