readings for 4/07/08

I posted this yesterday, but it apparently disappeared

Readings for 4/07/08

Ong – I think I got the gist of what Ong was saying (?) I felt like I was trying to read another language. I do not speak that formal Englishese. I understand that he is saying that writers are writing to an audience (as does everything else – Rhetoric) I also understand what he means by the audience has a role to play and it is up to the writer to direct the reader to know and accept that role. He implies that without that direction, the reader cannot interpret what the writer is saying or get the message of the story (in fiction). The readers must put themselves into the story; identify with the characters.

I am not sure why he went on so much about Hemmingway. I think this is an important concept, because freshman writers may not be aware or able to do this. This may be something that is necessary to teach, or demonstrate (as I believe Ong was trying to do with his examples of Hemmingway’s writing).

I liked Ong’s essays from these past two weeks; I just have a difficult time interpreting some of his words and language structure. (That’s what I get for being a Nurse. I can’t understand a neurology consult any better).

Porter –

I liked what Porter said about discourse communities restraining the writer and that the audience …”is as responsible for the production of the text as the writer” p.38).His discussion of the text and authorship of the Declaration of Independence, reminded me of other things I have read that had more than one author. Remembering how I could tell which author was speaking as the chapters unfolded, just by their writing style.

I have to agree with Porter that most, if not all discourse is built upon, and borrowed from the discourse of others, which he calls intertextuality. I believe that as, writers, speakers, we look for ways for our audience to identify with our speech or writing (rhetoric/discourse) and, therefore, we borrow “signs” or “tags” to other influential speakers or writers. As I have stated before, since I have entered into graduate education, I have discovered that there is “no original thought”. I don’t mean that to say that graduate students are not capable of original thought, just that at this level of scholarship, it is presumed that our opinions have been shaped by the theories or science of others and all of our opinions must be validated by their original source. (If they said it/wrote it – you must cite it.) We are products of our society, no matter how liberal, rebellious, or different we think we are; and we will speak and write from that influence and to that audience.

I like how Porter poses the questions concerning the exclusionary power of the discourse community; does the writer have any creative freedom? Or are writers doomed to plagiarisms?

If we look ahead to Johnson-Eilola and Selber on Assemblages, I asked my self Porter’s next question – Can any text be said to be new? Considering how the movie industry seems to be stuck on remakes, this essay seems to explain why.

I can’t help but be taken back to the beginning – Aristotle; he taught to speak to your audience. Now, as writers, we cannot see that audience, but we have to presume how the audience will think and in what discourse community they “live”. We have to use signs and logos and ethos they will understand (unconsciously) some logos are so ingrained into our society (or from past societies) as to be archetypal; they reach the very subconscious of understanding.

Bruffe -

I could identify with much of what Bruffe was talking about, in that I am in a computer-based learning program and it is all about collaborative learning. I think we collaborate within ourselves (i.e. talk to ourselves) before we write anything to anyone else. It seems to me that the concern of “one-mind” non-individual thinking (group think or “peer indoctrination” as Trimbur writes in Villanueva (p 462)), and has given way to collaborative, not necessarily consensual, writing and learning. In science, a “body” of researchers that never meet face-to-face is now doing many studies. They share their findings and collaborate on the interpretation of the meaning of the findings. They share the work and the credit and, I imagine, the criticism. Theories of collaborative learning are coming alive in the computer- based programs where students discuss their lessons with the teacher as a facilitator to that discussion.

He talks about normal and abnormal discourse and describes abnormal discourse as when discourse deviates from the accepted and expected “norms” of the discourse community. Consensus no longer exists. I like that he sees this as a way of shaking things up, of introducing a fresh or different perspective. Sometimes this is accepted and opens new avenues of thought and sometimes someone could get hurt!

Trimbur raised some interesting questions and points. I was enthusiastic about Bruffe’s discussion of collaborative learning, because I am experiencing this aspect of my education in teaching and Nursing. Then I read Trimbur and get all paranoid about loss of individuality. Then, I considered the dating of the essay. He discusses and debates the thoughts of various theorists, philosophers, sociologists and many others that had opinions on abnormal discourse, socialconstructionism and collaborative learning and consensus. (His essay is a great example of intertextuality. I wonder if he could have referenced any more writers on the subject).

Although science calls for some consensus by its very nature of proof and provability, it also changes over time. Therefore I agree with him (and his reference to Young) that…” students can learn to agree to disagree, but not because everyone has their own opinion…” (There would never be consensus on anything and then there would be real power struggles), but that students bring with them such diversity and they need to “organize the conditions in which we live and work accordingly” (p 476). He espouses a consensus that offers a way to allow for many voices in the collaborative classroom, without dominance or hierarchy. Here, Here and Hazah! He did call it a Utopian ideal, didn’t he?

The Johnson-Eilola & Selber article brings us much closer to the world of rhetoric, discourse and composition (if I may be so presumptuous with the term) that we live in today. How many people are “publishing” video excerpts of someone else’s work (or their own) on U-Tube? We see montages of music and video on cable stations of “remixed” work from a variety of artists and amateurs, alike. I alluded earlier to the remaking of movies. Is this the new form of discourse? It certainly seems to be the new “Genre d’Jour”. (I made that up). Is this “creativity or lack of creativity? I recently saw a movie directed and produced by Julie Taymor (of Broadway fame for Lion King) (sorry if I offended, I know her name is well known). Where she took the music of the Beatles and told a love story that was more like an anthology of the “Sixties”, called Across the Universe. I thought it was brilliant and poignant. (I almost feel like it is premonitory _ history repeats itself). Her interpretation of the music brought new meaning to the songs, or was it more of an expose’ of the real meanings Lennon and McCartney had in mind? Well, Like Ong, I think I have drifted from my point with this illustration. Is it really plagiarism to reinvent the meaning of someone else’s work? (I am sure that Ms. Taymor had full rights and cooperation of McCartney or whoever else owns the rights to the Beatles” music – Michael where are you?)

** My MS spell checker is an authoritarian dictator, inhibiting my ‘free-text” writing. I am suing Bill Gates for limiting my first amendment rights by not letting me use contractions and irregular verb forms!! Am I starting to sound like a liberal arts major?