Response to: "Not (Necessarily)a Cosmic Convergence: Rhetorics, Poetics, Performance, and the Web"

After reading "Not (Necessarily) a Cosmic Convergence: Rhetorics, Poetics, Performance, and the Web" aloud in class, the purpose and uniqueness of the piece was made more evident. Reading the piece as a multidimensional “play” rather than a linear piece of writing helped draw focus to its creativity. It reminded me of being in a public place, like a coffee shop, talking to a friend and observing other peoples’ conversations simultaneously.

Speaking this piece aloud as a class (rather than just reading it) made it more enjoyable to experience and understand. The distinctions between characters and voices were clearer and easier to follow. I appreciated the use of mixed media (artwork, stage directions, sound cues), as well as the use of multiple voices. When performed as dialogue, it was easier to detect patterns and variation between speakers.   

As demonstrated by this piece of writing in particular, oral culture is much more spontaneous and sporadic than written culture. Just as oral stories passed down through history are easily changed with omission or addition of various facts or details, the way we communicate orally is vastly different from the precision of written work. Aside from essays written in response to a prompt in an academic setting, most of the dialogue we encounter in everyday life lacks structure and chronology. When read out loud, this piece resembled the jumbled style of oral communication. Like a conversation, it contains multiple voices, distractions, and tangents. I think we are still very much immersed in oral culture, but that the elements of oral culture are far less familiar to us when read as a linear essay on paper.

In my original response, I pointed out how writing can be a multi-dimensional platform for communication, interpretation, and self expression. Not all writing has to be linear or formal to be meaningful. As mentioned in “Not (Necessarily)a Cosmic Convergence: Rhetorics, Poetics, Performance, and the Web,” cubism is described as being “dynamic while static; it moves. It evokes vibrancy, a sense of dimension. It’s tactile, almost” (4). Just as cubist paintings demonstrate vibrancy and dimension, this piece of writing mirrors that style. The combination of voices, fonts, and pictures makes for a more interesting and engaging piece of writing, which is made more enjoyable when spoken aloud. Experiencing this piece through oral communication (instead of solely written communication) draws emphasis to its multi-dimensionality and allows the reader to interact with the text instead of just observe it.