tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post1982325515457838217..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Revision on Blog 6 (so far)Adamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-57146962706403651742012-03-25T06:16:31.810-04:002012-03-25T06:16:31.810-04:00Ok - in the first paragraph you have something to ...Ok - in the first paragraph you have something to say about the interactivity of both works, but nothing about how or why we should connect the two. Ideally you'd have a clear argument at this point, but certainly you should be able to connect your works and tehems at least.<br /><br />The second paragraph feels very long and very reptitive. You bring in Dreyfus, in order to think about disembdodiment in terms of both books and the internet, and you also bring in the interactivity of, e.g., facebook - but all of it takes at least twice as much space as it should, and I still have no idea what your're trying to prove to me. Remember - an essay is an argument. You need to be proving *something* here.<br /><br />I find the paragraph about direct and indirect interactions interesting. While there aren't details here about the *consequences* of thinking this way - e.g., how should we interpret cup of death differently now - I understand that there might be a meaningful distinction here. But you're still not telling me why this, or anything else, really, might matter.<br /><br />The question re: isolation makes no sense. Dreyfus is addressing the obvious fact that many people spend a *lot* of time on the internet, and that this time has consequences. For your argument to work at all, you'd need to do something to show not only that the obsessive reader of CYOA might feel isolated and depressed, but that *this is actually relevant*. In other words, these theoretical individuals would need to actually exist for this to be an interesting line of argument.<br /><br />Overall: I see no true argument here. The supposed dangers of CYOA reading doesn't seem terribly interesting, even to you; the distinctions between kinds of interactivity seems like it might be going somewhere, but your agenda and direction are far too unclear. Elsewhere, you seem to be expressing - and, to a large extent, repeating - a set of observations about interactivity which, while true, don't seem terribly important even to you. Where are you going with these observations? What do they mean? How should we understand the books/world/ourselves differently as a result. <br /><br />Research into interactivity probably would have helped you gather your thoughts - which is why research is a supposed to be included in revisions.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.com