Okay, so here goes my attempt to try to summarize/condense/make sense of O'Gorman, after reading the first two chapters:
Chapter 1 lays out his thesis best that in order to fully embrace the new realm of hypertextual and new media composition, we are actually going to have to abandon our preconceived notions of how text, argument, and language are structured. Until we can let go of these preconceived notions, we trap ourselves into pitting one against the other, and making one type of organizational structure better than another, which is actually already happening when we think in the terms of "The Republic of Scholars." Furthermore, in preferring one mode over the other, we ignore "the remainder" (3) that provides rich landscapes of exploration. Remediation our notions of texts and arguments, which generally happen through alphabetic language is difficult to accomplish in one jump, O'Gorman breaks down the costs and benefits of introducing ourselves to hypertextual and new media composing through the use of pictures. To illustrate the different perspectives on images, he discusses Deleuze and Guattari, Barthes, Foucault, and other theoretical heavyweight champions.
On the whole, I got really fired up about the clarity and command with which he expressed his theoretical concepts and ideas. I know that he is a legitimate academic, DUH, but he seamlessly navigates these very complex ideas and makes his thread very easy for readers to follow. As a side note, I wonder about this rhetorically speaking. The first chapter in particular discusses how "The Republic of Scholars," vis-a-vis his example of submitting a hypertext manuscript to a traditional literature journal, limit his ideas by contextualizing them in terms of linear, alphabetic, traditional text. Instead of letting him run wild with his ideas, and convey non-linearity as he pleases, they tell him to ease up on the "cyber jargon" and "techno-manifesto-ish tone" (6). However, he still chooses to present his arguments in clear, logical linearity. Interesting! Because, honestly, the way he talks about these theories, shouldn't this book be three-dimensional, hella hyperlinked, and starting at pretty much any angle the readers chooses? And shouldn't he be speaking only in puns? I guess this gets back to doing what you have to do to satisfy academic standards to move the discipline forward.
But let's talk more about the puns, which was one of his assertions that I enjoyed most. When discussing the critique he received of his hypertext document, he observes:
"What is being proposed in the referee's comment is that the logic of connection employed in the hypertext essay was objectionable because it relied not on conventional, logical, sequential progression, but on what Gregory Ulmer has called 'the puncept' (1989). In punceptual writing, data is organized according to the logic of the pun, the most base and primitive species of remainder; punning is what makes the work of Marshall McLuhan, for example, both brilliant and annoying. By drawing on the pun as a means of organization, a research program can be carried into fields of inquiry which may be pertinent to the study, but otherwise ignored or excluded due to a conventional commitment to 'relevance' or specialization" (7).
I just adore his description of how puncepts are supposed to work, and I think they create a very nice example of how to tinker with and break linguistic/alphabetic associations. Rather than focusing on denotation or even connotation, which have to do with structured writing and language, puns just draw meaning from each other, almost like linguistic hyperlinks! Cool beans!!
For the most part, I grooved on all of the points he made about how to theoretically and conceptually adjust to hypertext. However, I have a bone to pick with the struggle to decide if images really can exist without words. This was also where I started to get bogged down in the theoretical concepts he was juxtaposing, so correct me if I'm wrong. BUT: what about paintings? They do not depend on words. Or do they...hmm well I guess by having a title, painter/author, and standard museum to be displayed. So I guess there is an alphabetic structure surrounding even non-alphabetic texts? Okay, now I'm confused.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Response to Issues of Aurality, Rhetoric, and Composing
I really enjoyed revisiting Selfe's "The Movement of Air" piece, and also to follow the dialogue that her article initiated. This is not my first time reading Selfe's piece, and the dialogue between Hesse and Selfe mimics some of my own internal dialogue and experience teaching a music-themed English 101 course. Allow me to explain.
Patty Ericsson first introduced me to "The Movement of Air" to help me frame the C's proposal that our panel was working on for March 2013. Once I read it I also wished that I had known about the article when I was creating justifications for my music-themed English 101 class. I was, and still am, struck by Selfe's argument that the language arts, popular culture, music, sound, speech (any/all forms of aurality) help students gain a better understanding of rhetoric, writing, persuasion, and all the issues we discuss in FYC, and that NOT exploring these modes create a limited version of writing, rhetoric, argument, etc. Way back last year, when I was taking English 501, I remember wracking my brain trying to think of a way to approach FYC in a way that my students would enjoy. In other words, an easier way to "make the medicine go down," while also increasing the odds (*crossing fingers*) that my students might learn something. I remember the epiphany like it was yesterday. Right before I was about to put my head to the pillow, inspiration hit: if I focus on a music theme, I will be able to use something with which students are familiar (music, popular culture) and blend it with "academic stuff" and something potentially relevant to their intended major (economic, social, political, gender issues). I remember running around the apartment looking for a pen and paper, and just taking as many notes about potential research topics as I could think of. The possibilities were endless! I was stoked!
And I am still fairly stoked. Although, as Lindsay pointed out about her multimodal project in class yesterday, the way an idea looks in the brain definitely shifts depending on available means, resources, student ideas, etc. Hesse's hesitation about the ways in which aurality will function in the classroom, and Selfe's exploration of how writing is still a large part of aurality, and how to define both, theoretically mirror issues I've faced. Despite my intention to include more multimodal learning opportunities, such as listening to songs and music videos, and analyzing them rhetorically, my students still conduct WRITTEN rhetorical analyses of a song. And the works cited page lists Youtube links rather than the live videos themselves. This fact always makes me a little bit sad: in my head I envision more sharing, linking, perhaps even blogging. Side note idea for future: I think next time around I will have students set up blog accounts and post videos/analyses, so others can watch and respond. I've wanted to do discussion forums on Angel, but in all honesty, Angel is still a bit yucky/confusing for me, but I am getting used to it.
As far as Selfe's positing of the question "What is the proper subject matter for composition classes?" (606) via Hesse's question "rhetoric/compositing versus writing/composing" is a question that I find relevant to what I was pondering when initially trying to figure out how to teach English 101. In terms of my themed English 101 class, I felt that the subject matter it discussed was proper, and I also felt that the means of getting to those proper subjects -- through issues about music -- was a new way to blend familiar with unfamiliar for my students. This goal seems to hold up: every semester, students come up with really innovative, creative, and invested topics. Some students are even musicians or music aficionados, and have an easier way to carve out their opinions on a research topic. That said, I am still somewhat dismayed that some awesome topics, to which I thought students might gravitate, remain untouched in favor of "how has technology changed music throughout the decades" or "is marijuana use connected to musical talent." So I guess this loops back to the bias about what kinds of topics are proper in terms of academic standards. Discussions of music can deviate into heavy, explicit content, but my students handle all topics tastefully, and I think, get a lot more out of research, analysis, and writing, because they get to start with something familiar.
Patty Ericsson first introduced me to "The Movement of Air" to help me frame the C's proposal that our panel was working on for March 2013. Once I read it I also wished that I had known about the article when I was creating justifications for my music-themed English 101 class. I was, and still am, struck by Selfe's argument that the language arts, popular culture, music, sound, speech (any/all forms of aurality) help students gain a better understanding of rhetoric, writing, persuasion, and all the issues we discuss in FYC, and that NOT exploring these modes create a limited version of writing, rhetoric, argument, etc. Way back last year, when I was taking English 501, I remember wracking my brain trying to think of a way to approach FYC in a way that my students would enjoy. In other words, an easier way to "make the medicine go down," while also increasing the odds (*crossing fingers*) that my students might learn something. I remember the epiphany like it was yesterday. Right before I was about to put my head to the pillow, inspiration hit: if I focus on a music theme, I will be able to use something with which students are familiar (music, popular culture) and blend it with "academic stuff" and something potentially relevant to their intended major (economic, social, political, gender issues). I remember running around the apartment looking for a pen and paper, and just taking as many notes about potential research topics as I could think of. The possibilities were endless! I was stoked!
And I am still fairly stoked. Although, as Lindsay pointed out about her multimodal project in class yesterday, the way an idea looks in the brain definitely shifts depending on available means, resources, student ideas, etc. Hesse's hesitation about the ways in which aurality will function in the classroom, and Selfe's exploration of how writing is still a large part of aurality, and how to define both, theoretically mirror issues I've faced. Despite my intention to include more multimodal learning opportunities, such as listening to songs and music videos, and analyzing them rhetorically, my students still conduct WRITTEN rhetorical analyses of a song. And the works cited page lists Youtube links rather than the live videos themselves. This fact always makes me a little bit sad: in my head I envision more sharing, linking, perhaps even blogging. Side note idea for future: I think next time around I will have students set up blog accounts and post videos/analyses, so others can watch and respond. I've wanted to do discussion forums on Angel, but in all honesty, Angel is still a bit yucky/confusing for me, but I am getting used to it.
As far as Selfe's positing of the question "What is the proper subject matter for composition classes?" (606) via Hesse's question "rhetoric/compositing versus writing/composing" is a question that I find relevant to what I was pondering when initially trying to figure out how to teach English 101. In terms of my themed English 101 class, I felt that the subject matter it discussed was proper, and I also felt that the means of getting to those proper subjects -- through issues about music -- was a new way to blend familiar with unfamiliar for my students. This goal seems to hold up: every semester, students come up with really innovative, creative, and invested topics. Some students are even musicians or music aficionados, and have an easier way to carve out their opinions on a research topic. That said, I am still somewhat dismayed that some awesome topics, to which I thought students might gravitate, remain untouched in favor of "how has technology changed music throughout the decades" or "is marijuana use connected to musical talent." So I guess this loops back to the bias about what kinds of topics are proper in terms of academic standards. Discussions of music can deviate into heavy, explicit content, but my students handle all topics tastefully, and I think, get a lot more out of research, analysis, and writing, because they get to start with something familiar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)