tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post3299576694976130907..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Online Interactivity and What it Means to UsAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-5342552285527032102008-12-12T16:01:00.000-05:002008-12-12T16:01:00.000-05:00You really want to avoid serious grammatical/mecha...You really want to avoid serious grammatical/mechanical errors in the first couple sentences of your papers.<BR/><BR/>Your introduction is full of proofreading errors, and the argument is weak. Interactivity has made the internet what it is today? Ok - what is it today? Why should we care? <BR/><BR/>I have no idea what this means: "Simply put, online interactivity is an artifact of what users experience and perceive." Really - I don't get it. If interactivity is what users experience, then presumably everything would be interactive, since everything we know comes to us by way of experience, right? Other than that confusion, this paragraph is relatively grounded and focused.<BR/><BR/>Focusing on political sites is a good idea; you could have used that to focus your argument from the start.<BR/><BR/>I think I follow Warnick's ideas, as deployed by you, but I'm curious about what sort of text wouldn't be interactive. Why is interactivity, defined in this way, something we find on the web instead of, say, in Jimmy Corrigan?<BR/><BR/>Your transition into discussing User to User interactivity makes no sense. What are these types of interactivity? Why do you divide them, and why does your focus shift?<BR/><BR/>"With the explosion of social networking and continued use of other interactivity within their sites, the candidates were able to use the internet as an extremely powerful tool in their respective campaigns." -- there is the potential for a more focused argument in here. How have politics been changed by interactivity? That's the question you could be trying to answer; the answer would be your argument.<BR/><BR/>The last two paragraphs represent a complete shift: you deplore and attack who we are in the digital age (and presumably, something about digital age politics as mediated/created by online interactivity?) Now you actually have an argument, even if not a terribly specific one - but you stop.<BR/><BR/>A modified version of this paragraph, ideally, would have been your introduction; now you ahve something ot say, and you have something like the research necessary to support it. There is potential in this part. But what we have now is disorganized, short, and sometimes incoherent, with its real value, its argument, only emerging at the end.Adam Johnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11588769281227456640noreply@blogger.com