Lanham DN

 "What's Next for Text?" by Richard A. Lanham

Even though books aren’t dying, sticking    to print is the outdated way.

Writers who decide not to compete in this new market place but to dedicate their text to fixed print only have become clerks of a historical mode… unmistakably antiquarian…(17).

 

Lanham explains what he aims to do throughout the rest of his piece. I thought this was a nice acknowledgment that Bernhardt seems to ignore: advocating for a more visual space while sticking with unbroken text. Although Bernhardt does include an example, he doesn’t necessarily practice what he preaches.	I want to look at some examples of text in its new digital environment…If we are going to keep on discussing, in print, what’s next for text in the digital space, we should at least try to look at what is happening…(18).
I couldn’t help but think about McCloud when I was reading this section. Does this challenge his idea that we don’t relate to detailed images (or, in this case, a real person explaining the text)? Should it have been a cartoon?	We notice, too, that Professor Minsky is wearing a sport shirt. He talks with a certain accent. His whole manner, informal and arm-waving, contrasts with the formal fixity of the text (19).
How a text can change when accompanied by an image. McCloud again.	Our responses to the speaking lecturer…feed back onto the whole text, not just that page. The text, without changing, has undergone a subtle metamorphosis (20).
I was wondering-if it three-dimensional letter space was where we have been as well as where we are going- what happened in between? Interesting	But vision for two-eyed Homo sapiens is a stereo, a three-dimensional spatial event, and three-dimensional space was outlawed by the flat, consecutive text created by the Greek alphabet (26).
Introducing the idea of oscillation. I like the thought of this as a reenactment of what we do we when see.	When computer graphic techniques constitute a virtual three-dimensional world of two-dimensional print, when they oscillate between two-dimensional and three-dimensional images of a letter, they are…re-enacting the act of seeing. They are making us see how we see, and doing this around a core of letters (27).
Again this makes me think of McCloud. He said that words were the absolute abstractions. The word “eye” does not at all resemble what we think of when we see the word.	…the relationship of a word and the thing it represents (27).
McCloud talked about space and time in his TED talk.	[Text] is also being put back into time (28).
This makes me think of Elbow’s both/and thing. Isn’t Lanham saying that the oscillation between the two is the best because it represents the way our imagination actually works?	Prose is sequential; image is instantaneous. Our imagination is asked to combine two kinds of perception, two ways to understand the world, words and things, or at last put them into very rapid oscillation (31).
Recalls our Porter discussion about how texts are not static but fluid and changing.	Stuff doesn’t change. Our attitudes toward it change all the time (34).

Bernhardt IWA

Pre-reading Exericise

     I chose to look at an article from cnn.com about the Chigaco teacher's strike.

Before the article, there is a brief slideshow featuring various teachers explaining why they teach. The rest of the article doesn't include any other images, but it is segmented into different sections with headings. Moreover, on the upper lefthand side, there is a little box featuring "story highlights," which essentially summarizes the article. It seems very reader friendly.

Summary
      In his article "Seeing the text," Stephen A. Bernhardt argues that teachers should encourage students to experiment with texts that include more visual elements. Bernhardt looks at an example of a visually interesting text to explain how its format can be more reader friendly than the traditional essay format of unbroken text. He argues that by making it easier to read, a text can then become more accessible to a larger audience.
      Bernhardt's "Seeing the text" is similar to Scott McCloud's "The Vocabulary of Comics" in that it deals with the benefits visuals or images have on an audience. McCloud argued that written text in his piece would not be as effective as the images/cartoons that he included. Bernhardt is making a similar case in favor of including more visual designs or graphics in texts.
     Bernhardt's piece can also be compared to Porter's article about intertextuality. Porter argued that while an author may be confined to certain formatting standards expected of his/her discourse community, within those confinements, he/she also has various freedoms. Bernhardt does not seem as interested in appealing to a particular discourse community; instead, he applauds a text's ability to reach a wider audience. Apart from headings, the discourse community our students are writing for does not really encourage visual design; perhaps including a more reader-friendly visual design can be an avenue of freedom that Porter talks about; however, if the discourse community finds such visuals unacceptable, can our students really feel comfortable exploring this creative path?

QD
1. I do struggle more with reading dense text rather than a text with a lot of vials, as I think anyone would. However, I am used to it. It's what I've read for the majority of my undergrad and it's how I've been taught to write. I can see the benefits of giving our students more reader friendly pieces, because this is an "alien discourse" to them, but I have no problem with the way things are written. There are certain expectations, as noted by Porter, of the discourse community. If you try to challenge conventional format, your piece may be considered unacceptable; it may be best not to risk it.
2. I'm just beginning to become comfortable with the use of partitions and headings in academic papers. I realized that I would not have my kids avoid them if it helps them with their organization, even though I myself have never used headings and subheadings in a paper. I think it can benefit both the reader and writer. On the other hand, I don't really see why a text needs headings in order to be understood.

AE
1. Even outside of English classes, I can't recall using visuals in any of my college papers. In one class, we used the blogs on blackboard, and we were required to include an image or video as part of the assignment. I guess this is a combination of text and visual that Bernhardt describes. I'm in favor of more visuals in texts because I think it helps students understand the content better, but for my purposes as a grad student, I just don't see the place for visuals.
4. I visit Jezebel.com pretty frequently. There is sort of like a blog scroll on the right side of the screen that says the title of an article, and it is accompanied by some sort of visual. I choose which article I'd like to read first by what the headline says, and then what picture accompanies it. Rarely do I ever click on an article based on the image, but I'm sure it has happened at some point.

Thoughts
      I thought this was an interesting article, especially in relation to the McCloud and Porter essay. Maybe it will be interesting to see if students take this piece and the Porter piece as a way of telling them that they can be creative and more original if they include a more visual structure in their essay. I'd certainly be in favor of reading that sort of work. For my own work, I am thinking about including some sort of visual representation in a piece. A lot of the TAs are taking Introduction to English Studies, in which we're learning about MLA format, a very rigid system. It just seems so incongruous to read articles encouraging this type of exploration while taking traditional English classes where the standards of the discourse community are taught to us.

Howard DN

-->

This seems in direct contrast to what Porter talks about with intertextuality theory. Are the ‘traces’ within a text technically appropriation of others’ work, even if you develop an original argument?	"…Pedagogy must inevitable fail in its attempt to impart “moral” principles of composing one’s own text instead of appropriating others’—which Kelly Ritter (2005) has called ‘whole text’ plagiarism" (219).
I think this is a good point. Students think if they follow the rules they ‘know’ about plagiarism, they’ll be okay. But there are so many unclear rules and versions of plagiarism (collusion, Porter) that it needs to be thought of as a learning process, not something that can just be easily avoided.	"Margaret Price argues that college plagiarism policies should “indicate to students that learning to avoid plagiarism is a process of learning conventions and customs, not an instantaneous event" (220).
Moving to identifying a problem. The goal of attaining cultural capital benefits instructors, not students	"College instructors tend to see academic writing as a means of attaining what Bourdieu calls embodied cultural capital: 'long-lasting dispositions of the mind and body'" (222).
Ultimately then this is self-serving rather than “altruistic.” Howard claims that instructors are not selflessly concerned about their students developing skills and knowledge.	"By urging on our students the importance of the “knowledge and skills” we offer to impart, we are inescapably urging that our students value us, too—that the desire to be like us…" (221).
Howard quotes Bruce Horner. I thought this quote was incredibly bleak, with the implication of the insecure instructor and his/her fragile ego, which leads them to distrust or suspect their students.	‘I am always nervous…on reading student writing that seems to me to be saying something important, or in which “something is happening.” I distrust my own sense of pleasure in reading it. I wonder if it has been plagiarized’ (221).
Shouldn’t all instructors be like this? Maybe it is easier for newer instructors (like me) who don’t have any experience or enough confidence to know that their lesson plans/goals work out for students. I am constantly adapting the way we discuss an article, look at sources, etc.	"Hillocks celebrates one instructor in his study who has a “positive attitude” toward students, evidenced in part by his willingness to critique and revise his assignments when his students don’t do well on it, rather than attributing the “failure” to the students" (225).
Different goals.	"And so the battle is joined. The contestants are instructors striving to legitimate embodied cultural capital, versus students striving to acquire institutionalized culture capital as efficiently as possible" (226).
Howard argues that most students’ papers are valueless because there is no effort put into them, no strive for authorship or voice or creativity.	"In this imaginary, writing a college paper is not an act of authorship; it is an act of qualifying oneself for grades that will achieve purposes entirely external to the writing of the paper" (228).
Does Howard think it is possible to instruct students without manipulating them? I agree, though, that there is a problem with such defensiveness against plagiarism rather than just positive encouragement in favor of writing.	"Yet I see in this process-as-prevention a mechanism, a ‘trick’ against plagiarists rather than for writing" (229).
A possible solution or change of focus offered by Howard: make assignments that introduce students to the stages of inquiry- asking the “right” questions within a discourse community (Porter) or navigating that “alien discourse” (Allen).	"…We parody the writing process just as surely as does StudentHacks.org when we create assignments intended to thwart plagiarism, instead of assignments designed to engage students in stages of inquiry that invite them into the intellectual life" (229).

Porter IWA

Pre-reading Exercise

“Make a list of all the ways you get ‘help,’ of any kind, in your writing. Where do you get ideas, advice, feedback, and assistance?

The writing that I do consists of writing about literature, so research is a big part of where I get my ideas.

1.     Internet

2.     Sources

3.     Scholarship

4.     The professor whose class I’m writing the paper for

5.     My mentor

I don’t often get assistance for my papers. I did use the student writing center once, and it was a huge help. However, being able to submit a draft to the center takes planning ahead, and I am a procrastinator who is usually rushing to meet a deadline.

Summary

            In his text “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community,” James Porter argues that by teaching students to look at texts as intertextual- that is, as containing ‘traces’ of other texts that have come before- educators can begin to move students away from thinking about arguments as completely original. Instead porter argues that a Writer’s originality comes from being able to “to create new meanings” (90) or “alter the Text in some way” (93) from the other texts or traces. Porter also argues that it is not writers who create discourse, but the readers, who interpret texts that were created with them in mind.

Synthesis

            Porter’s piece recalls several different pieces we have red thus far. Right away, Porter mentions the writer as “a collector of fragments,” recalling Kleine’s hunter/gatherer model and applying it to the writing process rather than reading (87). Porter also mentions “building a framework” as something the writer does, which of course goes back to Greene’s concept of framing (87).  Furthermore, Porter’s idea that all text are intertextual goes back to Greene’s idea that argument is a conversation and that to successfully enter a discourse community, one must do his or her homework by seeing what other people have said before. More substantially, in this article, Porter challenges the notions of an author’s creativity and originality. Like Sarah Allen, he argues that romanticizing the creative genius writer as detrimental to students. Also related to Allen is Porter’s discussion of the discourse community, which Allen portrays as a perpetually “alien discourse.” Porter sees the discourse community as constraining to the writer, but he does not necessarily think that it completely eliminates originality. Lastly, Porter mentions how much the audience shapes the text itself. By presupposing the audience’s expectations and interpretations, writers create a text accordingly. This recalls both Berger’s and Kantz’s ideas about audience interpretation and their role in the rhetorical triangle.

QD

4. I think that judging a piece of writing by its ‘acceptability’ within a certain discourse community is an appropriate evaluation for upperclassmen and graduate students, certainly. But I don’t think this idea is at all accessible to freshmen students. I can’t forget Allen’s discussion of the “alien discourse.” Adhering to the conventions of a given discourse, even if it eventually allows for creativity and originality in other ways, seems so inaccessible to younger students. How will they be able to navigate an original statement when they won’t even be confident enough to know what is the “right” topic to explore?

5. Porter makes connections throughout his piece to other “fragments”- the Eco pieced, Vygotsky, the Declaration of Independence, and so on. His argue is that intertextuality constrains a writer, because he or she must acknowledge what has come before and makes it impossible to be completely original, as no text is without traces to other texts. But there is room for an original, creative argument within those confines. Porter finds room by suggesting both that community-oriented writing is not a bad thing and that constraints on writing focuses it, but does not necessarily kill creativity.

AE

1. I was actually thinking, while I was reading, of doing this activity in class. Here is the commercial I would show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2SRG8OqNqA

Some of the cultural text I see is that the mother is dressed very traditionally feminine, which is significant in explaining her own discomfort with her daughter’s lack of femininity. The house setting suggests that the family is upper-middle class, which becomes significant when considering the intended audience for this commercial. Perhaps most important ‘text’ or I guess context of this commercial is an awareness of traditional gender roles for young girls and boys. I think the biggest question with this commercial is whether or not the audience is supposed to sympathize with the mother or laugh at her discomfort. I do think that the joke is on the mother, but sometimes I think it would be lost on an audience made up of the traditional, upper-middle class American family who really is that uncomfortable with gender fluidity.

MM

Porter’s piece hasn’t changed the way I think about writing because I had already agreed with him to a point before I read this. But this piece has made me think more about actual collaboration on writing and how it would really just be an extension upon what Porter is describing i.e. “collaboration” with writers across time and space-writers who have come before you.

I really enjoyed Porter’s piece and I have a soft spot for it because it was the first dialectic notebook I did with Dr. Gradin during orientation. I think the students will like the parts about the Declaration of Independence (and the point that Jefferson could have been called a plagiarist) and I also think they’d enjoy looking at commercials for Intertextuality. I do think, however, that Porter’s ideas about writing for the community discourse might overwhelm them as will his notion that creativity and originality is really only possible within the confinements of the discourse community. I’m awaiting our 5890 class to see if there are ways to makes this more accessible and less daunting to them.

Lamott, King, Diaz Dialectical Notebooks

                                                                        Lamott

Response	Passage
Lamott expresses disdain toward the same type of stereotype Sarah Allen identifies: the myth of the inspired writer. Lamott calls this a fantasy. The “uninitiated” could in other contexts separate the novice writers from the professionals, but Lamott uses to bridge the gap; they share a common experience: the shitty first draft.	People tend to look at successful writers, writers who are getting their books published and maybe even doing well financially, and think that they sit down at their desks every morning feeling like a million dollars, feeling great about who they are and how much talent they have and what a great story they have to tell…But this is just the fantasy of the uninitiated (301).
Lamott’s main point- she will argue the significance and effectiveness of the shitty first draft.	In fact, the only way I can get anything written at all is to write really, really shitty first drafts.
The first draft is unfiltered, like a child- almost a stream of consciousness. You turn off your critical voice and let it flow freely. That freedom should loosen you up and let your writer juices flow (sounds gross).	The first draft is the child’s draft, where you let it all pour out and then let it romp all over the place…You just let this childlike part of you channel whatever voices and visions come through and onto the page (302).
Lamott describes her writing process, which ultimately fails her. Implies how undependable processes can be, and what happens when a process fails a writer (recalls Murray, Allen)- anxiety happens	These reviews always took two days to write. First I’d go to a restaurant several times…(302).
I thought I was the only one who did this. If it weren’t for writing struggles, I’d never trim my bangs, though.	I’d get up and study my teeth in the mirror for a while (302).
Is this the main fear every writer has? That someone will see his/her work and call him/her a fraud? Plus, there is still getting over the fact that YOU have to see your shitty draft, and YOU’RE the one who probably already feels like an imposter.	And no one was going to see it (302)
Again, hints at the unreliability of writing processes. Lamott argues against a writing process, or at least one that doesn’t begin with purging one’s thoughts down unfiltered.	I would eventually let myself trust the process…I’d write a first draft that was maybe twice as long as it should be (303).

                                                                          King

This is an intriguing statement. I immediately wonder: how do writing and telepathy go together?	All the arts depend upon telepathy to some degree, but I believe that writing offers the purest distillation (King 305).
Writers and readers share some sort of connection that transcends time and space: telepathy.	So let’s assume that you’re in your favorite receiving place just as I am in the place where I do my best transmitting. We’ll have to perform our mentalist routine not just over distance but over time as well… (306).
Words elicit essentially the same images. So words also connect not only the writer and the reader, but all readers, because they imagine nearly the same things.	Do we see the same thing? We’d have to get together and compare notes to make absolutely sure, but I think we do. There will be necessary variations, of course… (306)
Thus, telepathy.	We’re having a meeting of the minds (307)
This is a rather jarring transition and conclusion. How does King make the leap from writing as telepathy to taking it so seriously? Because of what it’s capable of doing. It is a medium that connects people throughout time and space- that’s an extraordinary feat, according to King.	Come to it any way but lightly. Let me say it again: you must not come lightly to the blank page (307).

                                                                          Diaz

Diaz describes his bought with writer’s block. Another transgression from the myth of the natural, inspired writer pointed out by Allen.	My novel, which I had started with such hope shortly after publishing my first book of stories, wouldn’t budge past the 75-page mark (319).
This shows Diaz’s determination and motivation, characteristics of the real writer; success comes from hard work and drive, not natural or god given talent.	Want to talk about stubborn? I kept at it for five straight years (319)
Describes problems that the myth of the inspired writer causes- a desperate reliance or hope for magical or miracle inspiration to hit.	Waiting, hoping, praying for the book, for my writing, for my talent to catch fire (320).
Sort of similar to the waiting for a miracle thing as stated above, but this section also makes me think about Murray’s incubation period (Berkenkotter). Putting things on the backburner and just letting things marinate a bit before returning to them.	So I became a normal. A square. I didn’t go to bookstores or read the Sunday book section of the Times…I spent long hours in my writing room, sprawled on the floor, with the list on my chest, waiting for the promise of those words to leak through the paper into me” (320).
Again, it’s the motivation and drive that gets a writer through the stuggle/writer’s block. Perseverance.	I didn’t have the heart to go on. But I guess I did (320)

Bartholomae IWA

"Must We Mean What We Say?" David Bartholomae

Pre-reading

            I don’t have a favorite novel, so I just grabbed one that I’m currently reading, The Day of the Locust. There is a third-person narrator, who is essentially speaking for the main character- that is, the narrator has insights into the protagonist that only the protagonist would know. In novels, when the character speaks, we are taught to question what he reports. A first person narrator is an unreliable narrator. When there is a third-person narrator that has insights into the protagonist, it does seem like it is actually the author speaking, but it doesn’t necessarily affect the way I read the story. It just makes my understanding of the character better.

Summary

            In “Must We Mean What We Say?” David Bartholomae draws on his experience as a teacher of first year composition. He argues that revision is necessary for novice writers to correct and strengthen their voices. Through revision, students can enrich their voice and insert it in the text as its own character (19). In addition to revision, Bartholomae argues that student writing comes from textual context- literature (sources, poems, movies, etc.).  

            Like many of the other authors we’ve read, Bartholomae argues that reading and writing go hand in hand toward producing a successful paper. Greene, Kantz and Kleine are three writers who have argued for the importance of reading critically. Bartholomae’s piece is also similar to Kleine and Kantz in that it suggests that revision and multiple drafts are a necessary element of the writing process; multiple revisions lead to the best paper. Finally, both Bartholomae and Elbow discuss voice in writing. Bartholomae is in favor of attending to voice in texts, while he implies that adopting the author’s voice in reading (adopting his/her persona/ putting on their mask (McCloud)) is best.

QD

2. I think Bartholomae illustrates that through revision, a writer puts more of him or herself into the piece. As their paper becomes stronger, they gain more confidence, and as a result, they also insert a stronger authorial voice. I think multiple revisions allow the idea that the writer is a character or persona to come through.

           

AE

1.     In the second version of the introductory paragraph that Bartholomae presents, the student adds the first-person pronoun “I” and gives his/her opinion about the text. The writer takes the reader through initial reactions/ preconceived notions and then a change in feeling. The first paragraph sounds like a straightforward description, while the revised paragraph reads like a review of it. It is subjective, not objective. This student copied Hoagland’s tone because the prompt asked him/her to understand what Hoagland is doing in his poem.

Thoughts

     I enjoyed Bartholomae’s piece for his examples of student essays. I also liked that this piece included poetry excerpts and reinforced the importance of textual context and reading. I also like his call for papers to include irony, something that I hardly do if ever. It is hard to compare these types of essays with the kind of essays the students will be writing for project 1. Though Bartholomae shares Greene’s idea of putting ideas in conversation with the past, I’m not sure how much room for irony and voice there is in that. On the other hand, I just remembered the essay “Due Today, Due Tomorrow” which challenged a writing construct and had a very strong voice and included irony. So now I am convinced that it is possible.      

Peter Elbow IWA

"Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries" by Peter Elbow

 

Pre-reading

            I like to think of Facebook and online identity in general as a representation of what Greene calls framing; we (Facebook users and internet frequenters) virtually concoct a new identity. I’ve read bloggers say that while it’s nice to have followers, people who read their blogs only get a glimpse of carefully chosen moments of that person’s life. The same is true of Facebook profiles. You choose a flattering profile picture, often cropped to include just you. You choose a cover image that represents an interest- shows another side. You reveal certain facts about yourself: you might focus on your education and work experience to show you are a professional, motivated adult; you might focus on your relationship status or philosophies. It is only a glimpse, never a complete picture.

Summary

            In his text “Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries,” Peter Elbow argues that in the debate about authorial voice in writing, the either/or binary is ineffective. Instead, he suggests a both/and attitude toward voice that also represents his enthusiasm for accepting contradictions. Elbow describes the numerous pros and cons of voice in texts. Ultimately, he concludes that there are appropriate times to focus on voice and inappropriate times: “We don’t have to read or write the same way all of the time” (Elbow 57). Elbow claims that there are times when reading a voice is alternatively helpful/unhelpful and times when writing with a strong voice is also helpful/unhelpful.

            Elbow’s text recalls many of our earlier readings. His attempt to expand upon convention thinking about binaries and zero/sum arguments mimics Greene’s move toward thinking about Argument not as war or debate, but as conversation. In Elbow’s discussion of the rhetorical lens, he also reiterates Greene’s framing concept: “If we look at written or spoken language through this narrow text lens—stripping away the people, the historical drama, the body, and the actual person trying to do something to someone else—we can analyze better the bare root meaning logic, and patterns that voice and rhetorical drama can obscure…” (51).

 His discussion of how text emphasizes the visual and voice emphasizes the auditory also goes back to McCloud’s comics and argument that cartoons and words create voice. The mask readers wear can be a way in which they insert their own voices and identities into the text.   

Furthermore, Elbow’s concept of “ear training” recalls Kantz’s idea of recognizing author’s claims and biases: “If students are going to learn how to read critically, they need to understand that voice will often mislead them” (55).  

QD

4. Elbow claims that the either/or choice in the debate about voice is ineffective and has led to a stalemate, so he introduces a new concept: the both/and attitude. He attempts to reconcile contradictory ideas and thus, he lays out the benefits of paying attention to voice as well as the benefits of not doing so.  It is impossible to resolve the tension because if the either/or thing had truly worked, the debate wouldn’t have continued. Elbow also dismisses compromise because each side loses a little bit. Thus, he claims that the best strategy is to embrace the voice in either reading or writing sometimes, and reject it at other times.

AE

2. Listening to a passage rather than merely reading it has several advantages, according to Elbow. Hearing something out loud can alert the reader to a certain tone or attitude that the reader has overlooked (perhaps by reading a text in his or her own voice). It demands a new interpretation. I often find it difficult to read Shakespeare’s plays on my own. If I follow along to a recording or a stage performance, the degree of understanding I have after that is unmatched by my own reading of it. I see the benefits of hearing others who have invested some time in the texts read it aloud, but I’m not sure I’m convinced that merely reading aloud your own work will be at all helpful. The only time I can see it being helpful is if there is awkward phrasing and reciting the prose can make it more conversational, as Elbow points out.

Thoughts

            Elbow’s piece is not one of my favorites. Particularly, I think the students will have a very hard time understanding it. I think the concept of voice is, at this point, beyond them. I do appreciate Elbow’s article for how it relates to the other texts; I found many different connections. I found it especially helpful in understanding more completely how the McCloud piece related to the course. I was thinking about perhaps eliminating the Berger piece and pairing the McCloud and Elbow pieces instead.