Throughout my posts, I made an emphasis on connecting ideas from readings to class discussions or other works. This was a good way of exemplifying topics that we would read about. Another common theme in my posts was how creators in electronic literature distinguish themselves using original ideas. These included rearranging previously written text to create a new work (Sea and Spar Between), confusing Google’s ads (TrackMeNot), and telling a story through a text messaging interface (Bury Me, My Love). All of these vary greatly but are successful in their goals.
The nature of two of my posts did change during the course. These two posts were Originality and Authorship in Regenerated Text and Combinatory Poetics and Personal data privacy and it’s vulnerability. Both of these posts were more rhetorical and theoretical than the other posts. For example, in the ‘originality’ post, I theorized that creators of combinatory poetics were more like “creators rather than authors because of the unintended results that can be produced in pieces.” Then in the ‘personal data’ post, I posed questions regarding if personal data should be private to the individual that it belongs to. I thought these posts both did a good job of doing more than just a simple analysis of the topics at hand. I believe the reason that these posts differed from the others was simply because of my interest and understanding of the topics for those posts. The originality question was one that intrigued me during our class discussions and the personal data question had been discussed in a previous class.
Overall, I thought my posts did a solid job of analyzing topics from readings and making connections with other works that highlighted those topics. When my posts were going to be on something I found interesting, I definitely did a better job of exploring the topic and furthering the discussion.