Before I started to read the book, Network Culture by Tiziana Terranova I thought it would be a change from the Lanier Manifesto—thing. I guess you can say I thought it would be more of an easy read, so imagine my surprise when I actually started to read the first chapter of the book. I felt as if was reading a bonus chapter from You Are Not A Gadget, just like Lanier Terranova use these techy words that you have to actually rely on context clues (reminds you of junior high school right) just to understand what the hell she was talking about. However, as I read more into the chapter, I was able to get the basic idea of what Terranova was trying to convey to her readers and why she started off her book in such a peculiar way. I say peculiar because she started of the chapter talking about how the spread of information through communication is a commodity that has opened up the door for discussion on hot topics such as file sharing, then slowly drifted into a talking about the communication code and its role in noise, which I soon figured out referred to outside disturbances.
I believe the reason why Terranova did this was to prepare us for when she goes further into communication theory, which really opened my eyes. The reason for this is because I never paid attention to the importance of how to communicate information and the way that it can be easily distorted by outside sources, whether it is intentional or not. I loved the example that Terranova gave of the way politicians view their ‘target’ audience not as people but as receivers of information and thus try their best to get their information to us without interference from outside sources/influences. Conversely the example of the wife and her convicted husband was a bit confusing because it seemed as if she was talking about communicating in code and then she would go off in a different direction. For example when she spoke about the ‘noise’ distorting the information that the wife was trying to husband and the new method the wife had came up with, I did not really understand what she was talking about; because if the wife could communicate with him to tell him that she made up a new code then why talk in code? Make sense—sure as hell did not to me.
with the tea example: I don't think the wife can communicate to tell the husband the code. He would know that she will try to get him that information, but he may not know how he's going to get it. But if the tea comes with lots of sugar in it, he might ask himself, is she trying to send me a message? is this a clue? it would be a clue if it was not the normal way he likes it--so he would have to guess, what does not normal mean?
ReplyDeleteanother example, if you usually text your friend every day at 4:00, not texting her then "means something," that is, it sends a signal, although it might not be clear what the signal is. The friend might come up with three guesses: you are mad, you have been kidnapped, your phone is broken. She would likely rank the relative probabilities of these options (if your dad is a CEO, then maybe kidnapping is more likely than your being mad; if she dented your car, maybe your being mad is more likely; if you have an iPhone, then maybe the broken phone is most likely)...