I want to start off my response by stating that I did not like this article at all. I found Shelley Jackson to be annoying since she seemed to be rambling. Her article was talking about a body one second and hypertext the next. I felt bored as I read this and it seemed like a waste of time, because I gained nothing from this article. Although I understood most of what she was trying to tell the reader, I did not see why a body and hypertext needed to try to be included together.
The first section I want to discuss was "The Feminine". I understand how something or someone may not be who they say they are, but why is the "banished body" or the hypertext feminine. I know that she is telling the reader that there are different aspects to recognizing good and bad writing, but the way she compares them is odd. "Bad writing is a build-up of clutter or crud". Really? I'm aware that bad writing containes ideas and sentences that are sparatic or do not belong. But why doesn't she give an example or say it how I said it? She needs to identify this "crud".
In Jackson's section "Against History", she states "it's not how they say it was". That quote definitely makes sense of some articles about history. Some people may make it seems more or less than it really was. Then she starts to talk about hypertext again. "I see no reason why hypertext can't serve up an experience of satisfying closure not drastically different from that of reading a long and complicated novel, though it will do it differently." But instead of building upon this idea, she goes back into how someone may live their life. What? Why can't she concentrate on one idea or at least make a strong connection between the two.
I'm not sure if anyone else really enjoyed this article, but I did not. Maybe like Jackson said in her article, I got lost through it or rejected it for some reason or another. Maybe I didn't really give it the chance to the be enjoyed.
No comments:
Post a Comment