If B&G add to MM the social, political, and gendered constraints and affordances of new media, and LM adds the truly digital components, as well as the centrality of database (a searchable and usable archive?), but all of them are still more or less grounded in hot and cool, what we get is a 40+ year history that has been reasonably consistent and constant even thought it keeps changing its terminology. We also get a history that is making some progress, although progress primarily means "filling in the picture." Is this an argument worth making? A picture worth painting? I think I prefer painting pictures to making arguments.
What does happen to Barthes, Derrida, Ulmer, others in my other narrative?
Ulmer looks more and more like MM to me: the same kinds of projects (making the humanities relevant, acknowledging that the environment has changed, encouraging creativity in balance with logos). He is actually more pedagogically focused, and does in deed think of the classroom as the space of experiment and invention. Duh. Teletheory, in particular, seems like McLuhan revisited: the Bacon connection, the oultine of projects, etc.
Does all of this add up to an intellectual history of new media studies and practices? Within English studies, have we chosen the tech comm / usability of new media over the creative / inventive new media? Probably not, but a lot of that action seems to come out of Art, only some out of English. Is English still all about the Blog?
Fog settles in...