When I read “Writing about Cool” by Jeff Rice, I couldn’t get myself to focus on his alternative meaning of the word “cool”. I kept thinking about how people say “That’s cool” meaning “awesome”, “sweet”, or “fetch” (who doesn’t love Mean Girls). So it was a struggle. Then Rice begins to describe how colleges use “cool” to describe their school, therefore tricking their prospective students into thinking that they are enrolling in an institution, majoring in fiesta. Little do they know, that word “cool” means that they are enrolling in a very technologically focused college.

McLuhan, on the other hand, is no more clear than Rice. I found McLuhan’s articles (The Medium: Hot and Cold and The Medium is the Message) incredibly confusing. When we talked about McLuhan in my Comm Arts class, my professor made it seem very clear and concise. It all made sense. Bring on McLuhan’s ACTUAL article. Now, I find it all confusing. I agree that the way something is said (i.e. via in electronic lights, an email or on paper) can effect the message it brings. For example, if an environmental club advertises to save the trees by printing up thousands of flyers, its not going to be an effective message sent. Now, how effective is McLuhan’s message when using the word “cool”, if his definition (a media of low definition, McLuhan p. 36) is nowhere to be found other than in his book? This is hardly an accessible definition. Therefore, I think that this would be a definite issue with his personal statement “The medium is in the message”. It seems that his own message is jumbled due to miscommunication and inaccessibility.

On a final unrelated note: The Badgers are Number One…