When the Information Age began, the idea of Internet permanence
was not critically considered by many individuals. This idea is obvious
with the rise of individuals trying to remove unwanted information from,
possibly, a previous time in their lives that wasn’t so favorable.
Considering employers take advantage of the Internet as a tool to get a
great deal of background on an individual before considering them for hire, the
idea of Internet permanence can become frightening because it’s as though
individuals are no longer fully living with the right of privacy and any
information posted on the Internet is somehow always there.
In looking for information on Internet permanence written in the
official style, I accessed a scholarly research database to find articles on
the topic. The article Publicity,
Privacy, and Permanence of Information came up in my search database using the
keywords “Internet”, “information”, and “permanence”. The article was published in AIP
Conference Proceedings, which, according to Wikipedia, is a series of
scientific journals published by the American Institute of Physics. To begin, being as this was one of the first
articles to pop up using the keywords I did, I argue the title of the article in
connection with the article’s context is a little misleading. It isn’t until you research the journal the
article is found in that the context makes sense given its title for a few
reasons. One of those reasons being that
the activity systems that make up publicity, privacy, and permanence could be a
long a list of phenomena not often linked to quantum physics. To expand on my argument, consider the
activity systems often linked with the words “publicity”. The activity systems that come instantly to
mind are the media and technology. I
argue this based on quantum physics being among the sciences and that the
sciences often use specialized jargon based on the subject, while the
humanities is more apt to use more mainstream terms like publicity; therefore,
the author uses prose appropriately given the quantum physics aspect of these
concepts, but the title is misleading in that it uses language heavily
discussed, I’d argue more so, in other activity systems than physics.
Although the title is misleading, I argue that the author used the
official style correctly, as well as, ethically, given the context of the
article. Especially when considering the
content in the article from the author’s perspective. According to Richard Lanham, the official
style of prose came along when “modern science was looking for a special
language.” Being as this article is published in a scientific journal, the
beginning passages suggest the proper use of the official style of prose.
I argue that the following excerpt taken from one of the beginning
passages discussing the basis of quantum physics and permanence is written in
the official style based on its slow sentence opening, as well as, its use of
complex sentences. Consider the following excerpt as example:
Though a very novice
reader can make sense of what the author is saying, it is written in a manner
that doesn’t get straight to the point. This may be a result, again, of
the topic, namely, quantum physics. Further, looking at it from another
possible perspective of the author’s point of view, it may be written this way
so that the novice reader, potentially an individual just beginning in the
field of quantum physics has an easier time understanding the concept. With that said, I argue that some uses of the
official style are correct and even useful given the context in which we’re
finding this type of prose in.
In the paragraph to follow, the author uses a jargonistic excerpt
continuing to explain quantum physics as it pertains to information:
Though this is written in the official style prose and for me as the reader is difficult to understand given the specialized language it uses, I would argue that because it is published in a scientific journal by the American Institute of Physics, from the author’s point of view, the language the author uses is ethically sound and correct given the author’s anticipated audience. Further, it works to establish the author’s credibility on the subject of quantum physics through its use of jargonistic language.
The following and last excerpt that will be represented
in this critique indicates the beginning of a working conclusion for the
article:
The beginning paragraph
of the excerpt is verbose; however, though this is the case, I argue that the
idea within the paragraph is complicated, and thus needs to be verbose to be
adequately explained. The first of the
three bullet-points breaking down the author’s main idea in the example above
is written in the official style prose because it uses jargonistic language;
however, I would argue the last two are written in plain style prose because
they get straight to the point. It
appears all the words included need to be there, and that the idea could not be
broken down any simpler (it is a complex idea).
With that said, I argue that in order for the official style prose to be
used ethically. In order to justify the
author’s credibility on the subject and not confuse the audience, there needs
to be places within the piece where main ideas are written in plain style like
those in the last two bullet points. If
the author truly knows his or her subject, there should be places within the
text where the plain style prose is used.
Finally, in the paragraphs to follow after the bullet points, the author
switches to plain style of prose when discussing information permanence in the
context of other activity systems. In
specific, the author uses the activity system of the computer and reflects on
many of the themes found in this activity system, that is, the Internet, data
storage and recording, to name a few.
More concretely, the author taps into the activity system of technology
as a whole, in doing so, going outside the realm of quantum physics as it
pertains to information permanence. With
that said, the author presents the reader with objective information about
information permanence by looking at the many aspects that go into the subject---not
just from the aspect of quantum physics.
To conclude, much is to be learned from this example of the
official style prose. First, not all
verbose writing is needlessly verbose.
At times, complex ideas call for wordy prose in order to be sufficiently
explained. Second, the official style as
it is used in the sciences, in this case, quantum physics, defines a moral and
ethical reasoning for using this style of prose. I argue this because it contains jargonistic
language by nature and many of the concepts are complex and thus take longer to
explain. It would be unethical to take a
complex idea, such as those often found in the sciences, and use plain style
prose and leave out aspects of the idea that are needed to fully explain it to
the audience. To continue, in looking at
the text’s readability statistics as a tool for further analysis the piece
scored a 34.6 on the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease, indicating the article, while
written in the official style, is very readable. Finally, with that said, I argue the official
style need not be extremely difficult to read in all cases and can be used in
an ethical way when presenting specialized ideas to a specialized audience,
such as the novice quantum physics student.
No comments:
Post a Comment