Search results for "critical%20code%20studies%20working%20group"
| Results 961 - 970 of 1097
|
Page 97 of 110
|
|
Sorted by: Relevance | Sort by: Date
|
Results per-page: 10 | 20 | 50 | All
|
[…]in feminism … characterized by a sustained interest in reassessing feminism through the critical lens of poststructuralist and postmodern thinking.” I take this to mean that the implementation of the hacktivism, that is `how’ the hacktivism is carried out, is what is more important than whether I belong to a cyberfeminist collective or not, and furthermore, must be demonstrative in someway of the `critical lens of poststructuralist and postmodern thinking’, whether in reference to the discourse on feminism, or society as a whole. Two central premises, however, must still hold true: cyberfeminists are not anti-technology nor are they anti-feminist (Guertin). […]
[…]culture” is through the establishment of a creative commons exemplified in the actions of such groups as the nonprofit group Creative Commons. He writes that the aim of the Creative Commons is “to build a layer of reasonable copyright on top of the extremes that now reign” (282). Under such a system authors (construed broadly) decide what protections they want their works to have. “Content is marked with the CC mark, which does not mean that copyright is waived, but that certain freedoms are given” (283). The Creative Commons website states that they “use private rights to create public goods: […]
[…]what David MiallMiall, David. 2004. Reading Hypertext: Theoretical Ambitions and Empirical Studieshas described as the “additional complications that the digital medium places on the work of interpretation”; what poet John Cayley has called the “literal art” of “networked and programmable media”; and what the electronic book review has probingly called electropoetics. My own insistence on attending to forms of digital writing that not only maintain but also perhaps intensify the interpretive role of reader as audience, viewer, or critic should not detract from the overall contribution of this review, which clearly has a divergent focus. All in all, the authors […]
[…]once comfortably removed, now interfering at every turn of every written phrase. A novelist working in print can seek (either unconsciously or, like Berry, with fertile self-consciousness) a more lasting, more consistent basis for exploring the fictions, inconsistencies, and less than frank expressions of everyday communication. But the result will be more reflective than creative. The frankness of communication is not, and cannot be, the truth of fiction. To be meaningful, fiction needs to dissemble, and it needs to revel in the awareness that nothing—literally, nothing—can stop the production of meaning, and still different meanings, from spoken words and written […]
[…]Its underlying faith is that human subjectivity, both collective and individual, is self-critical. Because reality as we presently live it—what Tabbi characterizes, in words from Frank, as “living too peacefully in THIS NOW HERE”—is so self-defeating, humans simply must overcome themselves. I can see two ways of understanding Tabbi’s reservations about this Hegelian metanarrative, one associated with Lyotard, the other with Wittgenstein. In Lyotard’s famous characterization of postmodernity as “incredulity toward metanarratives” (The Postmodern Condition [1979; translation 1984]), any representation of “an untamed America” or of anything else our culture has “cast out” would depend for its legitimation on Hegel’s […]
[…]does not need to be the solidarity of mass culture. Group identity doesn’t have to promote group-think along racial, gendered, or nationalist lines, not when the identity that writers do share, generally, comes in the first place from membership in (or aspiration to) the professional classes that maintain the current world-system. Wallerstein, no less than Wittgenstein, should be required reading in literary seminars and writing workshops because the loss of an “outside” and the appearance of new constraints on creativity are not exclusively philosophical propositions. (See Immanuel Wallerstein, World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction [2004].) Rather, the discovery of a “surprising,” “untamed,” […]
[…]That is, either Slade is a man working for a medium-sized U.S. business, a medium-sized man working for a U.S. business, or a businessman working for a medium-sized U.S. The ambiguity appears to be intentional, and each reading can be supported. The beheading of Brent Marshall is described as not going very smoothly “because of Marshall’s exceptionally thick neck.” Thus the brutality of the slaying is blamed on Marshall, a Virginia “thick-neck” of the type we have learned to feel less compassion for over the years because a thick neck represents a “dumb jock,” “a red neck,” “a hick.” “Big […]
[…]prose invites careful examination, a gradual, rigorous state of attention designed to produce critical intelligence rather than a commercial transaction. Even if many of the characters are psychologically trapped in one way or another, the multiple space of their juxtaposed and intersecting thoughts and feelings indicates that a crucial aesthetic transformation has taken place, a demonstration of what fiction at its subversive best can offer, a rehumanized model of time. A media capitalist like Milo Magnani may be delighted that so many people can be herded into controlled environments like the mall and the theater, where their behavior can be […]
[…]please look hard at these two short passages in Pagolak. Each points to narakaviri, to this critical moment in namele. The first enacts the way up to it (pakanu), and the second the way down from it (plot). You can enter these passages. What I propose is not reasonable, not unreasonable. Enter these two passages. You have no need for more knowledge. Your awareness is equal to the task. This is a task: like all tasks correctly performed, it leads to revelation. Move (as I did) through the first passage to the last, become the bodily metamorphosis that this movement […]
[…]as confidence men – des arnaqueurs); at the end of the book he is convinced that his wife is working with them and against him. In frequenting these criminals, he has gradually picked up their jargon, and in his last letter to his wife he denounces her in terms drawn entirely from that jargon: This chump never blowed you were turned out to hopscotch. You let him find the leather, and he copped you for the pure quill, when you’re nothing but a crow. It took a long time to bobble him but now you’ve knocked him good and he […]