Tomorrow's Text, Today's Problem

In "The Future of Reading" by Jonah Lehrer, the rhetorical situation is fairly clear and apparent to the reader. According to Grant-Davie, the rhetorical situation is made up of  four constituents: exigence, rhetors, audience, and constraints. The context behind these parts are then build upon with intertextual comments to support the claim's that Lehrer is making. The main focus of these ideas would be the context these constituents are based around, and how this context shapes our (the audiences) understanding of the work.

Context seems to be a recurring theme in Grant-Davie's and Bazerman's essays. What is context though, and why is it so important? Grant-Davie states "Every situation arises within  a context-a  background of time, place, people, events, and so forth". This is important because the rhetorical situation would mean nothing without rhetorical discourse and the context in which it was created (Grant-Davie, 265). The context used by the rhetor to create the discourse is key in informing or persuading an audience because it is the discourse that the audience uses to draw meaning from a work. In regards to Lehrer's piece, the discourse (Also the exigence) of the work is how e-texts and technology will ruin reading and writing.

This was supported with scientific study at a college that measured brain function. They discovered that the error free e-texts made the brain more relaxed and functioned on a lower level of thought. The use of this intertext helps shape the work of Lehrer. However, he goes on to say more about the study and how they discovered that having a few larger words or even errors in an e-text can boost a readers thought process. He then states that if all e-texts should have blurs, marks, or errors. This recontextualizes the term "e-text" for the reader/audience and changes the rhetor's message. Rather than wanting to demolish technology, we should adapt it.

Unfortunately there isn't much use of intertext in this piece, but having a clear cut rhetorical situation does help make the piece understood. It would be nice to see more supportive information in Lehrer's work. Maybe if he had this submitted in a journal, rather than as an e-text, I would appreciate it more as well. He could have changed the font styling or maybe demonstrated some of the points he was discussing in the piece. Lehrer even openly admits to using this dreaded technology himself. Also, the fact I am reading complex e-texts right now makes me feel a little less that persuaded.