I
started out with that notion that this document was going to contradict my
thoughts. As I was as guilty as
the professor and had to print off this document, my reasoning is that I can
highlight and go back over things when I have spare time. I still like the notation of physically
having something in your hands.
I
found the entire article very interesting but the part of “constructive”
aspects of hyper-reading is what I found most interesting, Sosnoski stating the
five characteristics. The first on being filtering out the text that is not
needed to get the actual point across, leading right into skimming. Leaving less text to actually read,
with pecking and imposing I think both fall into the same category as fitting
your text to the attended audience.
While filming and trespassing are loosen ways to import the information
that is fitting to the point at hand.
I found the last point to be the main topic of hyper-reading, as
fragmenting the text at hand.
Breaking text into notes rather that regarding them as essays, articles,
or books (163).
Hyper-readers are able to get more out of articles if they are
constructed properly.
I found it very interesting on how McCloud talked about how
we describe different things and stories as readers. I’m in a Native American Lit class right now and as our
class discussion was over a poem called “Brother Hill Coffee”. It was translated from Navaho to
English and as the Navaho language is very descriptive compared to English the
author had trouble trying to find one word that interpret what he was trying to
say in English. I came to the
conclusion that in English we can write a paragraph trying to describe something or get
our point across when other languages can do it in one sentence. In the English language we are given so
many different options that allows everyone to express things differently that everyone interprets things differently.
