Critical analysis of Writing Machines by N. Katherine Hayles
This text begins with a statement about the dualities of Academic institutions known as Universities. The N. Katherine Hayles however is clearly no cold hearted cynic repulsed by their bookish environment for even though she brands them as “medieval” her own studious background which she further on crows at great length about soften her blow with an appraisal of the very same institutions as “wonderful”.
She argues that the academic world is in reality like two split intertwining threads. On being the body of artifacts, and materials and the other what she feels as the inevitable politics of the people who create and discuss them, and the networks of colleagues this people form, which I agree are important in directing the force which drives the academic world by either “initiating change or resisting it”. It is her view that in order to discuss how the traditional print book will evolve and survive in the digital world she has to first divulge her life story upon the reader.
Personally I disagree, there was no real need for such self appraisal and less need for the swaggering manner she presents it. She claims to have “become an autobiographer almost against her will”; the emphasis should rest heavily on the word almost. She displays a clear gusto for self flattery that makes her declarations of reluctance plain dishonest. And her reasoning for referring to herself in the third person to save herself what she compares to an act of “indulgent self-display” laughable, in the face of the ensuing pages name-dropping haughty paragraphs positioning herself as a member of the one generation to truly feel the transition into the Digital world.
To my dismay however, ironically my distaste for her puffed up self depiction truly justified her opening points about the two worlds of academia and reasoning for the inclusion of the autobiography. People’s politics and opinions cannot be separated from what they critique, as I found the whole work tainted by my opinion of her. In the same way I cannot separate my assessment of a U2 album from Snootiness of lead singer Bono.
She was right, her autobiography had a necessary impact, I earnestly struggled through the fallowing chapter, to stay objective, to prove her wrong, therefore automatically proving her right.
This text begins with a statement about the dualities of Academic institutions known as Universities. The N. Katherine Hayles however is clearly no cold hearted cynic repulsed by their bookish environment for even though she brands them as “medieval” her own studious background which she further on crows at great length about soften her blow with an appraisal of the very same institutions as “wonderful”.
She argues that the academic world is in reality like two split intertwining threads. On being the body of artifacts, and materials and the other what she feels as the inevitable politics of the people who create and discuss them, and the networks of colleagues this people form, which I agree are important in directing the force which drives the academic world by either “initiating change or resisting it”. It is her view that in order to discuss how the traditional print book will evolve and survive in the digital world she has to first divulge her life story upon the reader.
Personally I disagree, there was no real need for such self appraisal and less need for the swaggering manner she presents it. She claims to have “become an autobiographer almost against her will”; the emphasis should rest heavily on the word almost. She displays a clear gusto for self flattery that makes her declarations of reluctance plain dishonest. And her reasoning for referring to herself in the third person to save herself what she compares to an act of “indulgent self-display” laughable, in the face of the ensuing pages name-dropping haughty paragraphs positioning herself as a member of the one generation to truly feel the transition into the Digital world.
To my dismay however, ironically my distaste for her puffed up self depiction truly justified her opening points about the two worlds of academia and reasoning for the inclusion of the autobiography. People’s politics and opinions cannot be separated from what they critique, as I found the whole work tainted by my opinion of her. In the same way I cannot separate my assessment of a U2 album from Snootiness of lead singer Bono.
She was right, her autobiography had a necessary impact, I earnestly struggled through the fallowing chapter, to stay objective, to prove her wrong, therefore automatically proving her right.
i appreciate the difficulties her personality presents in the first chapter, but what do you think of her ideas in the second chapter? if you struggled to prove her wrong, did you succeed?
ReplyDelete