Ah the classic university readings have returned! I was hoping they wouldn’t, but we were all thinking it in the back of our heads. What can I say, it is nobodies fault (well kinda is), not too much that can be done. It did take some things away from it though so it wasn’t a total loss. The example of driving a car or workers using large construction equipment and becoming accustomed to their use and it becoming second nature compared to that of the technical relationship to the writing space was rather interesting. The writer says that the writing space is always with us, much like the creative flow/feeling that I am accustomed to as a a film maker.
Writers write in their minds, on paper, on computers and in this sense spoken language can be considered a technique, tying back the theme of the chapter that the skill of the writing space is a skill and a technique like riding a bike or painting a portrait. The writer goes on to say that it is not important about the medium of way in which we write, i.e. computer or pen and paper, neither is more important or authentic than the other. What matters is the technical state of mind of the writer and all writers know this and have their writing spaces, physical, spaces in which they write such as a desk with a computer or an ancient clay tablet.
The reading goes on to discuss different structures in writing from parchment and quills to the latests electronic computers and tablets. I don’t like being given extracts because there isn’t enough context for the reading and even if you go away and do some extra research it is not the same. It would be like showing someone (LORD OF THR RINGS SPOILERS ALERT) the scene in The Fellowship Of The Ring when Boromir is killed and thats it. Wouldn’t you just find that so annoying? No context, nothing, you wouldn’t even know what is shooting him with arrows. Anyway, I much prefer when RMIT gives us short, concise and informative articles which have context and are properly engaging.