Post 9

I don't agree that Baron's message is that he can't imagine new technology changing the shape of writing. First and foremost, Baron reminds us that writing itself is TECHNOLOGY, engineered to have a beginning and an end (37). Baron argues that whenever newer technologies arise they all go through the same steps. First it's only available to those who can afford it. It is at this time that some writing constituents of simpler, older, and more reliable writing practices rebel against it. This will always happen whenever new technology arises, making it more difficult to completely change the shape of writing. Also newer technology then always go through concerns over it's authenticity and fraudulent possibility, as did the computer. But Baron convinces me this is not his argument when he compares the pencil to the keyboard and says the pencil too and says, "although the pencil has fewer parts, it too is an advanced technology." (39).  If the pencil is an advancement of technology, then didn't that change the shape of writing? And if writing itself is a technology, then aren't all of these new advanced portals of writing (computer, IPad, cell phone, etc.) aren't those changing the shape of writing today? Baron said himself that he's been ruined for writing by hand because of the computer. He says he realized he is so used to writing on a keyboard, that he could not "draft anything coherently on a piece of paper". Baron's message is that he is not sure what final impact all this new technology will have on literacy, but as far as changing the shape of writing, it is hard to ignore the movement.