Forum Pages Analysis Extra Credit Assignment

Alex Schlack

Chris Werry

RWS100

November 17, 2014

Forum Posts Analysis’s Extra Credit Assignment

 

The first response to Carr, “Why Abundance Is Good”, written by Clay Shirky, is a really good analysis of Carr’s claims.  Overall, Shirky agrees with Carr’s main claim that these changes are significant enough to make us do something about the issue, however he does argue what it is that we need to be doing. Shirky talks a little about when Carr states that we are reading more today due to the internet, and says that its true but Carr doesn’t mention how this increase in reading form the internet has created a historical shift away from our culture.  Even as the television came to dominate culture, we continued to reassure one another that War and Peace or A La Recherche du Temps Perdu were very important.   It’s important that everyone realizes that there is a cultural sacrifice in the transformation of the media landscape, and the main question is it worth it?  Shirky gives credit to Carr for being of the most knowledgeable people when it comes to the Internet, but questions why he doesn’t propose the next step in the process. Carr lists all these thinks that the Internet has brought upon us, yet he doesn’t propose a solution to the problem. 

The second response to Carr was Why Abundance Should Breed Optimism.  Shirky starts out by pointing out that every past technology that has increased consumer material have always been beneficial to humanity.  He considers himself an optimists, and he says that everyone should breed optimism when it comes to questioning technology.  People go into too much depth and only look for things to complain about, which is kind of what he accuses Carr of doing with the Internet.  People “worry” too much about things today than we ever had in the past.  Shirky commends Carr on doing a good before and after comparison with the Nietsche case, but he does lack something really important.  Carr mentions how using the typewriter has altered the writers writing style, but what he forgot to state was if it was for the better or the worse.  As for Carr’s overall claim, Shirky happens to differ on a few points.  Shirky thinks that even if the Net did change, would our reading and comprehension go back to the way it used to be when the Net didn’t exist?  Shirky thinks that overall argument of Carr should revolve around the idea that technologies that make writing more abundant also require social structures to accompany them.  The third response to Carr is Where is the Science? Kevin Skeppy understands Carr’s claims and overall argument, but believes that Carr didn’t give enough evidence to back them up.  After reading Carr’s article, Skelly has came up with a defined calim that he asserts to be Carr’s, that surfing the web does alter our brain functions and that we are unable to go back to our old literary ways due to immense amount of reading on the Internet. Skelly says he gets the worry in all this, he gets the anecdotes and expert opinion that Carr implements into his argument, but he has not seen any scientific evidence to prove it.  Words are words and anybody can say anything, but factual evidence and numbers are the most convincing. Skelly challenges Carr to use some sufficiently and precise evidence that can be tested to prove his point more. 

The most promising response to Carr’s article was Why Abundance Should Breed Optimism by Shirky.  Shirky did a good job of challenging Carr and bringing up some really good points.  Obviously everything that Carr brings up is open for debate and doubt, but it shows how much you know about the issue when you argue something, state your own opinion and why. Shirky thinks that all major technological advancements are going to cause worry, and people are always going to be skeptic.  But the big technological innovations that work to increase reading and other consumer materials, have always been beneficial to humanity in way and bettered society. Shirky also proposes some really good questions for Carr, such as asking him if the changes toward Nietsche were actually positive, asking if the Net magically disappeared if our reading and comprehending styles were return to the way he thinks it should be.  Shirky in my opinion doesn’t agree or disagree with CArr, but challenges him a way and pointing out some of the flaws that Carr lacked in the article.