I was struck by the paucity of examples of web rhetoric in the readings, except for Zappen et al. Concepts are introduced, theories are brought forward, names are dropped, everything is extensively cited. Why not a web link? Where are those ad hominem attacks? And if we're going to talk about internet parody sites, let's show it.
If a goal is to develop our skills as writers for Electronic Media, reading prose models of the good, the bad and the ugly would seem essential.
And this remark of Warnick, on the nature of online discourse, confused me:
"Women who were resourceful, assertive, and active were dissociated from and valued over those who were under resourced, hesitant, or passive."
What does it mean to be both "dissociated from" and "valued over"?
Isn't that a good thing that active and resourceful women writers are encouraged? If passivity were valued, the critique might be that online discourse reinforces mansculine hegemony.
I can't think of any branch of rhetoric where hesitancy and passivity are valued.
DMCG
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment