I definitely didn't think this article would offer any diversion but I found it was a nice read considering it offers a perspective usually lacking from the dichotomy *wink-wink* of its arguments. Samantha Garrison and I decided to compart this assignment so, if you'd like, you can find the rest of the answers at her blog.
1. Burkdall's thesis stated that although writing is definitely not as developed or extensive as before, it still holds a certain, nearly interminable value due to its role as a primer for the development of structure in thought and process for multimodal works.
2. Why wouldn't the media be eager to create such an edgy claim. The people love controversy and this is just the kind of article that could incite leathery fingertips to undulate like flames across the keyboard, typing hateful, hipster-bashing comments at kittylover42 for mentioning that she's a 90's kid but she still loves reading from paper. And when people find articles with a little je ne sais quoi, they can talk about them at the water cooler or while they try fend off an awkward silence when they recognize somebody at the supermarket.
Additionally, I think we're more comfortable dealing in absolutes. It's harder to remember the deets about a claim that says there is evidence of a shrinking audience than one that says there is no audience at all.
3. To stop the sea is a godly feat so, clearly, this allusion is a metaphor for doing something impossible. In Ulysses, Leopold Bloom, the protagonist, compares the phrase to stopping the desires of a multitudinous and overwhelming woman. Burkdall explains that some may believe the progression of the non-literary work to be a tsunami of exclusion, ready to engulf all writing in its path.
P.S. Now I kind of want to read Ulysses though I don't know when that will be, considering we got served a veritable harvest of homework this weekend and its over 600 pages long.
No comments:
Post a Comment