3.02.2004
General Note
I will admit to having a hard time getting through Lovink's book. There isn't too much to read, the stuff isn't all that heady, but yet I find myself drifting off and getting lost or disinterested in the material. Consequently, I think my postings have lacked a certain degree of depth that they ought to have.
Do I have an excuse. Oh yes, of course.
In the acknowledgment, it is stated that this was pieced together from mailing lists and other sources (cut and pasted) to make a book. You can tell that the book hasn't been that well edited. But, there is more than just grammatical errors at work here. There is a certain lack of flow to the writing that is giving me a headache and leaving me without much to say in these postings. His writing is reflective of not an in-depth study, but a personal account, and it shows, and it's hard to read. Frankly, I don't give a shit how many conferences Lovink went to between 1993 and 1997.
Ok, I'm not that mad. But I do think that the noticeably pasted together quality of this book is making it difficult to read. Are others having similar issues, or am I just overtired?
Do I have an excuse. Oh yes, of course.
In the acknowledgment, it is stated that this was pieced together from mailing lists and other sources (cut and pasted) to make a book. You can tell that the book hasn't been that well edited. But, there is more than just grammatical errors at work here. There is a certain lack of flow to the writing that is giving me a headache and leaving me without much to say in these postings. His writing is reflective of not an in-depth study, but a personal account, and it shows, and it's hard to read. Frankly, I don't give a shit how many conferences Lovink went to between 1993 and 1997.
Ok, I'm not that mad. But I do think that the noticeably pasted together quality of this book is making it difficult to read. Are others having similar issues, or am I just overtired?
