tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7140650815024023870.post2602891052442779400..comments2017-08-24T02:10:24.745-07:00Comments on Technocracademic: Entry 8: I Hope I Don't Get In Trouble For ThisJacob Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09912312100220190604noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7140650815024023870.post-73236007508186189282012-10-18T17:01:31.034-07:002012-10-18T17:01:31.034-07:00Haha, thanks for adding to the reference! But real...Haha, thanks for adding to the reference! But really, it seems like he WAS calling for us to invent a sonic screwdriver: a magical pedagogical tool that can do anything we need it to do in any number of situations. Does anyone know what he actually wants?<br /><br />I think his argument is actually pretty simple: "Don't just write in print, dude!" I just think he complicates it with this semi-Derridian style of deliberate obfuscation. Like when he talks in chapter 3 about the "mystory" and "popcycle" and "puncepts" that helped him write about Blake, I found myself shouting "That's PRE-WRITING! You're talking about PRE-WRITING" at my book. <br /><br />I think I may have just betrayed some of my own bad attitudes.Jacob Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09912312100220190604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7140650815024023870.post-27341908878196777492012-10-16T21:04:31.962-07:002012-10-16T21:04:31.962-07:00Jacob -
Thanks for the entertaining and engaging ...Jacob -<br /><br />Thanks for the entertaining and engaging post!<br /><br />I agree with you and Adam in that I think O'Gorman's attitude is stinking up his text. I do hope he tones it down a bit in later chapters, because as it is, I'm having a hard time making myself care about what he has to say. Do you think his argument would be less convoluted had he been able to present in a non-linear way? (I have my doubts).<br /><br />PS - I'm fairly certain the "electronic tool" he is searching for looks like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_screwdriver<br /><br />A m yeilisretephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14900602110989188861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7140650815024023870.post-5416913852684246572012-10-16T14:01:34.225-07:002012-10-16T14:01:34.225-07:00I agree with you completely when you said that “I ...I agree with you completely when you said that “I feel like this went too far in a postmodern direction, and that some basic structures from "traditional" academic discourse is needed to properly communicate to an audience.” <br /><br />Texts are texts, right? If there is one thing that studying multimodality should afford the learner it’s that. Texts are everywhere, and for a scholar so bent on proving the equal (actually, superior) worth of digital texts it was a bit alarming to see him float so far down postmodernist road that he actually seemed to attack/devalue other texts.<br /><br />I posted this on Matt’s blog as well, and I’m glad that the both of you point this out too, but O’Gorman is just plain angry. He does little to soften his tone thus far, which I think does him a real disservice. As you point out, “it was hard to take him seriously”. Just as it’s hard to take the extreme “left” or the extreme “right” seriously in the political world, it’s hard to take O’Gorman seriously here. In other words, his message would have been a lot more powerful, at least to me, if it was one of inclusion rather than exclusion or one of claiming superiority while dragging colleagues through the dirt.<br /><br />For the most part, I hate animated gifs, but I have to admit you selected some pretty effective choices. Overall, I really enjoyed your post!<br /><br />-AdamAdamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974807170042768604noreply@blogger.com