Co-writing vs Tool
Despite the many things to talk about and think over on the topic of graphic novels and spacetime and panels, I find myself recalling the discussion from the beginning of class on Thursday about co-writing. Froggies315 and KT were convinced that computers were mere tools, contrary to what Kathleen Fitzpatrick argues. While I don't necessarily agree with Fitzpatrick, I can't define computers as mere tools either. Perhaps, a better way to restate Fitzpatrick's argument would be to say that computers are the scribes, the translators of our ideas into a different medium. Because, although computers can be controlled, our demands don't always manipulate them into how we want them to; there are times when we fail to give the proper command and the computer "thinks" for itself, as was the case with ayla's picture of the board. It's not a tool, because it's not something we canfully manipulate; but a language we have to be literate in, to be able to input an idea, and have an output of a different medium. The computer makes us do work, by burdening the user of the responsibility of learning its language in order to fully utilise it. Because of this, it's not simply a tool. At the same time, it cannot be a co-writer either because it didn't have any input of ideas. For me, I guess, the distinction between writer and a tool ( maybe an aid is a better word) is not intent but thought. Since the computer is merely putting what you wrote on a different platform, it is not co-writing. It's just a translator.