I find the idea of a convergence culture interesting, but other than giving a definition to the term I did not find much new information in the introduction of Convergence Culture. Jenkins did give many entertaining examples in the intro but as far as information goes, I think I will wait until I read some of the actual book before praising or criticizing whatever Jenkins has to say.
The one major thing I did learn from the intro was the definition of convergence culture, or more appropriately Jenkins' definition of convergence culture. Before opening the book, I defined convergence culture as something along the lines of "the meeting of technology and media with information" on the information sheet we filled out on Tuesday. This definition is not in sync with Jenkins' definition, but I wouldn't call myself wrong. I think the two words put together form a vague compound that could logically be defined in numerous ways. In my own words, Jenkins describes a convergence culture as a society that lives in an environment highly influenced by the availability of content from numerous, differing sources. This includes the production aspect of content and media as well as the dispersal , use, and interactions that follow content.
After reading the articles on rhetoric from Blackboard, I am safe to say that I am decently confused. I first read The Rhetorical Situation and thought I understood it to be an instance that calls for discourse or rhetoric due to an event that occured, such as an unexpected death provides an instance during which someone needs to inform others of the details surrounding the death. Then I read The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation. Now I'm not sure which writer to trust. Vatz made valid points that some of Bitzer's ideas are contradictory or at least confusing. But after reading both articles, I am confusing the stipulations that must occur to create a rhetorical situation as given by each respective writer, so for now I will hope class discussion helps me sort these ideas, and I plan to stick by my first definition of the rhetorical situation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
my response to "what is convergence culture" was: "in short: multi-media." likewise, i don't find my definition this to be a bad (early) assessment, though it doesn't really clarify to others its association to another thought i have rattling around my head. last semester i read a passage claiming that one medium tended to be dominant in any give society. i could conclude from this that "multi-media" is taking the place of a single delivery technology.
when i read your description--"the meeting of technology and media with information"--it reminds me that i often associate the term "information" with "EXPLOSION," or i get a funny popping sound in my ear. [something to keep in mind: 1989 marked two events. the berlin wall fell. the internet, as we know it today, was created.]
Early on in this course (and maybe throughout life), confusion is a good thing because the matters we are discussing are complex and can be interpreted in multiple ways. When you made up your own definition of convergence culture, you made a good guess, and then you discovered that Jenkins was using the term another way. When you read Bitzer, you saw the logic in his description of a rhetorical situation. And then you read the critiques and you didn't know whom to trust (see also Sean's critique of Bitzer on his blog). Is that where it ends? Of course not. I think the best any of us can do is to examine all the variables that are realistic in a given situation and come to a tentative conclusion about where we stand. Most (not all) of my conclusions are subject to interrogation by me and by others. That's the fun of the "examined life." Who said the unexamined life is not worth living? Dr. L
Post a Comment