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.
Hi Elizabeth! I'm really interested in when you say "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" since, for the journal editors, is seems that O'Gorman is a bit confusing and hard to read, right?
ReplyDeleteI also found myself following along clearly with O'Gorman's text and, aside from some pretty dense theoretical discussion that bogged me down at times, I didn't really have a hard time following his argument. The "Remainder" in the first chapter was certainly unexpected as was the overall organization of both of these chapters.
I think O'Gorman makes use of JUST ENOUGH of our academic expectations and then puns the hell out of everything and uses really creative subject headings, etc. I'm interested to hear what you think about this idea. Do you think that, because O'Gorman is a master of academic writing, that THIS is what allows him to turn everything on its head? I'm wondering what this might look like with very nascent academic writers. Do you think our students would be as successful with this sort of writing style?
Hi Ti! Yes, the journal editors thought he was confusing when he was using hypertext, but maybe they would have found it less confusing had he utilized linearity more. So I still find it interesting that he didn't include his "rejected" piece maybe as an example so that we could better analyze the way he's using rhetoric through structure here.
ReplyDeleteI'm still of the mind that we need to learn the rules before we break them. Our students probably think that they would prefer to create illogical "non-sense," but actually, I think that you have to have a much more complex way of thinking to fully conceptualizing linking, hypertext, and puns for the purpose of breaking down familiarity. So I guess that O'Gorman is afforded this luxury to break the rules as an academic. Honestly, however, your brain has to be able to bend in these directions, also. I'm not sure I could fully think through the minutia to do good hypertext justice, let alone expecting ALL of my students to attempt it as well.
So my short answer: no, I do not think students would succeed. First, they would need to fully comprehend the conventions as they stand (which we teach in 101), and THEN they would need to unlearn that to create thoughtful composing choices for hypertext. I suppose it depends also, on the level of mastery we expect. Are we just experimenting, or are we asking students to really wrap their minds around these concepts?
Hey Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteYou and I had very different reactions to O'Gorman! I'll admit that the first two chapters were easier to follow than the third, where O'Gorman does not introduce his argument or start defining terms until the last three pages. Even in this section though, he admits that he is "attempting to provoke a certain degree of misunderstanding" by not giving a clear definition of these terms. Haven't made it past there yet but we'll see how it goes.
My beef with O'Gorman is not with his claim that we need to investigate and refashion our preconceived notions of language, or even with the way he presents his ideas in the book (using images and written text together to make arguments, using puncepts to organize chapters). I agree that dominant discourses within academia that imagine language as transparent or as a container for meaning are deeply flawed, even dangerous. Likewise, if I had more time to spend reading his book, I think I would have a lot of fun with how he designs his argument. Our disagreement stems mostly from the "why" and the "now what?" questions. I don't think that we need to change academic composing strategies because we need to "adjust" to hypertext. I take issue with how he makes technology the dominant agent here and suggests that human beings need to change to fit with technology rather than for us to shape technology to meet our own desires. Likewise, I disagree with him when he implies (and based on your comment above I think we agree on this) that we should encourage students to write in non-linear, otherly-logical, experimental ways. I disagree that all humanities scholarship should be written in that way because frankly, I'm a busy grad student. I want to get my reading done and my summary-response blog post written so I can move on to other projects and responsibilities. I don't want to have to read a chapter twice to understand everything.
My feelings towards O'Gorman are sort of like my feelings towards libertarians. We agree on what the problems are, but we deeply disagree on how to go about resolving them.
As usual, I feel like the "let's move toward non-linearity and hypertext" argument will only work for some students, just like writing linearly works for some students and not others. I feel like if we switched the dynamic, our organized, linear, solid "writing" students would be the ones lost, when the artsy, non-linear, slightly less organized students would be like "woo hoo chaotic learning for the win!" I think rather than choosing one mode over another, which he argues against, we should have a mixed method approach??
DeleteElizabeth - I, too, wondered about O'Gorman's choice to present his text in an alphabetic, linear fashion instead of a hypertext of some sort. When he addresses this on pages 27-8, it's like he's simply blaming "the man" for keeping him down... "Of course, you know, darling, this juxtaposition of fragments would seem more appropriate within the framework of a hypertext, but the ever-repressive Republic of Scholars would not easily submit to such an unconventional 'essay' that relies on non-linear linkage and copious graphics... so, I must satisfy myself with the measly printed rendition above... it can't possibly be effective, but it's the best I can do under these conditions..." (some words may have been added for melodramatic effect). He really comes off like a snooty sore loser, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteAs for the paintings: isn't the idea that images have the strength to stand alone (free from the constraints of written text) his whole point? You have me wondering if I've missed something important in his argument. To me, it seems like his discussion of picture theory and the long description of what it would look like had it been a hypertext was included as an example of how pictures do have power and a power that is often greater than that of the written word ("This speculative imaging, I'm sure you'll agree, is far too complex for the written word, and provides a regrettable instance of the failure of language" - 26). I think I'm going to have to go back and read this again... if you figure out what he means, please let me know!
Hi Elizabeth,
DeleteAs Jen mentions above, you and I had rather different experiences in reading O’Gorman. While I found his ideas in general intriguing, I did not find the presentation of those concepts to be particularly cogent or well organized. For instance, in his section on “Critical Theory, Digital Media Studies, and the Curriculum of the Future,” he argues that Carl Raschke’s notion of “transactional learning” can be applied to any “learning space where physical, human bodies are present" (103). He does not, however, go on to explain his rationale (in any clear terms that I can grasp) as to why he believes this.
I too found his section on puns to be both interesting and entertaining. As you say, he sees puns as functioning “almost like linguistic hyperlinks,” a concept I certainly never thought of before!
Do you think now that you have read O’Gorman and teased out a few of his ideas regarding puns (among other things) that you will pull any of his concepts into your own classrooms? If so, how and why?
~lb
I feel like it would be really fun to have a puncept assignment on some level. Like maybe, since I have a music theme, look at puns in music? Or, show students a bunch of examples of puns, and have them argue that a puncept should replace the original concept. Like argue for a new word in a dictionary! Hmm, now the wheels are turning. And Amy, what you said sounds right -- I think I overlooked something, not you! And I love the hyperbolic reinterpretation of the way he makes his point!
Delete