After a surprisingly thorough reading of the Sterne piece, I have given it a more apt and descriptive title that more succinctly summarizes its qualities. Incessant Verbosity. As I read through the content I was struck by how many words could be used to say so little. If imitation is the truest form of flattery, I am going to flatter the heck out of the Sterne piece in my comparatively concise response.

Sterne argues that the study of the Internet (capital ‘I’ because it is a proper noun, and because, by technical definition, internet in lower case refers generally to a connected group of computers of any kind, rather than to the series of mainframes we collectively know as the Internet, or World Wide Web) cannot be studied as a ‘thing’ disconnected from its meaning. This ‘cultural studies’ idea is not particularly eye-opening, but it is a starting point. The Internet has come to mean many things to many people, and those varying points of view inherently require a wholly different frame of reference for scholarly study.

However, Sterne’s arguments fall into the ‘ether’ that envelops so many supposedly scholarly works. In fact, Sterne himself chastises articles that fall into the same trap that he does himself. To quote Sterne directly, he says, “…frequent detours through theoretical concerns, and generally a preoccupation with the construction of its object of study and the construction of the scholar’s writing style and speaking voice.” Sterne’s ‘object of study’ is obviously the idea of ‘cultural studies’ in general and specifically how those studies relate to political communiqué. The author’s writing style (remember: Incessant Verbosity) is overly developed, and his speaking voice came through loud and clear.

In addition, the author’s arguments about what cultural studies should be are not entirely developed, and on several occasions make bold and overreaching statements without logical arguments to lay foundation upon. A notable instance of such arrogance occurs on page 262. “Ideally, it is antisexist, anticapitalist, antiracist, antiheteronormative, and anticolonial in its politics.” In addition to misspelling anti-colonial, the author fails to realize that his definition of ideal is quite certainly NOT a definition inherently embraced by all his readers, or colleagues. The author may be attempting to express that an ideal cultural study is completely unbiased, however, his definition of ideal is a misstatement to many. At least two and as many as three of the author’s ideal ‘anti-‘ statements are in disagreement with a majority of individuals you would be likely to interview today.

Overall the author fails to make a compelling argument about anything, because he uses far too many words to say far too little. His description of what cultural studies is, and what it is not, is rather bland, overly focused on the inherent relationship to politics, and rather confused. In addition, his connections to the Internet and how that relates to life in general are rather stretched in many instances. Sterne quotes many authors and many studies when he attempts to answer the basic question of, “What is the Internet?”. However, instead of realizing that the Internet is ambiguous by nature, and unendingly amorphous, he quotes books about it. Quoting books and studies about something will never compare to actually experiencing and describing the real thing. Don’t hide behind someone else’s ideas, explore the Internet and write about what YOU say it is! I’m so tired of ‘scholars’ refusing to have an original opinion of their own unless it is backed up by 12 cited sources that have the same opinion. I don’t care what Miller in 95 said, instead I care about what an intelligent person has to say about the state of things on a given topic.

Overall this article contained a lot, but delivered little. Rather than having an original idea about anything, the author hid behind other authors. The few thoughts Sterne did seem to have on his own were convoluted and, occasionally, inane. Please, can someone please step forward with an argument of their own, developed on their own, which can stand on its on merits? Hopefully we will stumble across at least one article of that caliber in this class, and when we do I’ll be here waiting.