Rhetoric Online 3, 4, 5

Chapter Three: Interactivity - I thought I knew what interactivity was before I read this chapter. Apparently it's much more in depth than I thought it was. I liked that the chapter said users must actively attend and respond to messages in order for there to be interactivity. This is what I envisioned interactivity to be. The chapter also talked about text-based interactivity through the use of first person or active and passive voice. This was a new concept to me, since I've never thought about text being interactive before, but when I think about it, it definitely is interactive. It's really hard to read a text and not react in some way. The chapter then said these were rhetorical features of the internet. I like how it keeps tying back into rhetoric, since my own definition of rhetoric is still growing and expanding.

The chapter also went into user-to-system, user-to-user, and user-to-document interactivity. These were fun to read about, at least for me. The idea of user to system interactivity hit me as being a bit more complicated than the other two, but still a manageable idea. The examples of hyperlinks, gaming functions, and user forms helped this idea to be a bit more concrete for me. The idea of user to user interactivity is the most familiar to me, since this is what interactivity is most closely related to (for me). This reminds me of comments or messages that go back and forth between users. It's not user to system because you're not interacting with the system, you're simply using it as a tool to interact with other users. User to document interactivity is the newest one I've encountered, especially through Google Docs, which my classes have been utilizing more and more. This is a really cool concept for me because of the idea that one document can exist that several people can edit.

Chapter Four: Circulation and Rhetorical Uptake - This chapter began by talking about viral videos, which was cool for me because I have seen what they are and have participated in making some viral through watching them and sharing them. The chapter listed three basic requirements. First, the video must be viewed a large number of times in a short amount of time. Second, the video must generate a large number of responses. Finally, the video uses pathos and novelty. These requirements are all pretty basic to me, but maybe it's just because I've grown up in the digital era and am familiar with the concept already. The rest of the chapter was a bit more in depth, however.

There was one quote which I want to touch on briefly, because it stood out to me. It's, "subtexts affect not only how we listen and read but also how we are prepared to listen and read." This was really cool and interesting to me because it's sort of a backwards way of thinking, but it's true. You can't read and absorb text if you're not prepared for it. The type and depth of the material also affects how you listen and read as well. For example, if you read a children's story you will likely read in depth, word for word, since the concepts are all very basic and engaging. If it's academic material, however, you may skim the material as opposed to reading word for word because you may not be prepared enough.

The Lady Gaga video example was really interesting to read. The lack of all that made her famous I think helped the message to go viral. If Gaga was wearing some flashy outfit full of color, the message wouldn't have been received so seriously or so well. The chapter then talked about the parodies that had been made about the video. This made me think of Weird Al Yankovic because in my mind, he represents parody. Just a side note. There was a quote in this chapter which said, "circulation in a hyper-mediated environment is not seizure of power, but rather a release of control". This is meaningful to me, especially in relation to the Gaga video because you can't expect to control something you put online. If you put up a video and it goes viral, it's not a sign of power, but a sign saying you lost control (sometimes on purpose) of the video. This also relates to the parodies because when you put up a video, anyone can parody it. I found it really rather sad when they said the political viral videos still have less viewership than cute hamsters or a cat playing a piano. It makes me think what our world is coming to.

Chapter Five: Intertextuality and Web Based Public Discourse - This chapter brought a lot of new ideas to my attention. The entire idea of intertextuality is new to me, and I like it. It's fascinating. I like the idea that everything is (or has the power to be) related. When I was reading about this, I instantly thought of my favorite author, Sarah Dessen. When she writes a book, she relates it to other books she's written. What I mean is she'll write just a sentence in one book about a couple in a booth in running clothes, and then another book will focus entirely on that couple. Or she'll mention a town name in passing in one book, but it will be the setting of another book. I think this is genius when she does this. It also brought up the idea of familiarity that was mentioned in the chapter. They say if you're unfamiliar with politics, then some political parodies will be meaningless to you. Well, same thing. If you haven't read any of Dessen's books but one, you wouldn't know that couple is the focus of another book or that that town isn't just mentioned in passing, but it has a deeper meaning. I love the idea because it's almost like a secret, which I think makes the message (be it political or fictional) more meaningful.

The chapter also talked about allegories and articulation. These terms are a bit fuzzier for me. Allegories make sense, though it takes me a few seconds to understand them. The chapter says it's a specific way of reading a text. This, I think, means the reader takes their outside knowledge into the reading. For example, if I were really religious, I may pick up on religious connotations in a reading, where as if I wasn't religious, they would completely slip on by me. I think this goes back to how much background knowledge a reader has about a certain text. An articulation is the form of the connection that a reader can make between two things or elements. This didn't fully make sense to me, but I think it's related to the above rants I have written, that an element can be related to something else - though it may not HAVE to be related or doesn't matter to the story.