In Why Technology Matters to Wrting: A Cyborgian’s Tale by Jim Porter, the author presents his argument of how human and technology work together to produce writing. Porter defines his stance by stating “technological tools are not just an abstracted machine for human use but technology is defined as use as the human and machine working in concert and writing in a particular, social, political and rhetorical context” (Porter, 375). Basically, Porter takes a stand against those who would argue that writing is not a technology or that writing could not be produced today without the technology we have. Porter defends this by going through history of as communication evolved between us so did the technology. For instance, from handwriting to typewriting, to cyberwriting, humans have adapted and adjusted to the use of new technology in order to produce writing. Furthermore, Porter understands the relationship between people and writing technologies as this team effort. He states, “These tools foster incremental change that aids our writing process-but writing language and communication remain pretty much the same as before” (Porter, 384). Therefore, Porter thinks that it is not the writing that defines the relationship but how human utilize the technology and how technology furthers humans’ potential. He explains how “Technologies of writing matter a great deal, but how they matter depends both on your view of technology and on your philosophy of writing, language and rhetoric” (pg. 386). All in all, Porter comprehends the relationship between humans and writing technologies as a partnership. What really matters is understanding the “technological past” as to how writers have develop not only their writing skills but how technology has coexisted alongside throughout their transitions. I definitely agree with Porter’s understanding of the relationship between humans and writing technology. In my own life, I have gone from using a pencil, to pen, and to typing on a computer the word and process of writing has not changed. I have had to transition and adapt to the new technology but this new technology also only exists to enhance my writing. With such an array of mediums like social networks, emails, and more, it will be interesting to see how writing continues to be translated from humans using technology and what improvements technology makes for humans to write.
Jim Porter’s composition “Why technology matters to writing: A cyberwriter’s tale” explorers the author’s ideas about the relationship between people and writing technologies. Porter holds two contradictory views on this relationship. First is Porter’s idea that the human and technology relationship is a “system unfolding over time, including human and non-human agents in a developmental dance,” (Porter 385). This idea is illustrated in the piece by a retelling of Porter’s history with a myriad of writing technologies like pens, typewriters, legal pads, and computers. This history effectively portrays the human and technology relationship as a dance because it recounts how humans and new technologies are constantly adapting to each other much like how dance partners adapt to each other’s movements. The second idea Porter presents is that modern humans are cyborgs with “machines… assisting mental processes,” (387). This view is problematic because it requires the concept of a single united being that is part human and part technology. A single united cyborg could not possibly be participating in the “dance” that Porter claims exists because as we all know, it takes two to tango. Much like how many people struggle with dancing, many people also struggle with writing technologies. Technology is not seamlessly integrated in humanity. Adjusting from one technology to another can be difficult and daunting, and for this reason I disagree with many of Porter’s ideas.
I agree with Porter that writing technology always changes the production and distribution of writing (386). I do not think that new writing technologies such as the Internet make people any more cyborg than say a pen or pencil. Nobody would argue that because someone holds a pencil they are ninety-nine percent human and one percent pencil. The same goes for other writing technologies. Porter seems to be a visionary with good ideas, but he is somewhat caught up in the new possibilities of the Internet. The Internet changes the way that writing is shared, and it also changes how and what people write. The Internet does not make the twenty-first century human part machine any more than the Model-T made twentieth century Americans part automobile.
In “Why technology matters to writing: a cyber-writers tale” author James Porter examines his life from childhood to college graduate and relates how technology has evolved and influenced his writing over the course of this technological history. As a child Porter grew up writing (or better practiced writing) with pencils without erasers. This technique engrained the idea that longhand conducted to “see [your] errors” (Porter 2). However, when the typewriters popularized themselves in writing culture he quickly displaced longhand with its new mechanical competitor. Typewriters were faster, more efficient, provided uniformity, and were admittedly a lot less physical work, but there’s still a frame of mind of what type of writing typewriters were used for compared to handwritten material. Porter goes on to mention that in his graduate studies he developed a sort of method for his writing style. He would write out all of his drafts in longhand and once they reached a certain level of coherency would switch to the typewriter for revising and editing (Porter 4). Although he could have simply just used his typewriter to compose his work, there was this structure in his mind of the difference in function between longhand (seeing errors) and the typewriting (editing). Later in 1984 Porter purchased his first computer and again it changed the why he interacted with technology and evolved his writing technique. He goes on to say that the computer functioned to “streamline [his] writing process by eliminating retyping” (Porter 6). So why does technology matter? It matters not in its individual achievements but rather its overall revolutionizing. It has been constantly tackling the concerns of ‘how to improve’ and ‘what purpose will it serve’? Technologies and writing in general are always construed for a reason and Porter references a major argument by Bruno Latour’s that states “the revolution lies in use, which guides technological innovation” (Porter 11). I agree with Porter a lot through this essay, that the way we interact, use, or stereotype a writing technology varies through each development. His memoir like essay allowed me to reflect on my own writing evolution and realized mine was similar to his in many ways. Laptops, iPad, smart phones, have certainly overtaken the materiality of pencil and paper from grade school, but that doesn’t mean they don’t each still contain their own purpose within mine or others writing practice.
Porter begins by illustrating his personal relationship with pencils, pens, both manual and electric typewriters, and various versions of the computer. He gives reason for this (particularly drawn-out) history at the end of his article, in which he summarizes that technology is not revolutionary (in the way that Baron illustrated) but rather the social effects of it are revolutionary. Porter takes a much more rhetorical approach to the relationship of writing, people, and technologies. I believe that Porter’s particular understanding is illustrated in the following: “We are already in the age of new media, where visual and video forms of expression supersede alphabetic text.” (Porter 389) He chose this frame as opposed to one that would read more along the lines of “We are already in the age where typing on computers supersedes handwriting” because it illustrates that the importance is on the way writing technologies affect societal norms as opposed to processes. Porter tries to differentiate that typing on a computer doesn’t matter (a formalist/textual view), it is the way writing changes with the way communication is handled. Porter also provides a posthumanist view of people and writing technologies, which “explores cyborgian hybridity, the connectedness between human-machine,” (Porter 387)
Personally, I feel inclined to both agree and disagree with Porter. In regards to writing technologies affecting rhetorical practice, I absolutely agree. I firmly believe that the connection between the Internet and rhetorical strategy is undeniable, and that it is truly revolutionary. Porter diminishes the importance of writing technologies on the actual practice of writing, which I believe is partially contradictory to his earlier statements. He states, “If you hold a formalist/textual view of writing, then, understandably, technology is not likely to matter much to writing.” (Porter 385) Earlier in the essay, though, he states that his writing process shifted with the typewriter. In my opinion, this undoubtedly would have an affect on the “words (the prose) in sentences and paragraphs,” (Porter 385) that were produced. In summary, while I agree that the revolutionary aspects of writing technologies are their affects on production, distribution, and context, I also believe that writing technologies affect the act of writing.
In “Why technology matters to writing: A cyberwriter’s tale,” by Jim Porter he plainly states “Technology matters to writing.” Now in the beginning of his essay, and within the first few paragraphs he says this line and right away defines the relationship between people and writing technologies. They matter to each other. He expands and illustrates this thought with an account of the different writing technologies that he has had both the pleasure and the struggle to learn over the years. For example, when he first learned how to handwrite with a pencil, he was given no eraser. The relationship that he had between the pencils him and the paper was a delicate one where he had to be careful as to not make mistakes because they would show up on the paper without being able to be erased. Porter explains how this method “didn’t want to encourage hiding our flaws.” As technology grew from pencils to typewriters he had to conjure up a new relationship that would include financial resources to afford one and the time and effort to learn how to use it. Yet again a new technology of computers arose and at the school he would have to go to labs and use the computers there. Sharing the writing technologies with colleagues in a close environment was helpful to Porter, as they would learn together. Porter stressed the point that staying current with the latest writing technology was a struggle because just as he was getting used to it it became obsolete and something new was up and coming. Porter describes the relationships with people and writing technologies as a continuing battle of catch-up.
I agree with Porter on the point he is making even though I was not able to personally exhibit all the phases of the different writing technologies he went through. He explains the struggle, joy, and excitement he had with each upcoming technology in a way that was easy to read and understand. With that being said I agree with him in the sense that technology matters to writing and it always will.
One point that I picked up from Porter’s piece was that the evolution of people and writing technologies have a positive correlation. As long as people advance, so will writing technologies. As long as these writing technologies continue to be developed, people will also learn to use and take advantage of these technologies in everyday life. Just like Baron, Porter refers to writing technologies are invaluable tools that influence the way we write. “...computers are not merely instrumental tools of writing, but rather influence the nature of composing and our rhetorical understanding of the composing situation. (384) So unlike previous writing technologies, the computer directly influenced the way people write and live their lives. “…writing technologies play a huge—especially in terms of production (process) and distribution (delivery).” (386) This writing technology is revolutionary in the sense that it developed a relationship with users beyond that of just writing. People now use computers in every aspect of life, including in social contexts. At one point in his writing Porter even said “my machine and I have become partners in composing, the machine (this time a PowerBook G4) allowing a wide range of options, only some of which I understand and use…” (385) It seems that Porter believes that people are almost able to build intimate relationships with their computers, partly due to the fact that this new writing technology is so ingrained in the way we regularly write. I do agree with Porter’s relationship between people and writing technologies. People have been more reliant on modern technology in the composition, production and distribution process of writing.
Porter shares with us a timeline of his life events that have been deeply intertwined with developments in the technology platforms on which writing has taken place. It is Porter’s contention that what matters about technology with regard to writing is not merely the ease with which it assists one in writing, but rather the “pedagogical context that matters.” By this he means that with each new generation of writing technology, there are learning experiences that accompany the familiarizing with, and employment of, these new technologies. For him, the pencil was not important because of its particular design or “iconic” nature, but because of the ways in which his past experiences with it were informed by its capabilities, limitations, and requirements. The same applies with computers, he feels, stating that “the computer is an accumulative writing tool—and learning to use the tool was for me, as for any writer, a richly varied and accumulative experience.” For Porter, it is the cultural, social, and ultimately pedagogical situation surrounding a tool that gives it its significance in human lives. I agree with Porter that context matters, and that a technology’s particular value is in its usage by human beings. I also agree that the coevolution of writing technologies and human development have significantly advanced certain aspects of human interconnectivity, and that in general it is wiser to embrace a new technology and accept the changes that come with the goal towards a positive advancement of culture and society. I do, however, sympathize with the humanist perspective Porter discusses and discounts as outdated. I tend to view technology as a wonderful aide to human endeavors that should indeed be embraced and furthered through discovery and inquiry; but I also view technological advancement with reservation, and pragmatism, as I feel it necessary to continually ask and rethink what ramifications might come about from advances in technology. Technology can aid us when we need it, and helps us to achieve great things we could never do with merely our hands and our wits. But I fear the day that I look around and see a race of individuals who could not ever divorce themselves from their dependency on technology. Some would say that day has already come, but I think they are discounting humanity too early. Still, technology only aids us to the extent that we as creatures can keep up with it; what happens, I wonder, when technology breaks off running into an autonomous sprint and leaves us behind, cramping and winded?
Porter understands the relationship between people and writing technologies as an inevitable advancement of human capability. This capability in turn changes humans themselves. Without people there to use them computers would not be of use. Using computers is an extension of the human which in turn is like a person being a cyborg, as long as they are functioning with the computer. Using the computer has become an integral part of the human experience. We type for business and pleasure and everything in between. When computers first came into use it was for the academics. Even then it was for use in the academic setting. It took a while for them to take this new technology home with them. Technology advanced so quickly that this new shift was one that happened within a span of a decade. Almost everyone had access to a computer by 2000 and then it was something that the younger generation was being raised with and the older generation being suspicious of. Technology may have been advancing to the point that it was a part of everyday life, but because of the unnatural nature of the computer it was something that was made a part of life with a bit of unease. I agree with Porter that technology has become such a part of the everyday person’s life that it seems as though we are one with the machines that have expanded our view of the world around us. With advancement however comes questioning. Could this new technology be detrimental to the way humans behave? After all from his own experience Porter talks about how communities that would meet face to face would end up corresponding through email instead. So even though technology has been able to make the world a much smaller place, it may have left it a little bit colder as well.
Porter shows his understanding of the relationship between people and writing technologies by describing how the emergence of new technologies has effected his writing. He starts out describing his early handwriting training but later states he learned to be a writer in typewriter culture (Porter 377). Although Porter completed his stories on the typewriter, he still used legal pads to write and rewrite his drafts (378). He goes on to speak about his career as a teacher using word processors and later the computer. This taught Porter about collaboration since groups of people were all learning, theorizing and teaching each other about new writing technologies. He also believed these technologies improved his personal work productivity. The article mentions how networking led to a collaborative environment because of email discussion groups and conferencing. Information could also be published on the web which allowed writers to share things with the world.
Porter writes his history with writing technologies has led him to believe that technology and humans are not separate entities. He states that these technologies are “extensions of my identity, practice, and training as a writer” (385). The computer is an accumulation of past writing technologies. Porter believes learning to use these new tools is a “richly varied and accumulative experience for any writer” (385). He ends the article stating that other generations view the computer in an entirely different frame. The technological past matters and writing technologies influence how a writer composes and communicates.
I agree with the points Porter made in “Why Technology Matters to Writing”. It was interesting to see how new technology changed Porter’s writing style throughout the ages. I agree with his statement that the social and rhetorical contexts the computer creates and the way it impacts publishing practices is the revolutionary technology. I also agree that the technological past matters and affects peoples’ writing. Overall, I think these writing technologies help the writer more than harm them.
In his essay, “Why technology matters to writing: a cyberwriter’s tale”, John Porter discusses the relationship between technology, writing, and people. Specifically, he discusses his own experiences with writing and the changing technologies over the time period of about 30 years. He begins with the pencil and ends with the network-capable computer. Simply put, Porter’s belief is that with each new writing technology, the individual become better off. Although Porter held the pencil and pad, and the typewriter in high esteem for many years, it is the computer that he is most satisfied with. Although the essay discusses a range of technologies, none is more heavily focused on as the computer. He includes a table that lists out each technological advance with the computer and the effects it has had on the writing product, process, delivery, and social interaction. Each effect is undoubtedly beneficial. Despite his love for the modern computer, Porter does not look at it as a replacement for the previous technologies, as is clearly depicted when he states, “The typewriter is still there in the computer, as is the pencil, the paper, the old desktop publishing tools, and other previous writing technologies. The computer is an accumulative writing tool—and learning to use the tool was for me, as for any writer, a richly varied and accumulative experience” (385). This experience that Porter describes leads him into his next topic that discusses the relationship between technology and people. He writes, “Understand technology not as a static set of devices, but as a system unfolding over time, including human and non-human agents in a developmental dance” (385). This is very important in understanding Porter’s view on the relationship between people and writing technology. For Porter sees the relationship in a very symbiotic manner, one relies upon the other. For the computer is there to serve and benefit the individual, and seeing as a computer has no intrinsic value without it being used by someone, the computer needs the individual. I find it hard to disagree with Porter on this view; in fact, I gladly accept it. I do believe that writing technologies are for our benefit. Moreover, I also view computers as especially beneficial, or rather, revolutionary. The computer is revolutionary not in its ability to do what typewriters could do (except faster), but in its connectivity; access to the Internet being the most important, in my opinion. Having access to the World Wide Web on the same piece of technology that you write on can be massively beneficial. All in all, I think computers are pretty groovy.
Porter begins his discussion on writing and technology by recounting his first remembered experiences with writing, such as a penmanship class taught by catholic nuns. He emphasizes that the goal was first to write beautifully and perfectly in form—the shapes and appearance of letters on the page—before delving into spelling and the actual mechanics of writing. At first the students weren’t allowed to use the erasers on their pencils as “the goal was to write properly the first time”, then they were transitioned to pen, and at 13 Porter took his first typing class on a typewriter. He tells us the ease with which he largely abandoned each previous method of writing and how the new technologies suited his needs, such as the quick output of an electric typewriter in practiced hands as he learned about journalism and the legacy and impact of writing. His first experience with a computer saved him hours of time working on his dissertation with a word processor, and as computers and word processing software evolved, he tried to keep up. Throughout the article Porter tried to point out the ways in which his transitioning between methods of writing changed his style of and view on writing, conveniently matching the tasks demanded of him as he moved through school and university and into his career. His view emphasizes not the tools with which he wrote but the ways he was trained to use them and the writing he was required to produce with each, and later, the possibilities that opened up with the internet and software beyond word processing. He wants to make it clear that writing technologies do not stand alone in a void, but rather in combination with human writers, continue to create evolved works and possibilities. I like Porter’s enthusiasm for modern technology and his focus on accessibility, and I agree with his view on writing technology’s widening scope being a positive thing which yes, may change output depending on the medium, but which in no way leads to the downfall of writing as we know it.
Porter understands that people and technology matter to one another. As one changes, the other does too. Porter begins by using a personal example of his childhood. Before computers and autocorrect, pencils and handwriting were important. Handwriting went beyond what was being written and centered on good penmanship; appearance was of highest importance. Porter states that “handwriting was writing in these early years” (377). Handwriting was followed by a typewriter, and eventually, desktops became the popular writing instrument. Writing was no longer the only thing that mattered, visual designs were now being considered.
As technology expanded, people began to create more and do more with the mediums given. Porter states his belief that technology was not the revolutionizer but that people themselves were using this technology on their own. Rather than face-to-face communication, people began communicating through technology. It also allowed for a online community to develop. New and faster ways of communication came about and this allowed for distance between people to feel minimal.
I agree with Porter that people themselves were the ones who changed the way we communicate. The new technologies that came about were aids in this change. In his essay, Porter shows the changes in writing which he gradually experienced through out his own life. I agree with him when he says “the technological past matters. It shapes the writer and writes the body in significant ways” (389). Porter evolved his writing the same way technology evolved. This reminds me of my own experience with writing: I began with a pencil and now mainly rely on a computer. I believe the evolution of writing technologies benefit writers because it gives them the opportunity to experience different ways to write and discover their own writing.
Having experienced the technological advances of writing in the past 40 or so years, Porter has much to discuss in this article. He sees the transformation of writing technologies as huge advancements. He argues that each writing technology (from pencil to the World Wide Web) affected and shaped his writing capabilities. For example using the pen in grade school taught him much about appearance is associated with credibility, which led into his interest in digital design. Likewise, he believes writing technologies and the networking associated with them taught him everything he knows about writing.
Later in his “tale” Porter admits, “as an isolated object, technology is of little interest.” Therefore, Porter believes that someone could view the pencil and the computer as basically the same tool, but there is more to take into account when analyzing writing technologies. I agree with this point. Porter states, “In other words, the pictures misrepresent the machines as disembodied tools, instead of what they really were—extensions of my identity, practice, and training as a writer.” With this, Porter believes the relationship between he (or people in general) and the technologies is critical in the explanation of why technology matters. One cannot isolate the technology in order to explain this answer.
In addition, Porter disagrees with Barron’s theory. Porter believes the computer writing technology is more impactful than just another useful writing tool like a pen. Porter explains, “It is not the pencil per se that is important, but rather the pencil in its social and ideological context.” Although Baron does not view the computer as revolutionary technology, Porter insists that the “[networking] and the social/rhetorical contexts” are the revolution. Once again, I agree with Porter. Computers create an easy way for all writers to become authors because of the instant access to an audience. Computers have changed writing in that now authors can directly communicate with their fan or their critics. This kind of social interaction has impacted and possibly changed writing composition.
In Jim Porter’s paper “Why technology matters to writing: A cyberwriter’s tale,” he defines technology as “the human and machine working in concert and writing in a particular social, political, and rhetorical context” (Porter, 376). He contradicts Baron’s view on writing technology through the claim that writing technologies have not differed that much, as writing, language, and communication remain the same. The writing technology only matters to the extent of the social and ideological context behind it (Porter, 384). Porter discusses how all the technologies have shaped his career and his development as a writer. In today’s society we are able to use social networks and publishing practices that reach out to broader audiences and impact the content writers are publishing today. He has become partners with his writing technology, as it has become an extension of his “identity, practice and training as a writer” (Porter 385).
To Porter it does not matter what type of technology is being used, as it all has the potential to produce the same context. He argues that the relationship between people and writing technologies is dependent on how people view the production and effects of writing in political, rhetorical, and social context. Porter uses Baron’s stance to claim that writing technologies are nothing more than various tools for writing. It in no way affects the true art form (Porter 387). To Porter every medium of writing matters, whether it is the typewriter, pencil, or computer. They all leave an imprint on the writer and shape the way they compose their work and share it with the world.
I completely agree with Porter's stance that one’s relationship with writing technology is based on political, rhetorical, and social context. As technology continues to progress, I find myself learning more and publishing on a variety of mediums. With each technology, my process of writing has not changed however. I can write the same thing whether using a paper, typewriter, or computer. As writing technologies continue to expand, so does the audience. It is interesting to be able to get immediate feedback on your writing, get input from readers, and tweak your writing based on people’s preferences. I look forward to seeing how the progression of technology will continue to expand a writer’s career and whether it will alter the art form itself.
Jim Porter uses Why Technology Matters to Writing: A Cyberwriter’s Tale to chronicle his journey through writing with advancing technologies. By the disingenuous remarks towards learning to write with eraser-less pencils and unkempt cartridge-ink pens, we surmise that Porter finds these technologies futile and already antiquated. Once Porter discusses his transition into manual and then onto automatic typewriters, I could see the page light up, like I imagine his eyes would at the mention of a technology that would allow him to write more efficiently. After the laborious ordeal of learning to write with a pencil, the act of writing with a typewriting was a welcome change. Here we see Porter’s genuine love of writing and for its technological process. He wrote longhand drafts from legal pad to typewriter, over and over again, almost to the point of developing imprints of the keys on his fingertips. Apart from sending letters to loved ones, writing wasn’t a community event until he became an assistant professor of English at Indiana University-Purdue University at Fort Wayne. This is when Porter begins his foray into computers. Starting with the Radio Shack TRS-80, Porter quickly understood computers as a way to further improve writing function. He became interested in the Macintosh computers. He went out of his way to the university’s math lab to operate a Macintosh. There he befriended colleagues and students who were equally enthusiastic about learning word processing technologies. In this sense, writing became a community activity for him. The math lab was the break room, a place to collect interests and bounce ideas off of each other. Porter has been increasingly impassioned by the innovations of writing technology, and this is where I differ. It may seem awfully curmudgeon-y of me to detest technology, and I may not have a viable reason for feeling such way, but nonetheless, I have always been wary of technological improvement. Where my opinions detract from Porter’s is his ability to discontinue use of older technologies and replace those methods of transcription with the newest technology he can get a hold of. I will probably never bring a computer with me to class until I get into graduate school, unless it is required of me. I like pen and paper, I like doodling between note-taking, I like being the only person in class that has an extra pen and an extra piece of paper. I find that technology also adds to expectation. I do not know about every computer program or every helpful app. I hate when websites crash, and data is lost. To me, technology has a way of making the world better and it has an incredible power to connect us universally, but I also believe advanced writing-technologies are not beneficial to every individual. I believe we learn more effectively with hand and pen. And I am deeply saddened by its inevitable demise.
Porter understands the relationship we have with writing technologies as an overarching influential sphere. He believes the tools we have to write affect how we learn to write and how we communicate through writing. He understands his son will grow up writing with a different mindset through a computer than he did by learning to write from nuns with an eraserless pencil. I agree with his point about the medium affecting how you write. Even within "computer" there is social media, school work, and many other forms of communicating online. Each of these also cause me approach writing differently, however I write much faster and more effectively. I don't really agree with the notion that older forms of writing are more intimate or valuable. I write more intimately through texts, emails, and blog posts than I do in letters or anything like that. After I met my long time girlfriend, our relationship evolved by communicating through facebook and text messaging because we couldn't see each other all the time. The technologies we have make it incredibly fast and easy to communicate.
Porter begins by chronicling his personal relationship to varied writing technologies throughout the years – from his early days of penmanship honing in Catholic school, to his introduction to the computer and the World Wide Web. This recount of history gives way to a counterargument to Baron. Baron believed technology to be revolutionary, but Porter provides an alternative to this idea: Technology is not revolutionary, but rather the social effects of it are. This conceit colors the way in which he illustrates the relationship between people and writing technologies, specifically when he shifts into the age of the computer. Porter believes that we need to adapt a posthumanist approach in order to explain and explore coming technological advances (Porter 388). This approach explores “cyborgian hybridity”, an idea that alters our perception of the human-machine relationship (Porter 387). No longer is there a strict binary division between the two. For Porter, writing technologies and people each work to change and evolve each other, affecting society at large. This is exemplified when he shares how computers were stretched in ways they were not originally intended to meet certain societal needs (Porter 385). Ultimately, Porter argues for a “cyborgian, posthumanist view of writing technologies”, which, although new to me, I’m inclined to agree with. Particularly, I agree with the radical statement that “machines can help us be better as humans”, an idea that is counter to the defensive stance that man is better than technology (see “Phaedrus”) (Porter 387). An example of this that he gives is that “hypertext represents a textual advance over the linearity of the print.” The introduction of new technologies allows for the inclusion of devices that help us, as humans, work more effectively and efficiently. This, in effect, alters how we think and interact and understand.
In Porter’s essay, “Why Technology Matters to Writing” he displays a deep understanding for the relationship between humans and technology. He shows the evolution of technology as it progressed throughout his lifetime. He describes his struggles to master every new technology when it was created, even though many were considered obsolete quickly after their creation. Porter’s journey to keep up with technology is a relationship that many sympathize with. Porter claims in his essay that he does not believe the computer affects the outcome of the actual article, only the publishing process. This point I disagree with. I know from both experience and our class discussions that most people write in different styles when using different modes of writing technology. I know that I for instance write freely with a pencil (that has an eraser) whereas, I focus more on my words, grammar, and spelling when I am writing in pen because of it’s permanence. This is the difference that Porter opposes. When writing with a typewriter, a writer would process every word and sentence structure before typing it on the page. However, when typing on a computer, the writer knows that they can reflect on their work and edit it how they please without having to retype the entire article. Overall, I agree with Porter’s view of most of the writing technologies as just that; technology. I also agree that technologies can shape the way a person grows in their writing. The machines we use so frequently we create a bond to, I for one and far too attached to my laptop because of how it allows me to multitask and be a productive individual. I believe that Porter grasps the relationship between humans and technology quite well.
In Why Technology Matters to Wrting: A Cyborgian’s Tale by Jim Porter, the author presents his argument of how human and technology work together to produce writing. Porter defines his stance by stating “technological tools are not just an abstracted machine for human use but technology is defined as use as the human and machine working in concert and writing in a particular, social, political and rhetorical context” (Porter, 375). Basically, Porter takes a stand against those who would argue that writing is not a technology or that writing could not be produced today without the technology we have. Porter defends this by going through history of as communication evolved between us so did the technology. For instance, from handwriting to typewriting, to cyberwriting, humans have adapted and adjusted to the use of new technology in order to produce writing. Furthermore, Porter understands the relationship between people and writing technologies as this team effort.
ReplyDeleteHe states, “These tools foster incremental change that aids our writing process-but writing language and communication remain pretty much the same as before” (Porter, 384). Therefore, Porter thinks that it is not the writing that defines the relationship but how human utilize the technology and how technology furthers humans’ potential. He explains how “Technologies of writing matter a great deal, but how they matter depends both on your view of technology and on your philosophy of writing, language and rhetoric” (pg. 386). All in all, Porter comprehends the relationship between humans and writing technologies as a partnership. What really matters is understanding the “technological past” as to how writers have develop not only their writing skills but how technology has coexisted alongside throughout their transitions.
I definitely agree with Porter’s understanding of the relationship between humans and writing technology. In my own life, I have gone from using a pencil, to pen, and to typing on a computer the word and process of writing has not changed. I have had to transition and adapt to the new technology but this new technology also only exists to enhance my writing. With such an array of mediums like social networks, emails, and more, it will be interesting to see how writing continues to be translated from humans using technology and what improvements technology makes for humans to write.
Jim Porter’s composition “Why technology matters to writing: A cyberwriter’s tale” explorers the author’s ideas about the relationship between people and writing technologies. Porter holds two contradictory views on this relationship. First is Porter’s idea that the human and technology relationship is a “system unfolding over time, including human and non-human agents in a developmental dance,” (Porter 385). This idea is illustrated in the piece by a retelling of Porter’s history with a myriad of writing technologies like pens, typewriters, legal pads, and computers. This history effectively portrays the human and technology relationship as a dance because it recounts how humans and new technologies are constantly adapting to each other much like how dance partners adapt to each other’s movements. The second idea Porter presents is that modern humans are cyborgs with “machines… assisting mental processes,” (387). This view is problematic because it requires the concept of a single united being that is part human and part technology. A single united cyborg could not possibly be participating in the “dance” that Porter claims exists because as we all know, it takes two to tango. Much like how many people struggle with dancing, many people also struggle with writing technologies. Technology is not seamlessly integrated in humanity. Adjusting from one technology to another can be difficult and daunting, and for this reason I disagree with many of Porter’s ideas.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Porter that writing technology always changes the production and distribution of writing (386). I do not think that new writing technologies such as the Internet make people any more cyborg than say a pen or pencil. Nobody would argue that because someone holds a pencil they are ninety-nine percent human and one percent pencil. The same goes for other writing technologies. Porter seems to be a visionary with good ideas, but he is somewhat caught up in the new possibilities of the Internet. The Internet changes the way that writing is shared, and it also changes how and what people write. The Internet does not make the twenty-first century human part machine any more than the Model-T made twentieth century Americans part automobile.
In “Why technology matters to writing: a cyber-writers tale” author James Porter examines his life from childhood to college graduate and relates how technology has evolved and influenced his writing over the course of this technological history. As a child Porter grew up writing (or better practiced writing) with pencils without erasers. This technique engrained the idea that longhand conducted to “see [your] errors” (Porter 2). However, when the typewriters popularized themselves in writing culture he quickly displaced longhand with its new mechanical competitor. Typewriters were faster, more efficient, provided uniformity, and were admittedly a lot less physical work, but there’s still a frame of mind of what type of writing typewriters were used for compared to handwritten material. Porter goes on to mention that in his graduate studies he developed a sort of method for his writing style. He would write out all of his drafts in longhand and once they reached a certain level of coherency would switch to the typewriter for revising and editing (Porter 4). Although he could have simply just used his typewriter to compose his work, there was this structure in his mind of the difference in function between longhand (seeing errors) and the typewriting (editing).
ReplyDeleteLater in 1984 Porter purchased his first computer and again it changed the why he interacted with technology and evolved his writing technique. He goes on to say that the computer functioned to “streamline [his] writing process by eliminating retyping” (Porter 6). So why does technology matter? It matters not in its individual achievements but rather its overall revolutionizing. It has been constantly tackling the concerns of ‘how to improve’ and ‘what purpose will it serve’? Technologies and writing in general are always construed for a reason and Porter references a major argument by Bruno Latour’s that states “the revolution lies in use, which guides technological innovation” (Porter 11).
I agree with Porter a lot through this essay, that the way we interact, use, or stereotype a writing technology varies through each development. His memoir like essay allowed me to reflect on my own writing evolution and realized mine was similar to his in many ways. Laptops, iPad, smart phones, have certainly overtaken the materiality of pencil and paper from grade school, but that doesn’t mean they don’t each still contain their own purpose within mine or others writing practice.
Porter begins by illustrating his personal relationship with pencils, pens, both manual and electric typewriters, and various versions of the computer. He gives reason for this (particularly drawn-out) history at the end of his article, in which he summarizes that technology is not revolutionary (in the way that Baron illustrated) but rather the social effects of it are revolutionary. Porter takes a much more rhetorical approach to the relationship of writing, people, and technologies. I believe that Porter’s particular understanding is illustrated in the following: “We are already in the age of new media, where visual and video forms of expression supersede alphabetic text.” (Porter 389) He chose this frame as opposed to one that would read more along the lines of “We are already in the age where typing on computers supersedes handwriting” because it illustrates that the importance is on the way writing technologies affect societal norms as opposed to processes. Porter tries to differentiate that typing on a computer doesn’t matter (a formalist/textual view), it is the way writing changes with the way communication is handled. Porter also provides a posthumanist view of people and writing technologies, which “explores cyborgian hybridity, the connectedness between human-machine,” (Porter 387)
ReplyDeletePersonally, I feel inclined to both agree and disagree with Porter. In regards to writing technologies affecting rhetorical practice, I absolutely agree. I firmly believe that the connection between the Internet and rhetorical strategy is undeniable, and that it is truly revolutionary. Porter diminishes the importance of writing technologies on the actual practice of writing, which I believe is partially contradictory to his earlier statements. He states, “If you hold a formalist/textual view of writing, then, understandably, technology is not likely to matter much to writing.” (Porter 385) Earlier in the essay, though, he states that his writing process shifted with the typewriter. In my opinion, this undoubtedly would have an affect on the “words (the prose) in sentences and paragraphs,” (Porter 385) that were produced. In summary, while I agree that the revolutionary aspects of writing technologies are their affects on production, distribution, and context, I also believe that writing technologies affect the act of writing.
In “Why technology matters to writing: A cyberwriter’s tale,” by Jim Porter he plainly states “Technology matters to writing.” Now in the beginning of his essay, and within the first few paragraphs he says this line and right away defines the relationship between people and writing technologies. They matter to each other. He expands and illustrates this thought with an account of the different writing technologies that he has had both the pleasure and the struggle to learn over the years. For example, when he first learned how to handwrite with a pencil, he was given no eraser. The relationship that he had between the pencils him and the paper was a delicate one where he had to be careful as to not make mistakes because they would show up on the paper without being able to be erased. Porter explains how this method “didn’t want to encourage hiding our flaws.” As technology grew from pencils to typewriters he had to conjure up a new relationship that would include financial resources to afford one and the time and effort to learn how to use it. Yet again a new technology of computers arose and at the school he would have to go to labs and use the computers there. Sharing the writing technologies with colleagues in a close environment was helpful to Porter, as they would learn together. Porter stressed the point that staying current with the latest writing technology was a struggle because just as he was getting used to it it became obsolete and something new was up and coming. Porter describes the relationships with people and writing technologies as a continuing battle of catch-up.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Porter on the point he is making even though I was not able to personally exhibit all the phases of the different writing technologies he went through. He explains the struggle, joy, and excitement he had with each upcoming technology in a way that was easy to read and understand. With that being said I agree with him in the sense that technology matters to writing and it always will.
One point that I picked up from Porter’s piece was that the evolution of people and writing technologies have a positive correlation. As long as people advance, so will writing technologies. As long as these writing technologies continue to be developed, people will also learn to use and take advantage of these technologies in everyday life. Just like Baron, Porter refers to writing technologies are invaluable tools that influence the way we write. “...computers are not merely instrumental tools of writing, but rather influence the nature of composing and our rhetorical understanding of the composing situation. (384) So unlike previous writing technologies, the computer directly influenced the way people write and live their lives. “…writing technologies play a huge—especially in terms of production (process) and distribution (delivery).” (386) This writing technology is revolutionary in the sense that it developed a relationship with users beyond that of just writing. People now use computers in every aspect of life, including in social contexts. At one point in his writing Porter even said “my machine and I have become partners in composing, the machine (this time a PowerBook G4) allowing a wide range of options, only some of which I understand and use…” (385) It seems that Porter believes that people are almost able to build intimate relationships with their computers, partly due to the fact that this new writing technology is so ingrained in the way we regularly write.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Porter’s relationship between people and writing technologies. People have been more reliant on modern technology in the composition, production and distribution process of writing.
Porter shares with us a timeline of his life events that have been deeply intertwined with developments in the technology platforms on which writing has taken place. It is Porter’s contention that what matters about technology with regard to writing is not merely the ease with which it assists one in writing, but rather the “pedagogical context that matters.” By this he means that with each new generation of writing technology, there are learning experiences that accompany the familiarizing with, and employment of, these new technologies. For him, the pencil was not important because of its particular design or “iconic” nature, but because of the ways in which his past experiences with it were informed by its capabilities, limitations, and requirements. The same applies with computers, he feels, stating that “the computer is an accumulative writing tool—and learning to use the tool was for me, as for any writer, a richly varied and accumulative experience.” For Porter, it is the cultural, social, and ultimately pedagogical situation surrounding a tool that gives it its significance in human lives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Porter that context matters, and that a technology’s particular value is in its usage by human beings. I also agree that the coevolution of writing technologies and human development have significantly advanced certain aspects of human interconnectivity, and that in general it is wiser to embrace a new technology and accept the changes that come with the goal towards a positive advancement of culture and society. I do, however, sympathize with the humanist perspective Porter discusses and discounts as outdated. I tend to view technology as a wonderful aide to human endeavors that should indeed be embraced and furthered through discovery and inquiry; but I also view technological advancement with reservation, and pragmatism, as I feel it necessary to continually ask and rethink what ramifications might come about from advances in technology. Technology can aid us when we need it, and helps us to achieve great things we could never do with merely our hands and our wits. But I fear the day that I look around and see a race of individuals who could not ever divorce themselves from their dependency on technology. Some would say that day has already come, but I think they are discounting humanity too early. Still, technology only aids us to the extent that we as creatures can keep up with it; what happens, I wonder, when technology breaks off running into an autonomous sprint and leaves us behind, cramping and winded?
Porter understands the relationship between people and writing technologies as an inevitable advancement of human capability. This capability in turn changes humans themselves. Without people there to use them computers would not be of use. Using computers is an extension of the human which in turn is like a person being a cyborg, as long as they are functioning with the computer. Using the computer has become an integral part of the human experience. We type for business and pleasure and everything in between. When computers first came into use it was for the academics. Even then it was for use in the academic setting. It took a while for them to take this new technology home with them. Technology advanced so quickly that this new shift was one that happened within a span of a decade. Almost everyone had access to a computer by 2000 and then it was something that the younger generation was being raised with and the older generation being suspicious of. Technology may have been advancing to the point that it was a part of everyday life, but because of the unnatural nature of the computer it was something that was made a part of life with a bit of unease.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Porter that technology has become such a part of the everyday person’s life that it seems as though we are one with the machines that have expanded our view of the world around us. With advancement however comes questioning. Could this new technology be detrimental to the way humans behave? After all from his own experience Porter talks about how communities that would meet face to face would end up corresponding through email instead. So even though technology has been able to make the world a much smaller place, it may have left it a little bit colder as well.
Porter shows his understanding of the relationship between people and writing technologies by describing how the emergence of new technologies has effected his writing. He starts out describing his early handwriting training but later states he learned to be a writer in typewriter culture (Porter 377). Although Porter completed his stories on the typewriter, he still used legal pads to write and rewrite his drafts (378). He goes on to speak about his career as a teacher using word processors and later the computer. This taught Porter about collaboration since groups of people were all learning, theorizing and teaching each other about new writing technologies. He also believed these technologies improved his personal work productivity. The article mentions how networking led to a collaborative environment because of email discussion groups and conferencing. Information could also be published on the web which allowed writers to share things with the world.
ReplyDeletePorter writes his history with writing technologies has led him to believe that technology and humans are not separate entities. He states that these technologies are “extensions of my identity, practice, and training as a writer” (385). The computer is an accumulation of past writing technologies. Porter believes learning to use these new tools is a “richly varied and accumulative experience for any writer” (385). He ends the article stating that other generations view the computer in an entirely different frame. The technological past matters and writing technologies influence how a writer composes and communicates.
I agree with the points Porter made in “Why Technology Matters to Writing”. It was interesting to see how new technology changed Porter’s writing style throughout the ages. I agree with his statement that the social and rhetorical contexts the computer creates and the way it impacts publishing practices is the revolutionary technology. I also agree that the technological past matters and affects peoples’ writing. Overall, I think these writing technologies help the writer more than harm them.
In his essay, “Why technology matters to writing: a cyberwriter’s tale”, John Porter discusses the relationship between technology, writing, and people. Specifically, he discusses his own experiences with writing and the changing technologies over the time period of about 30 years. He begins with the pencil and ends with the network-capable computer. Simply put, Porter’s belief is that with each new writing technology, the individual become better off. Although Porter held the pencil and pad, and the typewriter in high esteem for many years, it is the computer that he is most satisfied with. Although the essay discusses a range of technologies, none is more heavily focused on as the computer. He includes a table that lists out each technological advance with the computer and the effects it has had on the writing product, process, delivery, and social interaction. Each effect is undoubtedly beneficial. Despite his love for the modern computer, Porter does not look at it as a replacement for the previous technologies, as is clearly depicted when he states, “The typewriter is still there in the computer, as is the pencil, the paper, the old desktop publishing tools, and other previous writing technologies. The computer is an accumulative writing tool—and learning to use the tool was for me, as for any writer, a richly varied and accumulative experience” (385). This experience that Porter describes leads him into his next topic that discusses the relationship between technology and people. He writes, “Understand technology not as a static set of devices, but as a system unfolding over time, including human and non-human agents in a developmental dance” (385). This is very important in understanding Porter’s view on the relationship between people and writing technology. For Porter sees the relationship in a very symbiotic manner, one relies upon the other. For the computer is there to serve and benefit the individual, and seeing as a computer has no intrinsic value without it being used by someone, the computer needs the individual. I find it hard to disagree with Porter on this view; in fact, I gladly accept it. I do believe that writing technologies are for our benefit. Moreover, I also view computers as especially beneficial, or rather, revolutionary. The computer is revolutionary not in its ability to do what typewriters could do (except faster), but in its connectivity; access to the Internet being the most important, in my opinion. Having access to the World Wide Web on the same piece of technology that you write on can be massively beneficial. All in all, I think computers are pretty groovy.
ReplyDeletePorter begins his discussion on writing and technology by recounting his first remembered experiences with writing, such as a penmanship class taught by catholic nuns. He emphasizes that the goal was first to write beautifully and perfectly in form—the shapes and appearance of letters on the page—before delving into spelling and the actual mechanics of writing. At first the students weren’t allowed to use the erasers on their pencils as “the goal was to write properly the first time”, then they were transitioned to pen, and at 13 Porter took his first typing class on a typewriter. He tells us the ease with which he largely abandoned each previous method of writing and how the new technologies suited his needs, such as the quick output of an electric typewriter in practiced hands as he learned about journalism and the legacy and impact of writing. His first experience with a computer saved him hours of time working on his dissertation with a word processor, and as computers and word processing software evolved, he tried to keep up.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the article Porter tried to point out the ways in which his transitioning between methods of writing changed his style of and view on writing, conveniently matching the tasks demanded of him as he moved through school and university and into his career. His view emphasizes not the tools with which he wrote but the ways he was trained to use them and the writing he was required to produce with each, and later, the possibilities that opened up with the internet and software beyond word processing. He wants to make it clear that writing technologies do not stand alone in a void, but rather in combination with human writers, continue to create evolved works and possibilities.
I like Porter’s enthusiasm for modern technology and his focus on accessibility, and I agree with his view on writing technology’s widening scope being a positive thing which yes, may change output depending on the medium, but which in no way leads to the downfall of writing as we know it.
Porter understands that people and technology matter to one another. As one changes, the other does too. Porter begins by using a personal example of his childhood. Before computers and autocorrect, pencils and handwriting were important. Handwriting went beyond what was being written and centered on good penmanship; appearance was of highest importance. Porter states that “handwriting was writing in these early years” (377). Handwriting was followed by a typewriter, and eventually, desktops became the popular writing instrument. Writing was no longer the only thing that mattered, visual designs were now being considered.
ReplyDeleteAs technology expanded, people began to create more and do more with the mediums given. Porter states his belief that technology was not the revolutionizer but that people themselves were using this technology on their own. Rather than face-to-face communication, people began communicating through technology. It also allowed for a online community to develop. New and faster ways of communication came about and this allowed for distance between people to feel minimal.
I agree with Porter that people themselves were the ones who changed the way we communicate. The new technologies that came about were aids in this change. In his essay, Porter shows the changes in writing which he gradually experienced through out his own life. I agree with him when he says “the technological past matters. It shapes the writer and writes the body in significant ways” (389). Porter evolved his writing the same way technology evolved. This reminds me of my own experience with writing: I began with a pencil and now mainly rely on a computer. I believe the evolution of writing technologies benefit writers because it gives them the opportunity to experience different ways to write and discover their own writing.
Having experienced the technological advances of writing in the past 40 or so years, Porter has much to discuss in this article. He sees the transformation of writing technologies as huge advancements. He argues that each writing technology (from pencil to the World Wide Web) affected and shaped his writing capabilities. For example using the pen in grade school taught him much about appearance is associated with credibility, which led into his interest in digital design. Likewise, he believes writing technologies and the networking associated with them taught him everything he knows about writing.
ReplyDeleteLater in his “tale” Porter admits, “as an isolated object, technology is of little interest.” Therefore, Porter believes that someone could view the pencil and the computer as basically the same tool, but there is more to take into account when analyzing writing technologies. I agree with this point. Porter states, “In other words, the pictures misrepresent the machines as disembodied tools, instead of what they really were—extensions of my identity, practice, and training as a writer.” With this, Porter believes the relationship between he (or people in general) and the technologies is critical in the explanation of why technology matters. One cannot isolate the technology in order to explain this answer.
In addition, Porter disagrees with Barron’s theory. Porter believes the computer writing technology is more impactful than just another useful writing tool like a pen. Porter explains, “It is not the pencil per se that is important, but rather the pencil in its social and ideological context.” Although Baron does not view the computer as revolutionary technology, Porter insists that the “[networking] and the social/rhetorical contexts” are the revolution. Once again, I agree with Porter. Computers create an easy way for all writers to become authors because of the instant access to an audience. Computers have changed writing in that now authors can directly communicate with their fan or their critics. This kind of social interaction has impacted and possibly changed writing composition.
In Jim Porter’s paper “Why technology matters to writing: A cyberwriter’s tale,” he defines technology as “the human and machine working in concert and writing in a particular social, political, and rhetorical context” (Porter, 376). He contradicts Baron’s view on writing technology through the claim that writing technologies have not differed that much, as writing, language, and communication remain the same. The writing technology only matters to the extent of the social and ideological context behind it (Porter, 384). Porter discusses how all the technologies have shaped his career and his development as a writer. In today’s society we are able to use social networks and publishing practices that reach out to broader audiences and impact the content writers are publishing today. He has become partners with his writing technology, as it has become an extension of his “identity, practice and training as a writer” (Porter 385).
ReplyDeleteTo Porter it does not matter what type of technology is being used, as it all has the potential to produce the same context. He argues that the relationship between people and writing technologies is dependent on how people view the production and effects of writing in political, rhetorical, and social context. Porter uses Baron’s stance to claim that writing technologies are nothing more than various tools for writing. It in no way affects the true art form (Porter 387). To Porter every medium of writing matters, whether it is the typewriter, pencil, or computer. They all leave an imprint on the writer and shape the way they compose their work and share it with the world.
I completely agree with Porter's stance that one’s relationship with writing technology is based on political, rhetorical, and social context. As technology continues to progress, I find myself learning more and publishing on a variety of mediums. With each technology, my process of writing has not changed however. I can write the same thing whether using a paper, typewriter, or computer. As writing technologies continue to expand, so does the audience. It is interesting to be able to get immediate feedback on your writing, get input from readers, and tweak your writing based on people’s preferences. I look forward to seeing how the progression of technology will continue to expand a writer’s career and whether it will alter the art form itself.
Jim Porter uses Why Technology Matters to Writing: A Cyberwriter’s Tale to chronicle his journey through writing with advancing technologies. By the disingenuous remarks towards learning to write with eraser-less pencils and unkempt cartridge-ink pens, we surmise that Porter finds these technologies futile and already antiquated. Once Porter discusses his transition into manual and then onto automatic typewriters, I could see the page light up, like I imagine his eyes would at the mention of a technology that would allow him to write more efficiently. After the laborious ordeal of learning to write with a pencil, the act of writing with a typewriting was a welcome change. Here we see Porter’s genuine love of writing and for its technological process. He wrote longhand drafts from legal pad to typewriter, over and over again, almost to the point of developing imprints of the keys on his fingertips.
ReplyDeleteApart from sending letters to loved ones, writing wasn’t a community event until he became an assistant professor of English at Indiana University-Purdue University at Fort Wayne. This is when Porter begins his foray into computers. Starting with the Radio Shack TRS-80, Porter quickly understood computers as a way to further improve writing function. He became interested in the Macintosh computers. He went out of his way to the university’s math lab to operate a Macintosh. There he befriended colleagues and students who were equally enthusiastic about learning word processing technologies. In this sense, writing became a community activity for him. The math lab was the break room, a place to collect interests and bounce ideas off of each other. Porter has been increasingly impassioned by the innovations of writing technology, and this is where I differ.
It may seem awfully curmudgeon-y of me to detest technology, and I may not have a viable reason for feeling such way, but nonetheless, I have always been wary of technological improvement. Where my opinions detract from Porter’s is his ability to discontinue use of older technologies and replace those methods of transcription with the newest technology he can get a hold of. I will probably never bring a computer with me to class until I get into graduate school, unless it is required of me. I like pen and paper, I like doodling between note-taking, I like being the only person in class that has an extra pen and an extra piece of paper. I find that technology also adds to expectation. I do not know about every computer program or every helpful app. I hate when websites crash, and data is lost. To me, technology has a way of making the world better and it has an incredible power to connect us universally, but I also believe advanced writing-technologies are not beneficial to every individual. I believe we learn more effectively with hand and pen. And I am deeply saddened by its inevitable demise.
Porter understands the relationship we have with writing technologies as an overarching influential sphere. He believes the tools we have to write affect how we learn to write and how we communicate through writing. He understands his son will grow up writing with a different mindset through a computer than he did by learning to write from nuns with an eraserless pencil.
ReplyDeleteI agree with his point about the medium affecting how you write. Even within "computer" there is social media, school work, and many other forms of communicating online. Each of these also cause me approach writing differently, however I write much faster and more effectively. I don't really agree with the notion that older forms of writing are more intimate or valuable. I write more intimately through texts, emails, and blog posts than I do in letters or anything like that. After I met my long time girlfriend, our relationship evolved by communicating through facebook and text messaging because we couldn't see each other all the time. The technologies we have make it incredibly fast and easy to communicate.
Porter begins by chronicling his personal relationship to varied writing technologies throughout the years – from his early days of penmanship honing in Catholic school, to his introduction to the computer and the World Wide Web. This recount of history gives way to a counterargument to Baron. Baron believed technology to be revolutionary, but Porter provides an alternative to this idea: Technology is not revolutionary, but rather the social effects of it are. This conceit colors the way in which he illustrates the relationship between people and writing technologies, specifically when he shifts into the age of the computer. Porter believes that we need to adapt a posthumanist approach in order to explain and explore coming technological advances (Porter 388). This approach explores “cyborgian hybridity”, an idea that alters our perception of the human-machine relationship (Porter 387). No longer is there a strict binary division between the two. For Porter, writing technologies and people each work to change and evolve each other, affecting society at large. This is exemplified when he shares how computers were stretched in ways they were not originally intended to meet certain societal needs (Porter 385).
ReplyDeleteUltimately, Porter argues for a “cyborgian, posthumanist view of writing technologies”, which, although new to me, I’m inclined to agree with. Particularly, I agree with the radical statement that “machines can help us be better as humans”, an idea that is counter to the defensive stance that man is better than technology (see “Phaedrus”) (Porter 387). An example of this that he gives is that “hypertext represents a textual advance over the linearity of the print.” The introduction of new technologies allows for the inclusion of devices that help us, as humans, work more effectively and efficiently. This, in effect, alters how we think and interact and understand.
In Porter’s essay, “Why Technology Matters to Writing” he displays a deep understanding for the relationship between humans and technology. He shows the evolution of technology as it progressed throughout his lifetime. He describes his struggles to master every new technology when it was created, even though many were considered obsolete quickly after their creation. Porter’s journey to keep up with technology is a relationship that many sympathize with.
ReplyDeletePorter claims in his essay that he does not believe the computer affects the outcome of the actual article, only the publishing process. This point I disagree with. I know from both experience and our class discussions that most people write in different styles when using different modes of writing technology. I know that I for instance write freely with a pencil (that has an eraser) whereas, I focus more on my words, grammar, and spelling when I am writing in pen because of it’s permanence. This is the difference that Porter opposes. When writing with a typewriter, a writer would process every word and sentence structure before typing it on the page. However, when typing on a computer, the writer knows that they can reflect on their work and edit it how they please without having to retype the entire article.
Overall, I agree with Porter’s view of most of the writing technologies as just that; technology. I also agree that technologies can shape the way a person grows in their writing. The machines we use so frequently we create a bond to, I for one and far too attached to my laptop because of how it allows me to multitask and be a productive individual. I believe that Porter grasps the relationship between humans and technology quite well.