No, I am not turning soft. There is still something about Bolter and Grusin's Remediation which makes me want to find the error, the point where I can deny their streamlined logic. I think perhaps that is the problem right there. "Remediation" is such a convenient word, but does it mean anything other than the fact that everything has to be translated in order to be communicated, no matter through which medium? Everything which is to be perceived, is somehow mediated, no matter if it's through the medium of light and soundwaves or chemicals in the air interpreted by us as scent, or through a highly mechanised process containing a high level of artifice like the net. Thus the idea that the new media causes a remediation becomes redundant. Of course it does. And yeah, it's remediated in some of the ways they describe. And?

But... the book is proving to be useful. Not wasted at all. It presents a systematic discussion of how everything is remediated. While it puts a bit too much emphasis on the singularity of the net and the new media, insisting a bit too much on the newness of their concept at times, it is a useful book. 'Good boys' - while I might not be entirely converted, I can appreciate its usefullness.