5.23 Reading Response

Texts:
Sherlock, WOW genre activity
Spinuzzi & Zachry, Genre Ecologies

Sherlock and Spinuzzi and Zachry both advocate for an open-systems approach. Spinuzzi and Zachry argue that this kind of approach would be better able to account for the contingent, decentralized, and relative stable characteristics of genre ecologies that are not considered in other approaches (171, 180). The genre ecology looks at how a group of genres is used together to mediate the activities that people use to accomplish objectives. It looks at how genres and subtasks work jointly as people deal with new technologies. For example, Sherlock mentions that WoW players have created a genre ecology to get ahead in-game through their complex system of genres that transforms the activity of grouping to make it more integrated, efficient, and thus enjoyable (264).

When first hearing about this idea back in ENGL 856, I wondered if there is any way that any kind of system can be closed. Even if there isn’t any other tangible resources or documentation available, don’t the subjects still at least talk to each other or bring their own prior knowledge into the situation? Spinuzzi and Zachry say that closed sets of texts “oversimplify the ways in which people come to understand and interact with technology” (170). I agree because how can we ever really tell if a system is closed – it’s not that simple. I think it also applies even further to than just interacting with technology, but in any situation. Documentation systems are rarely closed; Spinuzzi and Zachry point out that people turn not only to official documents but also third party help (170). They further support my idea of the impossibility of a completely closed system by saying that “all documentation systems are open-ended because users inevitably import ad hoc, unofficial genres into the genre ecology to help them mediate their work” (180). While it is harder to kind of look at systems in this way, I think it’s good to recognize that we may never really know all of what subjects bring into a situation.

I found the readings for today particularly interesting for several readings. I found Sherlock’s piece very interesting because it is something I actually studied in a way in Dr. Holmevik’s ENGL 809 class. In class we read an ethnography on WoW by Nardi and even played the game ourselves. We discussed a lot about how players interact through the social network of the game, particularly to serve their goals. While I thought this was very intriguing before, having the genre and activity theory perspective on it now even makes it more so. There are so many levels available in the online world – it is impossible to really recognize all that is in play in a system. There are so many subjects (who may even be playing various roles) and so many resources that they can turn to. I also found Spinuzzi and Zachry very interesting because I have read it before in Dr. Ding’s ENGL 856 class. I thought it posed some very interesting points by suggesting the open-systems approach then, but much better understand it now with some of the background in genre and activity theory that we have gotten from this class.