Stuart Moulthrop: "Response: Everybody's Elegies" (23)
In his response to Part IV, Moulthrop tells his own story of hypertext publishing--a frustrating story that requires us to speculate on the future of hypertext literacy. In his analysis of the essays that precede this chapter, Moulthrop criticizes, or expects that the reader will want to criticize, the tendency of the essays in Part IV to focus on issues of past and ignore the future. He only tentatively defends this impulse to "Elegize" rather than speculate because "he understands how hard it is to answer questions like what are you doing after the web" (420).
This
particular reader takes a much more definitive stance in her defense of Wysocki
and Johnson-Eilola's,
Amato's, Eldred's and Joyce's
choices to elegize: We cannot responsibly determine what "comes next"
without determining what literacy means now, what our present technologies
mean for us today and how our approaches to literacy must necessarily
change in this very different world that the World Wide Web has presented
us. We cannot (read: should not) speculate on what we are doing "after
the web" before we have been self-reflexive enough to understand what
we are doing during the Web. The essays in this section excel in
this sort of self-reflexivity.
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 |
7 8 9 10 11 12 |
13 14 15 16 17 18 |
19 20 21 22 23 |
Contents |
