So, I wrote this post over at Libraries and Transliteracy. In a nutshell, I argued that transliteracy can be viewed as a methodology that exists somewhere between the conservativism of the pro-book crowd and the naive optimism of the all-digital-all-the-time crowd. These two groups treat old-style literacy as completely at odds with the future of learning. My take is that both past and future are pretty cool and transliteracy can be a bridge between them.
I stand by my ideas, but I think I’ll back off from the writing style. Why? Well, as David Rothman points out, the post was a mess of jargon and inaccessible technical writing. From terms like ‘incommensurable’, ‘pedagogical’, and ‘hegemony’ to unwieldy sentence structures, the writing was an unfortunate throwback to grad school.
You see, I had a really great e-mail conversation/argument with an old library school chum just prior to writing for L&T. He’s a really astute guy, and the back-and-forth got so specific and technical that technical writing was legitimately called for. Couple that with having just read through the archives at HASTAC.org, and you just sort of start writing and even thinking in highly-technical terms.
But, blogs are not always the same as philosophy exams or personal communications. Many blogs are directed at a general audience from a range of disciplinary backgrounds and it’s a mistake to think that what is transparent for me will necessarily be transparent for every reader. So, from now on I’ll keep the technical stuff here on my personal blog and I’ll try not to muddy the waters in more wide-reaching and important forums.