Three A's

I must admit, I enjoyed almost everyone’s response essays. However since only three were requested, three shall be given.

1. Randy Holaday – his discussion of the readings was dynamic and interesting. He laid out the questions and hashed out both sides of the argument in a clear and articulate manner. He did not provide answers as to who was correct and who was wrong, but rather used the vocabulary and ideas presented in the reading to frame his discussion. I particularly enjoyed his discussion entitled Silenced Voices in which he talked about the power of the internet thanks to its anonymity. This is not something I discussed but thought it was a really good point. I think this essay was well researched and presented the information in an academic, linear manner. Reading over his essay I feel I should have used the readings more to frame my arguments since it gives the essay some authority.

2. Alycia Rose-Isaacson – her essay is fun and thought provoking. I really enjoyed how she incorporated examples outside of the assigned readings and websites. Her discussion about who owns the media we consume was particularly interesting. I agree with her argument that it’s odd that we pay so much money to consume media and in return have no rights to it. It really is like the media is trying to colonize our minds: they control how it is delivered to us, how we process it, and what we do next with it – nothing (since we have no rights to it). After presenting us with this information, Alicia then goes on to discuss the limitations on consumers and how much is enough. I really love how she engages the audience to start thinking about the issue and then presents them with some really difficult questions. It is an excellent way to get people thinking about questions that probably will not be answered any time soon. So for her thought provoking situations and excellent questions I believe Alicia deserves an A.

3. Adam Ringler – his essay is very well written. I loved how he analyzed remixing in both its serious and comical forms. I think he does a really great job emphasizing that both forms are equally legitimate and important. It made me think about the authority I give to serious remixing and the lack of authority I give to comical remixing. Adam utilized the course readings as the vocabulary for his arguments in an illuminating manner. I think he posed excellent questions, incorporated the readings well, and also created an awesome mash-up of the Notorious BIG and Chris Martin.

After reading all of these examples that I feel deserve A’s I think I should have been a bit less one sided in my presentation of my argument. These are some serious questions and only through an open dialogue about these issues will any answers arise. I shut the argument down on some sides when they should have been left open to free discussion.