I think Zappen raised some interesting issues regarding the ups and downs of digital rhetoric. He puts forth the idea that digital media is only a new form of communication that has to not necessarily compete but rather adapt itself to the traditions of a 2000 year old medium. He then moves on to talk about how the internet has provided readers with direct networks with their audience which helps “achieving unity of purpose not through direct appeals or explicit arguments, but through a web of reciprocal links”.
What I thought was most interesting and the peak of his paper was the section that discussed how all the basic characteristics of digital rhetoric, that we consider beneficial, can also serve as constraints. He did this with speed, reach, anonymity, and interactivity and discussed how each one of these characteristics has its ups and downs.
Another interesting point he raised was that the internet has formed identities and communities both online and offline. We always consider the internet as something purely digital with no real repercussions in our outside social life, when it comes to tis rhetoric at least. However, that is far from true. As Zappen said: “Other analyses explore the processes of forming identities and communities as complex interactions, both online and offline, between ourselves and others, thus providing context and meaning for the term ‘interactivity'”. Zappen says that this does not only apply to rhetoric, but also to games. He says that as players become invested in their games, they become authors not only of what they are writing to other players, but also of their ‘characters’ that are serve as a strong mirroring of themselves.
Some people have said that with digital media’s speed and accessibility, other forms of communication, people to people, diminish. Not only so, but that people invest so much of their time on the internet that they become not so much invested in their own communities. Zappen however argues that people who are more active online, are actually more active offline as well and vice versa.
If I were to criticize Zappen’s analysis of digital rhetoric, I would only say that he failed to mention how digital media has connected people of all different cultures all over the world and has facilitated globalization to degrees that were never even imaginable. I think that was an important point that he did not cover.
All in all, Zappen’s analysis is very good, looks at the issue in non conventional ways, and raises more than one new point.
My Blog 