tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post6404704392987986778..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Adamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-44668318802484240912009-04-11T14:00:00.000-04:002009-04-11T14:00:00.000-04:00Hah! That's what I get for just reading the comme...Hah! That's what I get for just reading the comments thread, without remembering that part of it is in color. Anyway, your use of the red is cool and interesting - but while it makes your work more provocative, it doesn't make it terribly comprehensible. Or, to put it another way, I appreciate the added layer of meaning - but there wasn't enough in the initial layer...Adam Johnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11588769281227456640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-78903199792423182172009-04-11T12:52:00.000-04:002009-04-11T12:52:00.000-04:00Chris - excellent response.Bob - I won't say much,...Chris - excellent response.<BR/><BR/>Bob - I won't say much, because Chris covered the important material here. Your choice to bring D's two novels together is a good one, and while most of this piece is rather confusing (you really would benefit from a more conventional structure; the standard essay driven by a thesis statement may seem to be restrictive, but it *works* - you have trouble communicating interesting ideas), there are provocative moments - for instance, your aside that JC does things which can't be duplicated digitally. You need to work more on extending and explaining your most interesting thoughts, rather than on tossing them out without any particular context. Ultimately, it's unclear to me what you're trying to *do* with Danielewski's two texts.Adam Johnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11588769281227456640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-21138665830690099292009-03-29T15:46:00.000-04:002009-03-29T15:46:00.000-04:00First and foremost, it's a little too late to titl...First and foremost, it's a little too late to title your post, but note at the top somewhere that it's option 2 from last week, I had a bit of trouble realizing what you were writing about until the very end. As for the actual response, I understand that you compared a different work of Danielewski than House of Leaves, but you spend the considerable chunk of your response explaining this substitution rather than writing a comparative argument between the two authors' styles. In order for you to actually compare the two, you need to focus more on the style each uses and relate/contrast them through the example of one section from each. Since your comparison to Danielewski is from an unfamiliar text, I would recommend describing your reference from his work in much greater detail to better understand where you are coming from in your response. Additionally, you may want to focus more on the actual comparison rather than whether liking one style is synonymous to liking the other. Hope these comments helped and sorry for the late post.Chris Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10613573119822529760noreply@blogger.com