Reading these two sources made me feel like I don’t understand digital rhetoric at all. I understand the terms separately. Rhetoric being used to persuade people effectively whether it is writing or speaking publicly; digital of course speaks. What got me when I was reading these two sources is how in the world did the one question of “What Is Rhetorical about Digital Rhetoric? Perspectives and Definitions of Digital Rhetoric,” spark so much discussion and debate? I was later answered that question when read through the sources a few more times. It made me come to the conclusion that everyone that had debated what digital rhetoric is just as confused as I am about the term.
My initial definition of the term was the art of being persuasive through online means (I know so intellectual), but then it turns out, the talk about digital rhetoric had more behind it than I thought. I mean even the text says so, “… that the conversation was far more diverse than we expected” (Hodgson and Barnett).
As I was looking over these pieces, I found myself getting lost in the vocabulary that was used. I don’t mean in the poetic way either. I was so lost that I had to sit up here and google what half of these words meant! It felt like I was reading an ancient text of some kind. Who uses the word “hermeneutic” to talk about someone’s point? It just seemed like I was doing word gymnastics with my mouth! It ran me up the wall. I tend to lose what I am reading when there are to many hard to pronounce words in text.
Leave a Reply