So I kind of messed up and did this week's post last week, so I'm going to do last week's post this week. Nifty how that works out, eh?
I'm going to discuss the Martin McLuhan piece. Quite frankly one of the more interesting yet mind-boggling articles we have read in this class. I really enjoyed the discussion of how all media actually works through another form of medium. However, at the same time it is such a jumbled portrayal of these ideas that it could be at times nearly incomprehensible. Honestly, it inevitably goes into the whole situation/institution of slavery and it just gets rather upsetting. Why does everything that would be so simple and lovely change into something that’s so dismal in comparison? Why does the simplest ideas get transformed into the most convoluted, destructed concepts? Even know everything I set out to do in this post has been twisted and turned into this mass of confusion. Perhaps this is a perfect representation of the article in my own way. But, perhaps not.
It is by no means an easy task to respond to McLuhan.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I am confused by the references to slavery and by your organizational strategy. Can you give some concrete examples of the transformation into "convoluted, destructed [?] concepts"?
I can see that there is some reflection on the confusion of your own post, but this is ineffective as a rhetorical strategy. What is your argument about McLuhan? What evidence do you offer to support this argument? This reads like a first draft and I am not sure any audience would find this convincing. I know you can do better.