Blog Me

Light a Candle to This

2010-03-24T02:30:00.000-07:00

So remediation doesn't always mean technologies need to be better...just utilized differently. A little light, some sand, music, and awesome artistry. Enjoy.

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1105044239089&ref=nf

Pedagogies That Offer Presence

2010-03-22T11:59:00.000-07:00

Especially today, “The hypermediated self is a network of affiliations, which are constantly shifting. It is the self of newsgroups and email, which may sometimes threaten to overwhelm the user by their sheer numbers but do not exactly immerse her” (Remediation 231). Though the sense of remediation and hypermediation of self has remediated over the past decade—especially with the influence of Web 2.0—its essence remains: Instructors and students alike continue to realize new selves in the many ways remediation in technology offers outlets for personal remediation. The phrase “discovering oneself” has been remediated to hold a more sophisticated, faster evolving meaning. The terms World Wide Web and Internet have always suggested a connectedness capable of spreading to every wired corner of the world. By connecting servers and computers we are also connecting our still-remediating selves. As educators in this connected digital age we must offer students the chance to remediate identity via classroom pedagogy; with every intention that this identity will filter its way into life outside the classroom. Though it is not our duty to hold a student’s hand until he realizes who he is, we should accept the responsibility that through our pedagogies that pay attention to technology we have an opportunity to afford him a newfound, remediated sense of presence.

Perfect Circles. Technology = chalk / board

2010-03-18T19:49:00.000-07:00

A Threesome at Disney

2010-03-16T23:56:00.000-07:00

Disney’s got it all figured out: Disney succeeds in theme parks based on fantasy that remediates reality, yet manages to create a whole new kind of reality founded in nostalgia and “transparency and authenticity of emotion.” Bolter and Grusin explain that Disney success is largely due to the ultimate triple threat: “Disney television, film, and theme parks each make their own promise of authenticity of experience even as they validated the promise of the other two” (172). This threesome works collectively to ensure Disney’s never-ending place in this world. I’ve never personally been a huge Disney fan but I do like a few of their movies (UP made it on my all-time top 20 movie list), and going to the theme park usually culminates in a negative and crowded experience. Still, I went to Disneyland 4 times over the past 12 months (note: every time was free) and I’ll probably take my kids there too. I’m not exactly sure what it is but Disney’s spell is strong, and if it doesn’t have you it’s got someone dear to you. Muhaha.

Not so proud of these non-skills...

2010-03-09T18:38:00.000-08:00

A couple years ago I had a brilliant idea to become a semi-pro poker player to help pay for school. So I invested some money in my skills and ventured into the online gaming world. So maybe the idea wasn’t all that brilliant and my poker skills aren’t really skills at all. It took me only a couple weeks to be down $500 and six months to win it back. After I got most of it back I cashed out, left the gaming world, and never looked back. Though the real money aspect of online gaming isn’t appealing to me anymore (quite scary actually), I sometimes get an itch for the gameplay. Therefore, since May 2008 I’ve been a member of Facebook’s Texas Hold ‘Em Poker application. The money is fake and the games aren’t always exciting, but it does the job of giving me my poker/gaming/competition fix. I play a few times a week, usually to relax a bit or while I’m watching a game or even reading a book, but to be honest I don’t even know if I really enjoy it. Weird. I guess we all have the thing(s) we do to help us through the daily grind.

P.S. There’s something depressing about being a multi-millionaire on Facebook poker. =/

Playing Games, Escaping Society?

2010-03-08T04:37:00.000-08:00

Bolter and Grusin call technological innovations (specifically games) "new" and "authentic" experiences that also "divorce us from the physical world" (103). Gaming has become escapism at the most intense level. People spend hours, days, entire weekends immersed in a game world, communicating only with others participating in a similar escape from the physical world. Gamer tags and user names replace actual identity while accomplishing missions and collecting items take the place of real-life experiences. Looking at how "connected" today's online gaming is it's sadly ironic to see how much disconnection it can cause when not practiced responsibly. Gaming Addiction Rehabilitation Centers: Anyone want to invest?

We got to teach some gamers it's okay to take breaks:
http://www.kensavage.com/archives/another-kid-dies-from-playing-online-game/

STARCRAFT

2010-03-03T22:54:00.000-08:00

The last game I ever got completely "immersed" in was StarCraft. I first learned to play it in 1998 or so and got fairly good at it rather quickly (probably had something to do with playing it through the night, stopping only when the sun would rudely interrupt). I guess this is sort of an admission: friends used to come over to my place carrying their PC towers and monitors...20 minutes later we'd have a LAN (Local Area Network) of mass intergalactic war.The game was simple enough: Choose one of three clans, Terran (human), Zerg (insect-ish), or Protos (advanced alien), build up your base, develop an army and optional perimeter defense, do some recon with scouts to locate enemy base(s), and the rest is where things get ugly...

You take everything you got and annihilate your enemies before they get a jump on you. This is when the multitasking goes to a whole new level. Commanding a full-blown attack while continuing to build forces at (by this time) your multiple base locations. After you kill your enemies (including helpless workers) and destroy all their structures you can proclaim "VICTORY!" and then start all over again.

And then there's Battle.net, which at this time is strictly an online network for StarCraft games that connects and ranks players on a worldwide scale. This adds another 6 months to my gaming addiction.

Get to know your computer...

2010-03-01T02:30:00.000-08:00

With all the Oscar buzz lately I think this directorial masterpiece is more than appropriate. Mike the Monitor, Mickey the Mouse, Kylie the Keyboard, and Charlie the CPU introduce 1st grader Omar to computer parts and some valuable computer etiquette. "Don't bang the mouse!"

Just the thought of a 1st grader working on his/her functional literacy gives me the chills. But then I remember my 4-year-old niece and nephew with their video games and electonic toy laptops (with full-functioning keyboards I might add) and realize 1st grade isn't all that crazy after all (sigh).

REmediation, REthinking, REdoing, REeverything

2010-03-01T02:17:00.000-08:00

“The world we have created is a product of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.” - Ghandi

Bolter and Grusin remind us, “The word remediation is used by educators as a euphemism for the task of bringing lagging students up to an expected level of performance…” (59). Oddly enough the same word, but pronounced REmediation, has found its way back into the classroom, yet the remedial ones now are the instructors struggling to keep up with evolving classrooms and changing students. Implications of Bolter and Grusin’s remediation in the teaching of writing begin with instructors and the pedagogies developed for classrooms. As instructors we must realize the nature of remediation in the classroom; that remediation of technologies and implementation of said technologies into the classroom changes the teaching environment altogether, beckoning a need for remediation within pedagogies. As technological innovations represent different, revised, and in most cases improved versions of predecessors the pedagogies of tomorrow must represent teaching methods along comparable lines of remediation. We should use the new forms of access, communication, and writing made available to use via advances in technology to every advantage we can conceive within our classrooms. Pedagogies have always evolved, changing to best suit the needs of specific courses and student populations; but in today’s digital age we have an opportunity to redevelop pedagogical methods from the inside out—not just showing change but guiding remediation in education that moves with (rather than struggles to keep up with) remediation in technology.

Remediation, check.

2010-02-22T03:43:00.000-08:00

It’s amazing the difference a decade in the digital age makes. According to Bolter and Grusin, “many cyberenthusiasts assert that the web and computer applications are creating a digital culture that will revolutionize commerce, education, and social relationships” (60). Just over ten years later we can go down the list and check each one off.

Revolutionized commerce, check. I spent my entire paycheck on a variety of things without ever touching my wallet. With my last paycheck spent I’m left wondering how to pay for next quarter’s fees—which I will eventually pay online. Revolutionized education, check. What you are reading now is an assignment for a class on computers and literacy. Yes, computers and literacy. Revolutionized social relationships, check. I now have 277 friends on Facebook. I never realized I even knew 277 people and now I’m friends with them, well kind of.

The list can go on, remediation has always been reforming reality and the way we live. Society changes, cultures change, and remediation sits at the core of much of that change. Remediation reforms, no doubt. But does such reform improve life—who knows?

Taking a photo, uploading it, and showing off some Functional Literacy

2010-02-17T16:37:00.000-08:00

Opening the classroom to everything we can aim our camera phones at...

Great presentation! Thanks!

Bend with it, move with it, flex with it.

2010-02-13T01:51:00.000-08:00

We talk about what a wonderful world it will be when our students fit the multiliterate bill—students as functional users, critical questioners, and rhetorical producers of technology. Technological literacy will take on a whole new meaning, one that more accurately reflects the users who participate in shaping its very existence. But wait. I think it all sounds simpler than it really is. We, as future educators, may often overlook our responsibility in all of this. If we are going to push students to Selber’s multiliteracy then, we too, must qualify accordingly. This is not a responsibility we should take lightly. How do we get students from functional and critical abilities to the rhetorical producing abilities that begin making real difference? According to Selber, “The key for teachers is to be flexible in their perspectives on literacy” (182). Maybe that’s where we should start. We have to be open to adjusting our ideas, beliefs, and set-in-stone perspectives of technology and its ties to culture, community, and education.

PONG ME

2010-02-10T00:08:00.001-08:00

By the time I was first introduced to video games Atari’s Java-based game PONG was already over a decade old. It was the simplest of games but fun on so many levels—bringing the competitive nature out of anyone. I remember playing it for hours at a time at my cousin’s house. Looking at it now it’s absolutely comical, but 25 years ago it was still going strong as video game/graphics innovation (well, at least to me). I was amazed at the gameplay, the seamless joystick reaction, and the blips and bloops that rang competition in all its analog glory. PONG stopped time long enough for players to get their immersion fix. Today, we still get our fix. Today, we have new kinds of “Pongs.” Okay, maybe it was just a lazy person’s table tennis, but it was cool. Long live cool things—past, present, future.

Get a mini PONG fix here:

http://www.xnet.se/javaTest/jPong/jPong.html/

Any Kind of "Triple-Threat" is Sweet in My Book

2010-02-08T12:17:00.000-08:00

It’s obvious that technologies change faster than we can keep up with. It seems like as soon as we get used to one type of technology something new to learn pops up. Some of us have the motivation to move on to the latest innovation, but most of us (I’m assuming) are so glad we mastered the last thing we’re not in any hurry to let it go and start over. However, Selber’s take on the triple-threat multiliterate student is interesting; from functional to critical to rhetorical—user, questioner, producer. When looked at as a package deal I realize the importance of keeping up with technology, in the least at a basic level. Keeping students’ functional literacy up-to-date can enhance their ability to look at that same literacy with a critical lens and, in turn, have more to offer in a rhetorical sense. I would venture to say that as educators and future educators it may be just as important, if not more, for us to stay on top of things as well. Though it’s understandable that not all of us are geared to be technically savvy, it may well be our duty as educators in this digital age for us to be technically aware. Who knows, maybe a raised level of awareness will lead to levels of functionality we normally assume out-of-reach? After all, how can we expect our students to be multiliterate if we are not already?

Munday is Funday

2010-02-01T22:31:00.000-08:00

I used to limit my use of technology to very low levels of functionality. But tonight, tooonight, I use technology for the heck of it—just for fun. I call it FUNctional Taeknology. Recognize.

(I also wanted to practice getting these videos properly embedded).

Today's Old News: Paying Attention

2010-01-31T23:54:00.000-08:00

According to Mark Weiser, “The most profound technologies are those that disappear,” that “weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it” (qtd. in Selber, 159-160). Selber adds, “Technologies may be the most profound when they disappear. But when this happens, they also develop the most potential for being dangerous” (160).

Technology and its corresponding literacy are already deeply woven into our way of life. We see its hemlines at work, school, home, and even in the twenty-first century workings of our democratic government. As more of us go online it instantly creates a division with those who are still offline. We get so used to our new access that we easily forget those without it. The internet and its uses are ingrained in our lifestyles, but what of them who never had it?

Does your child have NimbleFingers?

2010-01-28T17:47:00.000-08:00

I heard from a friend of mine teaching in the Walnut School District that many elementary classrooms are teaching typing skills (sometimes in place of handwriting skills). Hearing this impressed me and made me cringe a little at the same time. I recently googled “teaching typing to elementary students” and came across an online typing program called, “NimbleFingers.” It can be used by adults but seems mostly geared towards teaching typing skills to kids. Here’s a link to the Teacher’s Typing Manual that goes with the program:

http://www.nimblefingers.com/teachers.htm

The objectives state, “Keyboarding is an excellent way to introduce students to computer literacy and to improve one’s ability to interact with the computer. Once you know how to type, you do not have to search for the key to press and you can concentrate on the application at hand.” I never really consider using my computer as “interacting” with it and these objectives definitely push kiddos to be as productive as possible.

I’m wondering if I’d mind it if my child did not know how to write in cursive? I feel torn.

Contemplating Selfe-Defense...

2010-01-25T01:49:00.000-08:00

Before class on Wednesday a few of us were talking about the Selfe reading and agreed that much of what she has to say is valid, that paying attention to technology is of utter importance, but also agreed that the book seems a bit outdated. Of course, in Selfe’s defense, she published the book in 1999, and paraphrasing a classmate, she was definitely thinking ahead of her day, saying things few others were even considering at the time. But in doing further research on my technology-driven thesis topic, I’ve come to realize that it makes sense that this type of writing becomes obsolete along with the technologies in mention. We upgrade our computers, phones, i-pods, you name it. We buy the latest thing, knowing well that a better version is just around the corner, waiting to make us yesterday’s news. Still, this realization brings me back to 1999—lending to exactly why Selfe insists that we need to pay attention. The rate at which technology is moving seems almost immeasurable. The exponential growth of technology means that the “critical technological literacy” that Selfe calls for must try to keep pace. We must continue to pay attention, keep track, and update (or “upgrade”) our writing as well.

Lighting candles around my computer, ready for another night of worship.

2010-01-25T01:24:00.000-08:00

(Found a comment addressed to me lost in cyber-blog-world). =]
Is computer technology now taken for granted as an inborn knowledge and need in our society? Is it so accepted that we no longer question the validity of technology as it affects our lives?

I would say that “taken for granted” is an understatement. We seem to be so set on technology as messiah that we stare blankly up at the pedestal we’ve put it on and wait for the next wonderful thing it’s going to do for us. I must admit that I am as guilty as can be. I too, am rather smitten by all the (technological) things I can do now, compared to the childhood I remember growing up in—playing hide-n-seek with neighborhood kids, jumping off roofs, playing hopscotch with rocks, etc. Today, I can create Sim-worlds, go to virtual pool parties, and submit homework without ever leaving the comfort of my desk chair. Absolutely amazing. However, I do think technology is so “inborn” for some of us that we overlook all those we’re leaving behind. It’s easy for us to get lost in our cyber existence, not noticing those apart from it. After all, they’re not there for us to notice in the first place. It has come to the point where we indulge in the good things so much we neglect the negative ways it’s affecting our lives. According to Selfe, our tendency to believe in something and accept it a certain way has “powerful masking effects.” We see technology as we want to see it, and today, a concerning majority of the world seems to see its universal acceptance as a wonderful thing.

rEVOLUTION or bust: Changes that move us in some kind of direction

2010-01-16T17:32:00.000-08:00

History is packed with one revolution after another. Revolution for freedom, rights, votes, equality, you name it. Revolting is what we do as humans. We recognize an injustice and fight until we attain a satisfying result. Are we ever satisfied with a particular result, I’m not sure? I guess it’s a matter of perspective. Today, new kinds of revolution are changing everything we know about literacy, communication, and even the world we live in. As the rich get richer and our computers get smarter we must recognize that these revolutions, whether negative or positive, are part of our evolution as a thinking being. These revolutions are significations of our move into something beyond what we know. This move is and will continue to affect our composition classrooms and standing aside is not an option. But whether the right answer is to move with or against the grain is still left to be seen. Unfortunately, more often than not, our only option is to move with these revolutions—accepting this inevitable evolution in thought, society, and communication.

Crackberry Lovin: Keeping up with a world that refuses to wait.

2010-01-12T23:33:00.000-08:00

I switched from my old-school flip to the hot new Blackberry because it’s what’s in and necessary to keep my swag going in today’s technologically advancing world. Now I can check who’s hollering at my email while keeping up with the latest ENGMA post. I can SMS, MMS, BBM, IM, and check my Facebook wall for shout-outs all in the same crackberry sesh. As soon as something comes to mind I could tweet it and the Twitter world will instantly be updated on my personal state of mind, thinking on the same page. i cn write 2 u like ths n u hve no prob readin it. We can LOL and ROTFL, talking about what’s hot, what’s real, what’s good, and what’s not. I can text with you today and tell another friend tomorrow that I spoke with you yesterday when, actually, I haven’t spoken to you in over a year. LMAO.

I was teaching my mom to check her voicemail (for the 3rd time) and realized afterward: Today is not like yesterday. Shoot, it doesn’t even sound anything remotely similar. The world seems to be getting smaller and bigger simultaneously.

(BTW, real reason I finally upgraded is because I dropped my old phone into a restroom urinal).

Testing, testing, 1,2,3...

2010-01-11T23:33:00.001-08:00

Test blog for 658. =]

2009-03-24T03:28:00.000-07:00

ahh, embedded videos. i just became even more cyborg. thanks.

Welcome to your ville.

2009-03-24T03:24:00.000-07:00

YoVille is a place where you can create your own world, have your own house, your own pet, and a job that’s willing to pay you generously in 6-hour increments. Sure it’s virtual, but it’s yours.

You enter your world with the option to create how you look—long hair, short hair, leather boots, Speedo—whatever your pleasure. The color of your skin is an option as well. In most cases I would assume that most choose a tone that closely resembles their real life flesh. Yet, others may not—maybe curious to see how it feels to live in someone else’s skin. Your body is finished and it’s time to go to work, need to make some money to put some furniture in the bachelor pad. On the way to the Widget Factory you’re welcomed with invitations to play a game of “Rock, Paper, Scissors” or “Tic-Tac-Toe.” You gladly accept, collect your coins in victory, and make your way through the crowd gathered around the timecard machine.

Three seconds later you’re finished with work. You stretch your arms and make your way back home. Standing next to your YoVille-issued sofa you stare at the windowless walls, dreaming of what your place will look like someday. Wood floors, Asian wall-hangings, big screen TV, and maybe even some nice windows that come with those winter snowflakes inside—there’s no limit to the possibilities of your world. You realize that someday you may save enough money to move out of your humble place and move up in the world. Buy one of those Cape Cod or Gothic homes you saw brochures for at the Realtor Office. Shoot, dream big or not at all—Contemporary home here you come. But wait, those cost $40 in YoCash. The factory only pays in coins so someday, when the time is right, and you meet the right person to share it with, you’ll have to pull out the credit card and claim your dream. After all, the exchange rate is at $5 YoCash to $1 U.S.—doesn’t get much better than that.

You are immersed in what you have earned and even more immersed in what you yearn to have. You work hard, showing up to collect a paycheck every chance you get (whenever you have access to a computer), and with every new purchase your lips stretch in satisfaction. There is no one to tell you what to do or who you are. You have the greatest life in the world and for some reason feeling virtually good has something real to do with actually feeling good. Nice. Time to turn in for now, six hours until my next shift…I mean your shift.

Being cyborg and the language I speak...

2009-03-16T14:04:00.000-07:00

What is (a) cyborg rhetoric? As the good cyborg-in-training I am I turned to some virtual help to get me started on answering this question. According to Dictionary.com and its virtual reference of Random House Dictionary (2009), a “cyborg” is “a person whose physiological functioning is aided by or dependent upon a mechanical or electronic device.” I’m certain that this definition refers to a person whose life depends on some kind of machine (e.g. a pacemaker, hearing aid, etc.) or something artificial like my eyeglasses, but I would argue that this definition, especially today, reaches further into our lives. I would have to be the first to admit that much of my well-being, or livelihood, relies heavily on something electronic or some artificial intelligence. My life would be unrecognizably different without my home computer, my microwave oven, and my cell phone. Even the little navigation device that often sends me in circles has changed my life—for the better, I don’t know yet? In this way, I am already a cyborg. Maybe one that clings to remnants of what it was like before, but still helplessly drawn to the technological offerings of what being cyborg is about. If I am cyborg, then rhetoric is the way I communicate, or try to communicate. Not just the words coming out of my mouth, but the ways I communicate as a cyborg. My rhetoric is the computerization of this journal entry turned “blog.” My rhetoric is the response paper I printed out an hour ago. My rhetoric is the “Good morning” text I sent earlier today. My rhetoric is the final paper and presentation I will turn in at the end of the quarter. If I am the cyborg I think I am, then my rhetoric is everything that persuades others and myself that I exist, that I have evolved—no, that I am evolving still.

Cyborg Mind, Body...and Spirit?

2009-03-05T01:22:00.000-08:00

There has to be more than just mind manifested through brain, supported by flesh and bone wrapped neatly in multi-colored skin. Sure, as a package, this can seem pretty complex and more than enough to explain the most abstract questions about human life. However, I think human existence goes beyond the conscious mind and the earthly body that gives it life. I think there has to be (at least) a third aspect to the mind/body relationship—a bonding aspect that acts as mediator, communicator, or even translator if you will. As Hayles reports that the mind is nothing without the body (246), I would have to argue that the mind and body are nothing without the human spirit embodied within their corporation. Not to say that we necessarily have a soul to be saved or a spirit that needs enlightening, but just that life is definitely more than just flesh, bones, and functioning thoughts created by a conscious mind. When I am affected by intense emotion, whether it’s positive or negative, it does more than just affect my psyche; instead, it does something on a deeper level. Sorry to say, but those who attribute love, hate, and utter joy to something strictly scientific may be suppressing the idea that a big part of being human may possibly be spiritual.

It seems that this may go beyond the cyborg. It seems that this is what will always differentiate us from the cyborg within. It seems that though the cyborg utilizes our rhetoric and wields technology as its sword of advancement, there is a part of us that is impenetrable, a part of us unseen, unexplainable, but rather felt, believed, known. The cyborg has attached itself to our body, immersed itself in our minds, but cannot affect the spirit it will never understand.

Acting how I wanna be.

2009-03-04T03:41:00.000-08:00

According to Hayles, “Embodiment is akin to articulation in that it is inherently perfomative, subject to individual enactments, and therefore always to some extent improvisational” (197). If in fact embodiment is action rather than a state of being, then I am actively trying to be who I am each and every day. Does this mean that I actually don’t know my family, friends, classmates for who they really are? And that the people I know are just active representations of the kind of people they hope to be? Am I this person because of a conscious decision I make each morning when I get out of bed? If so, then what of us who feel uncomfortable with who we are? Why is it that we sometimes choose to be someone we’re not that too fond of ourselves? Obviously, this is a question that is best answered with more questions. I feel like I am so many different people at different corners of my life. A brother and a son at one corner, then a friend and classmate at another—not to mention the other corners in between and along the way. Am I one of these more than the others? Or am I all of them presented in separate packages? If embodiment is an action then I am afraid that I am none of them—they’re all just how I “act” in certain aspects of my life. My apologies for all the questions, but the questions seem to be the clearest thing to me—if in fact we act rather than be.

Immersed in The Matrix...again.

2009-02-23T02:10:00.001-08:00

Watching The Matrix again had me immersed in it in entirely new ways. I’m one who tends to be rather nitpicky with details in a movie—the one who catches inconsistencies or scenes (and lines) that contradict each other. I’m usually the viewer who catches editing mistakes like a cup appearing and disappearing throughout a scene or dry clothes on a person who just got wet. What got me immersed this time through the movie were the details I hadn’t noticed before. Well, I may have seen/heard them but never realized how each affect the movie until after knowing what happens in the plot. Another way I was immersed was by reading the movie as opposed to just watching it. I played the movie with captions running and found it to be a whole new experience altogether. I’m not sure what kind of immersion this would fall into—maybe textual immersion? Whatever it might be called, it kept me reading/watching even though I knew what was coming and practically what was going to be said. I wonder what it would be like if we all came with captions running over our heads or on our chests…?

Cyborg Presence...

2009-02-18T02:21:00.000-08:00

For Aristotle rhetoric was the art of persuasion and for Burke, identification—at the core values of cyborg rhetoric is a connection to “presence.” The cyborg is here, no, wait, the cyborg is us. It has used rhetoric to become a part of us, exist within us, and make itself known through us. The cyborg in me is speaking now, trying to make sense of itself through a language never meant for it. The cyborg has figured us out and is now trying to reveal itself in any way possible. For the cyborg, rhetoric is a tool for coming into existence. The machine in us has adopted (and is evolving) the language of the human to establish a presence, become an entity in itself—not just a technological advancement, but an advancement as a “living” being. Just as we attempt to make language our own, so too is the cyborg making rhetoric its own, utilizing it to manifest its identity. We are the cyborg whose identity is unclear to even ourselves; therefore, our only hope is to make our presence known. Through cyborg rhetoric we have a voice, a means for our evolved selves to be noticed, heard, and wondered upon. The cyborg is post-gender, post-race, post-social class, and post-human and cyborg rhetoric, in its development, is how we were introduced and presently the only way we can talk about (or attempt to make any sense of) it. Cyborg rhetoric reveals that we are no longer where we were, but at the same time, not quite where we are headed. The cyborg has acquainted itself with us through rhetoric and as abstract and unclear much of this relationship is, one thing is absolutely clear—the cyborg is here and it is a part of us.

I'm smart, witty, and beautiful. I'm smart, witty, and beautiful. I'm smart, witty, and beautiful...

2009-02-16T10:54:00.000-08:00

For some reason who we are in this world is never quite enough. We search for ourselves in books, movies, and relationships. The person in the mirror is not ourselves but a reflection of someone who needs to be better—more handsome, more beautiful, smarter. We create a new sense of self through social networks that offer us a reality that is not “real” but offers a satisfaction that effects us in virtually real ways. The term virtual used to represent presentations of real—things not quite real but “virtually” real. Today, with the emotion, attachment, and self-creation rooted within our virtual selves, virtuality has become reality.

I'm here, virtually

2009-02-08T19:10:00.001-08:00

I am a graduate student because I think so and my university status tells me so, but I am virtually a writer because that is the direction my goals and desires are taking me. The mere act of writing itself may not be enough to establish myself a writer, but I am virtually every bit the writer that I can hope/strive to become. Virtual is to be and not quite be simultaneously. A thing can only be something when coupled with what it is not—not only the signifier and signified, but the unsignified as well. (Kind of like how this entry makes sense and doesn’t make sense). To be virtual is to be what your mind, imagination, and understanding will allow (or desire) you to be.

From cyborgs to the virtual that makes or breaks reality

2009-02-08T19:07:00.000-08:00

Over the winter break I caught myself wondering what “Cyborg Rhetorics” was going to entail. Now that I’ve been in the class for a short period I find myself in a different kind of limbo. It turns out that even the scholars in the field are somewhat undecided in their positions within the realm of cyborg selves and virtual reality. From Harraway to Ryan—and the notable works of thinkers like Baudrillard and Levy—it turns out that this field of thought (and study) is full of questions and seemingly opposing views. Still, I would I would go as far to say that these views are not opposing each other at all, but actually working together to help explain something that may be too abstract to explain (for now). Without offering a concrete explanation, but rather two vastly differing ones, Ryan has made clear that the world of virtual reality is one that we are still trying to make sense of. This feeling is one that is familiar throughout Haraway’s text as well. From cyborgs to the virtual that makes or breaks reality, one cannot deny that this is part of who we are today. Whether one chooses to accept it or not, it’s here to stay, growing more a part of our lives with every day.

Reinventing who we are, again….and again. ISMLL 312-30

2008-12-03T04:24:00.001-08:00

The most significant thing I’ve learned from my first quarter as a graduate student in English Composition has less to do with perspectives on library research and contemporary composition theory and everything to do with the fact that I really had no clue what I was getting into. I thought an M.A. in Composition was going to make be a “better” writer (whatever that means) and help me stake a claim in the professional world of journalism and/or noveling. I imagined myself eating at different restaurants throughout the world and reporting my critiques in a renowned food magazine of sorts. I imagined practice in composition was going to help me compose a book about my life worth selling on bookstore (and even supermarket) shelves. Who knew that composition practice comes with composition studies and that even composition itself often questions its own place, not only within the academy, but within society as well? For Bruce Robbins, in his epilogue to the third edition of Introduction to Scholarship in Modern Languages and Literatures, the English scholar has a place in society—as he makes his position obvious with the title of his essay, “The Scholar in Society.” However, he touches on a variety of topics regarding this “place” in society that leaves much to question. For example, is it the job of the scholar to change the world or interpret it? Is the “crisis of the humanities” a temporary crisis or a “structural weakness” within the humanities itself? And, How much should a teacher’s job matter to her/himself and in what ways is (or isn’t) that job connected to culture and society? All in all, Robbins asserts that in all its correlation and contradiction, we must embrace our field of work and recognize our responsibility to society, while using this challenge to “reinvent [ourselves] for decades to come” (327).

I suppose reinventing ourselves is not only the best option, but quite possibly the only one that makes sense. Recent composition theory reveals that composition as an academic discipline is loosely grounded in the foundations of the academy. In fact, many universities around the nation are cutting budgets and victimizing composition departments for wrongs that can hardly be attributed to the departments themselves. Truth is, composition studies on a whole is in question and university administrators are freaking out. Sadly, if only such administrators took the time to look a little harder they may have come to the realization that:

Composition is an academic discipline in the making. Composition is always up for debate, topic for discussion, and keyword in controversial conversations. Composition is the study of language and meaning, but it is also that very language and meaning being studied. Composition is a field that is open to be defined and if we, as its practitioners, accept the numerous calls to action, it’s up to us to help define or even re-define it. Composition is best understood when its definition is peppered with uncertainties—that is the nature of the discipline and understanding this is the first step in harnessing its place for the future.

Whatever concentration within the English field you are a part of and whether or not you think your duty is to change or interpret the world, one certainty is that you have a significant place in society. But you didn’t need me or Robbins to tell you that did you? Because it’s you who’s reinventing that place each time you research, write, and teach. Let’s keep it going, because for starters, it motivates rookies like me to want to jump in the mix with you.

Connecting Dots, Crossing Boundaries, Reaching Out. ISMLL 225-44

2008-12-03T02:51:00.001-08:00

Anne Donadey and Francoise Lionnet describe their essay, “Feminisms, Genders, Sexualities,” as “a still photograph of objects in motion, some of which may be outside the frame entirely” (226), to assure that their work is in no way a comprehensive representation of the evolution within the field. In fact, the conversations on feminism, genders, and sexualities are so vast and on the move that any attempt at encapsulating it would be feeble at best. Therefore, Donadey and Lionnet humbly offer a revealing survey of some of the most pertinent scholarship out there, unveiling the connection of feminist study to various other fields of interest including race, post-colonialism, globalization, and even disability studies (to name a few). They offer a brief overview of “queer theory” and how it has come to represent the collective goals of LGBTQ, while acknowledging the load the term “queer” has taken upon its back. Further, Donadey and Lionnet report that with all its connections and disconnections the different angles of feminist studies have found refuge within the writing of memoirs. They describe the memoir genre as “a genre [that] brings together the historical and the personal, history and autobiography” and since “Feminist criticism always focuse[s] on the importance of theorizing from experience” (237) maybe there is an important correlation being made here.

In my opinion the memoir is a wonderful and potentially effective tool to be used within the layers of feminist studies. Now when I say feminist studies, I mean feminist studies in its vast connections (as reported in the essay) to other fields and sub-fields throughout academia as well as society. In the last couple decades the memoir has made a place for itself within the publication industry and has dug its roots into the soil of academic scholarship as well. Feminist studies is definitely a collective unit, but I would venture to say that it’s the individual experience of those within its sphere that drive what it has become and will become in the near and far future. The memoir is a way for both scholars and the general public to raise awareness on topics that for many years have been deemed taboo in most circles. With the proper application, both academic scholarship and memoir can be coupled to take the conversations both in and outside the lines of feminist studies to new heights. Although the memoir itself may not be enough to keep things in a positive direction, joined with the research, study, and survey within the academic aspect, the already far-reaching field of feminist studies will be able to stretch its arms even further.

Globalize me…I think. ISMLL 260-93

2008-11-25T22:04:00.000-08:00

Literary history has shown that displacement, detachment, and disconnections have a way of creating a poetic in writing that holds its own place in literary studies. Susan Stanford Friedman focuses on the displacement and placement throughout literature in her essay, “Migrations, Diasporas, and Borders.” Her essay is a “preliminary mapping” of literary scholarship on migration, diasporas, and borders rooted in her own foundations in cultural theory. According to Friedman the recent (last few decades) interest in the mobility of peoples and the writing they create—the development of migrations, diasporas, and borders as a field—can be attributed and described by one word, globalization. Although the meaning and cultural significance of this new era of globalization is often debated, Friedman in fact claims, “globalization is not a new phenomenon, although the naming of it is new, indicating heightened awareness of what has been there all along” (261). So the act of globalization has been around all along, we just got around to naming it when its existence became more apparent on a larger scale. Throughout history peoples, cultures, and societies have crossed paths, making exchanges in language, custom, and tradition whether it was deliberate or not. Today, we can attribute nearly all of globalization to the rise in technology, and as Friedman assures, “The Internet has transformed the diasporic experience of many through the formation of virtual communities connecting the far-flung with those still back home” (261-62). Friedman continues that literary scholarship has moved toward a transnational perspective and that this new globalization is changing comparative literature through the development and effects of Geography, Anthropology, and the ever-evolving identities of writers and storytellers on the move. That although migration, diasporas, and borders hold their significance apart from each other, they are closely tied in their collective connections to culture, identity, language, and the memory and desire creating the history and future of literature on a world-scale.

The globalization Friedman speaks of is apparent in daily life. From the comfort of home I am able to reach into the depths of other culture—read about traditions, learn of language, and book a flight to just about anywhere I desire to go. Although sitting here in front of the computer lacks in the purity of being physically in a different place, it still represents a virtual reality that we, as a society, are exponentially getting accustomed to. As the mailbox at the driveway has stooped to an all-time low of being the holder of only coupon books and junk mail my inbox overflows with emails and the latest news in national affairs, world issues, and even sports updates. I have a good feeling (as I’m sure others do as well) that this is nowhere near the pinnacle of our technological endeavor. We are still at the threshold of a mountain of possibility and the advancement we face will likely bring us even closer together as a globalized world. Ironically, the virtual reality of cyberspace brings us together by keeping us apart, and I only hope that at the top of this mountain is a long plain of progressive existence and not a downward slope into an unknown abyss.

Identifying Identities ISMLL 245-59

2008-11-25T18:47:00.001-08:00

I am Asian-American whether I like it or not—whether I signed up for it or not. Everything I do, everything I say, and everything I don’t do will be accompanied by the stereotypes and assumptions that come with my racial/ethnic (even social) identity. The issue of race has always had a big place in literary studies and has played a pivotal role in taking literature to where it is today. In his essay, “Race and Ethnicity,” Kenneth W. Warren seeks “to account for and critique the appeal of race to literary critics over the past two decades and to suggest reasons we ought to modify or resist aspects of that appeal” (245). His essay reports on the many scholars throughout recent literary history who reject the notion that race is an aspect by which we should (and could) categorize ourselves. Warren accounts for the writing and work of numerous philosophers, scholars, and activists ranging from Henry Louis Gates to W.E.B. Du Bois. Overall, Warren comes to the understanding that “although race appeals to observable features that are biologically determined, it must be understood not to derive from those features” (248-49), and with a better understanding of the “social construct” of race we come to a better understanding of literary history as a whole.

If in fact “This knowledge does not and should not be expected to give us tools to fix current inequalities” (258) then why the heck are we writing extensive critiques and essays about it? Is it that we enjoy discovering how jacked up history has been to minorities or any form of the lesser? Or maybe it’s because we feel that talking about it will help soothe the wounds caused by decades of racism and ridicule? Well, I feel that we talk about it because we have to—we talk about it because we should. Regardless of whether Warren believes that this knowledge should give us tools to fix current inequalities I believe that the act of talking about and revealing past inequalities is a tool in itself for ameliorating present injustices and possibly reducing inequalities in the future. As long as it’s an issue that affects us as a society, awareness is something that we need to push back and forth between schools of thought, amid scholarly articles, and amongst individuals. We need to talk about where we’ve been in order to have a better understanding of where we are. This awareness of current social progress will ensure that we get to a better place in the future—maybe even to the point where the hyphen in my own identity will someday be obsolete.

Metacommentary: “Working” Claims. TSIS 123-32

2008-11-25T04:26:00.000-08:00

The final chapter of Graff and Birkenstein’s They Say / I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing focuses on the art of metacommentary. According to Graff and Birkenstein, “metacommentary is a way of commenting on your claims and telling readers how—and how not—to think about them” (123). They explain further that metacommentary can be seen as the narrator of your writing, guiding readers through complicated ideas and keeping them in check when meaning is seemingly obvious. So if you say something in the main text of your writing, the “metatext” is where “you help readers interpret and process what you’ve said” (124). In other words, metacommentary is like the narrator from The Wonder Years, always supporting or refuting the things protagonist Kevin says and does. Coupled with his metacommentator viewers have a deeper understanding of the character of a kid growing up in suburban United States during the 1960s. Metacommentary exists to clarify and elaborate ideas and discussions—making writing more substantive—offering writers avenues to “work” their claims.

Reading this chapter once again verified a type of notion that I’ve realized more than a few times when reading this book. I realized that I already do the things they are teaching—maybe not as effectively as I should be—but without necessarily knowing I am doing it. Metacommentary is a part of my writing already but I’ve never known its name and that it has a defined purpose in effective writing. In other words, I include metacommentary in my writing only because it seems like the right thing to do—it seems logical to elaborate on certain ideas and claims. However, I never realized the gravity of what it is I am actually doing, and the effectiveness of doing it better. The template section of the chapter is what tipped me off to this revelation. I’m almost certain that I’ve used just about all of them in my writing, and a few of which I know I use near every time I put pen to paper or fingertips to keys (if you will). Still, this realization that I’ve been using these moves without necessarily utilizing their full potential is both disappointing and enlightening at the same time. What I mean is that I wish I had known what I was doing from the get-go and maybe my writing today could be better. On the bright side, this new knowledge may possibly help in making tomorrow’s writing a little better than today’s. Better late than never right?

The Dichotomous Dynamic Mix of Academic and Personal Voice—Let’s Rock. TSIS 115-22

2008-11-25T04:25:00.000-08:00

In their template-filled instructional book They Say / I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing authors Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein maintain that much of academic writing today consists of a careful combination of both academic and personal voice. Though they hold to the importance of Standard English they also reveal, “relaxed, colloquial language can often enliven academic writing and even enhance its rigor and precision […] help[ing] you to connect with readers in a personal as well as an intellectual way” (116). In other words, the grip of Standard English on academic writing is loosed and the more relaxed lingo of a writer’s own voice is mixed in, meshing to create a new kind of hybrid voice in writing. But Graff and Birkenstein signify that this combination of voice must be done in a careful and deliberate manner. They offer, “a simple recipe for blending the specialized and the everyday: first make your point in the language of a professional field, and then make it again in everyday language” (119). So it helps to write academically and then follow it with a less-standard translation of what you tried to say with big words. Overall, the key to mixing styles is to have a strong awareness of audience and purpose when writing. Taking into consideration who will be reading and for what reason it is being written, a writer should take discretion in deciding how much (if any at all) of their own voice will be interwoven throughout the text. When done appropriately, writing can be as scholarly as past and even more far-reaching to present and future readers.

What this means for me is a big, “Whew!” (my apologies for use of exclamation). Right when I’m thinking my lack of “scholarly vocabulary” is going to be the downfall of my academic career, Graff and Birkenstein tell me that everything is going to be a-okay. In fact, if I can manage to find a decent compromise between my personal voice and the short list of “big” words I do know, my writing can actually become more effective. Still, as much as I want to jump for joy, there is a bitter reality that comes with the innovations of voice meshing: That Standard English is still the “standard” and everything else is categorized into the sub-realms of “personal voice.” To be honest, the combination of academic and personal voice does not come as smooth in all situations. For instance, how appropriate is it for a first-year resident student to mix the broken English spoken on a regular basis with the academic voice of writing? I’d assume it to be unacceptable. Even after 36 years in the US, my mom still answers the door and phone with an unassuming, “What’s a matter you?”—which somewhere along the way came to mean, “Hello, what can I do for you?” Imagine if she started mixing her personal voice in with the standard of academia. However, with a glimmer of hope, Graff and Birkenstein do mention that the current changes in writing to include more personal voice is a positive aspect of the evolution of writing into a discipline ranging farther across previously drawn lines—both cultural and social.

Building bridges between bridges TSIS 101-14

2008-11-10T02:39:00.000-08:00

This chapter is good. It has five sections. I think it’s too long.

This is exactly the kind of sentence disconnection Graff and Birkenstein are attempting to teach against. Not only are the sentences themselves disconnected the ideas behind each are far from each other as well. In chapter eight of They Say / I Say, they tackle the issue of “connecting the parts” of sentences and writing as a whole. Throughout the chapter they insist upon the importance of connecting your work and suggest, “that you converse not only with others in your writing, but with yourself: that you establish clear relations between one statement and the next by connecting those statements together” (103). They continue with the importance of transitions, pointing words, key terms and phrases, and repeating with difference when it comes to making your writing as clear and effective as it should be. On the whole, Graff and Birkenstein not only successfully highlight the necessity of paying attention to such detail, but in support, offer a surplus of tools and techniques to effectively assist in the process.

Upon reading this chapter I’ve realized that with every chapter of TSIS I read what Graff and Birkenstein have to say ends up having a direct effect on how I write. Especially when I write for these blogs I find myself intently focused on utilizing the tools taught in each specific chapter. In this case, after reading about the importance of connecting sentence and thought, I’m paying extra attention to make sure my ideas do not go off into tangents (as they often tend to do). In other words (as I humbly use another transition term), even as I write this sentence I am trying to figure the best way to reflect what I’ve already mentioned about my newfound need to connect my sentences. This particular chapter and others have raised my awareness, making me a more critical reader of my own work. Though it makes for a more tedious amount of work on my part, I think Graff and Birkenstein would be proud to know that the kind of book they have written was far from in vain. Though at first I wondered, “Why teach stuff that is so obvious?” I now understand that sometimes the obvious is most often overlooked, or in my case, often neglected. Therefore, in conclusion, and to sum things up, I think, as a writer, I am in a better place. Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

No interpretation necessary ISMLL 160-70

2008-11-10T02:37:00.001-08:00

In his essay “Interpretation” Jerome McGann studies the different approaches in the interpretation of text—scholarly, performative, and by indirection. Though ultimately McGann supports the idea that any interpretive process is “open-ended” he recognizes that within the scope of the various critical approaches to interpretation, meaning and the derivation of meaning can be multifaceted, offering present-day scholars (and students) a barrage of methods for discovery. McGann offers that, “In the experiment of interpretation, meaning is initially important as a catalyst in the investigative action. When the experiment has […] finished, meaning reappears in a new form, as the residues left behind for study and analysis” (168). So the search for meaning is an ongoing process, where the meaning that was once discovered becomes an aspect of a whole new meaning to be realized. McGann sides with Ford Madox Ford when he called interpretation, “a game that must be lost.”

So by repeatedly losing a previous interpretation of a text we win with the application of a new one. Only the victory is (and should be) short-lived because we know that when an interpretation is put out there it becomes subject to critical analysis and eventually a re-interpretation all together. McGann explains that the highest level of interpretive scholarship is called the “definitive edition” (162). In class, we also took some time looking for some definitive work available to us. My question is, If interpretation is an open-ended game, then exactly how definitive is something labeled definitive? I guess it’s as definitive as an interpretation can get. Or, scholars feel like they’re done with interpreting a certain work and are satisfied with what they’ve agreed upon (like beating a dead horse, or better yet, looking for fruit in an orchard already harvested multiple times). If we never labeled anything “definitive” then we run the risk of over-interpreting—or taking a text to a place it has no business being. So before interpretations start getting too absurd, better to stop the bleeding while the text at hand still has something definitive to offer. It turns out that the processes of finding meaning themselves are open to interpretation as well. So while in this storm of interpretation, find solace in my assertion that for this blog, no interpretation necessary. It’s just a blog.

B-L-O-G, blog. TSIS 88-97

2008-11-09T07:07:00.000-08:00

Gimme a “B,” “B!” Gimme a “L,” “L!” Gimme an “O,” “O!” Gimme a “G,” “G!” What’s that spell?! “BLOG!” In They Say / I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing, authors Graff and Birkenstein insist, “When you are careful to explain who cares and why, it’s a little like bringing a cheerleading squad into your text […] urging your audience to keep reading, pay attention, and care” (96). They maintain that any text, in any circumstance, holds a greater interest and relevance to whoever is reading when it is clear about the “so what?” and “who cares?” questions. Readers want to know who out there besides the writer really cares about what is being said. And further, they want to know what a writer is saying has anything to do with anything that really matters.

With these questions in mind let’s apply them to the reasons why we B-L-O-G, blog. A few years ago as a returning undergraduate student I used to think the essence of writing and studying was discovered at the touch of a pen to (actual) paper. But recently, the facets of graduate studies—discussion boards in cyberspace, extensive online research, and the blogging I’m currently doing on my laptop—suggest that education (at all levels) has taken a turn into the infinite and exponentially-growing realm of technology. This is how “school” is done now-a-days. Those of us still holding on to how things used to be are way beyond the feeling of needing to make the plunge and cross over—buying a laptop, joining a social network, and finally learning how to use email. With this, blogging matters because it’s become a part of being a student whether we were aware of it or not. The moment we accepted the syllabus that included weekly blogs as course requirement gave it a whole new meaning. What began as something for a grade is quickly evolving into a way we communicate with others and broaden our horizons as writers and students. Blogging has become a staple in a large part of society, finding a niche in various disciplines of academics, political scenes, and even sports writing. Blogging has come to represent the voice of the individual and collectively the voice of larger groups the individual may be associated with. Ultimately, some of us blog because we have to and a good number of us blog because we want to, because we can. In the scope of an ever-evolving society we turn to advances in technology to take us to new and uncharted territories of experience and learning. By these means, blogging has found its way into our workplaces, homes, and even our classrooms.

Naysayers everywhere TSIS 74-87

2008-11-09T07:06:00.000-08:00

I walk up to the “self checkout” counter conveniently located at the front of the supermarket. After fiddling with the touch screen and scanning and rescanning items because the voice is telling me I’m doing something wrong I eventually get all my items into the plastic bags thoughtfully placed adjacent to me. Though this process usually takes me twice as long as a regular checkout line would, when I have the option I usually take it. All you people-persons out there might be thinking, “How much more anti-social can you get?” or “In today’s world we’re getting less social interaction and more computer interaction.” Though your uber-social-butterfly view is quite understandable it doesn’t change the fact that more people today want to get in and get out, take care of things and go. Sure we pass each other in the street without a second glance but imagine all the time we save when we skip the pleasantries and get things done. Paper or plastic you ask? Well, another reason I like the self checkout is because I can make my choice without having to worry about what Shirley the manager or Tim the box-boy are going to think. I just take the liberty of using the plastic bags and even at times double-bagging for soda bottles or milk. Those who would oppose this decision might say that paper is better because of its durability and its recyclability but still, I have my reasons for preferring plastic. Besides, I re-use them as trash bags, lunch bags, picking-up-dog-poop bags, and heating-up-tortillas-in-the-microwave bags. Plastic bags are a part of my daily life. Environmentalists would suggest that I carry my own bag when shopping for groceries—and believe me I’ve tried—but, I always find that the one or two fabric bags I bought for $2.99 each are never enough to hold everything. Plus, I can’t afford to be shopping at Trader Joe’s or Henry’s all the time. Organic is good, organic prices—not so much. Although I realize the various objections towards my grocery shopping habits, for now I’m going with what works best for me. If any consolation, I try to save and use all my plastic bags to extend their use as much as possible; and, every time I leave the self checkout stand I always leave the on-looking employee at the small counter with a “Thank you” and a “Have a nice day.”

According to Graff and Birkenstein texts become more convincing when we integrate anticipated criticisms and objections (74). My first reaction was, “Why would anyone object with what I’m saying?” Then, remembering the chapter on agreeing and disagreeing I realize that there is an objection for almost everything. And many of these objections can be quite credible. The objections listed above regarding my supermarket preferences are grounded in reason and surely deserve my attention. I find that when I give them this attention it helps to explain my own reasoning more clearly. Who knew that opposition can actually work in my favor? When done correctly, it seems, this is very much the case.

Textual Scholarship is on the move... ISMLL 143-59

2008-10-27T11:10:00.000-07:00

In her essay Textual Scholarship Leah S. Marcus broadly defines textual scholarship as not only “almost everything that literary scholars do” but also refers to “those branches of literary study that analyze or determine the specific forms in which written texts reach readers” (143). Written text has come a long way through history showing that textual scholarship as a whole has been a product of progression as well. Through the past, written text made its way to readers in the best ways possible. Today, it seems to get to readers in every possible way. We read text in books, on billboards, in newspapers, magazines, on cereal boxes, and even more than ever, on our computer screens—like you are doing now. What the future holds for textual scholarship is impossible to know for sure. We’re barely turning a corner in online technology and we have still to see what lies on the other side (still unaware of exactly how many “corners” we have left to turn). Computer technology has taken editing and revision to a whole new level. Novels are written, edited, printed and on market shelves in record time. Writers can cut, paste, copy, and spell check their way through the grueling process of writing and re-writing—now at the control of a few fingers and a small tool named after a household pest. Technology and advancements in the internet have taken written word to realms past scholars would have never thought possible—couldn’t have even imagined. And where it’s headed, we’ll never really know until we get there.

We are a part of a generation on the fence. We are not where we were in the eighties and early nineties, yet we are not quite where we will be in another decade or so. Technology has advanced so quickly that there is no way for us to know (or fathom without actually being there) where it is exactly it’s taking us. The way we communicate has evolved to the point where even the word “text” has taken on a whole new meaning—it’s moved from a noun to being a verb as well. What such changes mean for textual scholarship is yet to be seen, but from the looks of it so far, it’s going to be something very interesting. Those of us who are “computer savvy” will feel right at home with new developments to come and the rest of us who are reminiscent of paper and pencil (the kind you actually have to sharpen), well, we’ll have to do what it takes to get up to speed and start getting computer literate real fast. It’s impossible to know exactly where all this is going, but it’s that impossibility that brings a sense of urgency to those of us not yet ready to finish turning the corner.

I Agree We Could Be Disagreeing...but that's okay. TSIS 51-73

2008-10-27T09:31:00.000-07:00

I guess in one way or another just about everything has an opposite. The North Pole has the south, west coast the east, English major the Math major, day has night, and the list would go on. Still, each of these, although they are contrary, would not have the same existence without the other. What would the west be without the east? Probably wouldn’t even be called the west. We probably couldn’t even call it the middle because without an east or west there really isn’t a middle either. Each binary in its own specific way is linked by how they come in pairs but exclude one another at the same time. The same goes for agreeing and disagreeing. There would be no agree without disagree, yet one couldn’t be without the other. Plus, as Graff and Birkenstein write, “[…] whenever you agree with one person’s view, you are most likely disagreeing with someone else’s” (58). To agree means disagreeing with something else. To disagree means agreeing with its contrary. And even if you agree and disagree simultaneously, it brings to light the contrary of only agreeing or only disagreeing. In a way, doing both is somewhat (at least 50%) against going with just one.

I never realized the science behind agreeing and disagreeing. I mean I’ve practiced such methods without ever realizing the nature of doing so. I just agreed with things I agreed with and did the opposite with those I was impartial to. Still, I find that the art of agreeing and disagreeing can get a bit out of control at times. Even this blog seems to be getting too complex with all its “agrees” and “disagrees” and “I’m gonna do boths.” So let me make this as simple as possible, using some nifty techniques I picked up recently: Graff and Birkenstein’s breakdown of agreeing and disagreeing in the chapter “Yes / No / Okay, but” is extremely useful because it sheds light on the difficult problem of trying to write with a clear and concise argument and instead, using an agreement, disagreement, or both as a strategic and valuable tool.

"Whammo!" The "Art" of Quoting TSIS 39-47

2008-10-20T11:29:00.000-07:00

Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein do it again in Chapter three of They Say / I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing. This time they manage to break down the "art" of quoting into a simplified instructional on how to effectively quote another's work. While still teaching on the premise that, "you need to write the arguments of others into your text," they put their focus on using others' arguments verbatim within your own work. They go on further to support that, "Quoting someone else's words gives a tremendous amount of credibility to your summary and helps ensure that it is fair and accurate" (39). However, although your work may now be credible to someone who's done the reading, if the quotation isn't properly presented and explained it will only serve as evidence you've read and not proof that you actually understood it. Graff and Birkenstein explain that there are essential parts in presenting a quotation and that if these parts aren't properly utilized the quoted words are at risk of being left "dangling."

A quotation without the proper framework around it is pretty much useless. It's more of a space-filler, left dangling on it's own, apart from the rest of the argument. In order to make a quotation an essential part of an argument it must be framed in a "quotation sandwich." The meat of this sandwich is the quotation itself and is preceded by the first slice of bread, an introductory statement, and followed by a second slice of bread, an explanation in your own words. Without this basic template for quoting, a quotation is at risk of losing any solid connection it may have with the argument at hand and end up just an accidental / incidental characteristic of what is being said. Ultimately, if you want to effectively use what they say to better explain what you say, the method in which you present what they say should be appropriate in keeping it an essential part of what you say. Properly presenting a quotation gives it subjectivity in your work. Merely throwing in random quotes from an author makes the quotations only "adjuncts" to what you are saying. They are only there because you included them, not because they have any real relevance to what you are saying. So come on guys, let's quote accordingly. Besides, I really like sandwiches.

Historicize This. ISMLL 171-93

2008-10-20T10:01:00.000-07:00

Regardless of the work--different author, different text, varying reader-types, or even when we look at literature as a whole, Catherine Gallagher, in her essay "Historical Scholarship" maintains that it's all historicized in one way or another. As she concentrates on various attempts to historicize these facets of literary study she reveals that there is not too much difference in the foundations for historizicing but instead more similarities. And through such historicizing we discover that "author," "text," "reader," "literature," and even "national" are more inter-related than first thought. However, the similarities and differences between these is not what I intend to respond to. I think we know enough about how author is connected to text and how the reader fits at one point of the triangle, whether at the top or bottom (whatever your preference). In her discussion of the historicizing of "author" Gallagher touches on the subject of "minority authorship" and states, "[...] critics have asked how and why certain writers created textual effects of minority consciousness and how those effects, in turn, helped support, even as they seemed to press against, the norm of an unhyphenated generic authorship" (178). In other words, I'm understanding this as although authorship itself is generic and without nationality, many authors still write within a minority consciousness, finding it an effective mode for presenting their authored works. However, for the longest time my view on minority authorship has been quite the contrary.

Though so many authors throughout history have embraced their minority status and used that very status (experience) as the impetus behind wonderful stories and novels, I, on the other hand, have always thought that putting my minority label "out there" was going to pigeon-hole me into a specific category of writer. My name is Thomas Keywon Cho and I've been convinced for a long time now that if I were ever to publish a book I would not use my full name to represent its authorship. Not that I don't embrace my ethnicity. I am Korean-American. Korean by blood, American by birth and life experience--so, bring on the hyphen. I would definitely write about such things related to life of a hyphenated citizen but to put it out there in lights seems like it would work against me rather than for me. Solving this issue is as easy as using the initials of my middle and last name instead of the full (e.g. "Thomas KC"). To me, Thomas KC or KC Thomas even puts me in an entirely different category as Thomas Keywon Cho. Actually, it keeps me out of the category placing altogether. Well, this is something I still struggle with, and whether or not I go with the full name or not remains to be seen. But for now I do see a huge difference in using one over the other. But who knows? Maybe I'll never publish anything. If not, problem solved I guess. =].

Questioning the Value of Composition / ISMLL 73-139

2008-10-13T11:52:00.000-07:00

In an introduction to current scholarship in composition, David Bartholomae, in his essay "Composition," provides a list of exemplary texts for those of us fairly new to the field and raises an important question as to the value of composition in the university. Though the suggested texts, research, and objects of study in composition are of pertinent significance it's Bartholomae's take on the value of student writing that stands out to me the most. Although Barholomae insists that when it comes to student writing, "Questions of value should be a constant source of debate" (120), it's that very "value and promise" that makes composition a necessary and good part of the English field in the first place. Freshman composition remains one of the last links we have to classical English studies and many today believe it to be an outdated and mundane method for teaching students how to write. Barholomae believes that "a field can spend too much time looking at itself and its history, and [that this] is the case with composition" (120). He thinks that a shift of focus from field to student writer may be a benefit to composition as a positive discipline and be a step to answering the critics who deem it as unnecessary and unworthy.

I agree with Barholomae's focus on the student rather than the field. Sure, the field is what makes the student, but along the same lines is it not the student who eventually makes the field? Bartholomae maintains that there is still plenty of historical work to be done but reveals that the periods and areas of much of today's work is "becoming more limited and more local" (120). With that in mind it's harder to deem a student's work as good or unworthy by measuring it against history. Instead, we need to find a way to put student writing at the center of composition, making it an accurate reflection of her or his writing ability. I know it sounds a bit far-fetched, but finding a way to measure the unmeasurable is hard enough as it is, so why not break written word down to the core of what it is and the mind it comes from to get a better answer to the various questions that judge its value?

Rhetoric Past and Future / ISMLL 73-139

2008-10-13T10:05:00.000-07:00

In all honesty the word "rhetoric" for me was one of those words I always heard and used but never quite understood until deep into the trenches of undergraduate study. Though English study was at the forefront of my academic interest throughout high school and my first attempt at college the basis, foundation, and history by which it (as an academic discipline) came to be remained lost for a long time. Today my grasp of what rhetoric is remains a bit shaky but at least it's some sort of hold and I have no intention of letting it slip away. Susan C. Jarratt has a better grip on rhetoric and delivers her take in her work appropriately titled, Rhetoric. In her work she recognizes that rhetoric has a long history deeply rooted in argument, counterargument, and an inclination to change. She writes of rhetoric's past in speculation of its future while addressing four touch points or "staseis:" "Does it exist? If so, what is it? What value should it be assigned? And where does it reside (in whose jurisdiction does it fall)" (75)? Jarratt opens her study explaining that rhetoric is no stranger to change as she states, "[Rhetoric] falls from grace with the rise of science and Enlightenment reason but is reborn in the twentieth century." She continues that "The very proliferation of scholarship in rhetoric that has brought the field into this volume has unearthed disputes over its legitimacy, purposes, and effects" (73). So in a way, rhetoric's biggest critic may be rhetoric itself. So what could possibly be in the future of a discipline that masterminds its own rise and fall? If past fact reveals that rhetoric has been shaped by a roller coaster of acclaim and criticism what could be said about its future?

I once learned that the only constant in this world is change so why would rhetoric be any exception to this rule? Rhetoric has come a long way to what it is today. Originating from its early roots in a culture driven practice of recitation it now covers a much broader area of language study and practice. Though rhetoric can be broken down into different facets of communication it can be fitted into a frame of concerning itself with "the ways human beings use speech to influence one another's attitudes and behavior" (75). As the attitudes and behaviors of society constantly evolve it's evidence of the fact that the rhetoric of society is changing as well. As rhetoric has more rapidly developed and matured over the past decades it assures me that its future will be one of change as well. I highly doubt that rhetoric has come this far to merely plateau and remain stagnant. In fact, in the wake of the current presidential election we're feeling the waves of yet a new twist on rhetoric. What it actually is we probably won't truly understand until all is said and done, but surely we will be feeling it's ripples throughout the future both near and far.

OGLR Preface - p.45

2008-10-06T11:40:00.000-07:00

In the Preface to the Oxford Guide to Library Research, Thomas Mann tackles the question of whether research is more effective online or within the walls of libraries. In response, he implores that, "If you wish to be a good researcher you have to be aware of the trade-offs between virtual and real libraries" (xiii). Overall, there are advantages and disadvantages to both methods of research and understanding the relationship between the two is key to attaining the best of either. Mann reports three considerations tied together in the world of information records: 1. copyright protection; 2. free "fair use" of the records by everyone; and 3. access limitations of what, who, and where (xiv). And when it comes to successfully attaining records the freedoms of cyberspace and the limitations of physical libraries serve to be both advantageous and disadvantageous to the researcher. Thus, bringing us back to the importance of understanding the "trade-offs" between the two. As Mann moves into the overviews of encyclopedias and the "how tos" of subject headings and the library catalog he asserts again that there are advantages and disadvantages to approaching research in a specific way. Though a general encyclopedia can prove useful to scratch the surface of a topic, a serious researcher hoping to move deeper into a subject must search for a compilation of specialized encyclopedias that could in turn deliver in-depth subject content. Even when it comes to utilizing the library catalog, the accuracy of a subject heading used in a search is multifaceted and differs significantly depending on whether a heading is uniform or specific. Mann's "Four Ways to Find the Right Subject Headings" breaks down the process of choosing the appropriate subject heading for certain types of research. Within these methods it's apparent that the advantages of one method do not necessarily translate to the same success when applied to another.

Understanding the "trade-offs" between the two modes of research (online/real library) is what stands out to me the most in this reading. In a society that is ever-changing and exponentially developing into a cyber world it is easy to take for granted the necessity of the collection of knowledge and wisdom within the walls of a library. Even at the library I see more students surfing the net on the reference computers rather than actually using it as a library catalog and resource. The argument that there are ups and downs to both methods of research shows that it is so important for us as researchers to utilize both when appropriately necessary. Sure this book is a "snoozer" but the information it delivers is pertinent to providing the best possible means of research for students like myself. To see such advantages and disadvantages peppered throughout the realm of research only gives me a clearer understanding of what is necessary to becoming a successful researcher--for this reason alone I look forward to using this book for present and future reference.

"They Say / I Say" Preface - p.38

2008-10-06T02:52:00.000-07:00

It is widely known that to construct a sturdy building strong enough to withstand the elements of weather and disasters both natural and unnatural the planning must begin with the development of a strong foundation. One must work from the bottom up, section by section, moving on to the next task only when the current piece is appropriately put in place. In They Say / I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing, authors Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein assert that the same attention to detail is necessary when it comes to writing in any sphere, public or private. Whether writing argumentatively or for summary, a well-written text is made up of parts that serve a specific and calculated purpose. These parts combine to create a whole text that successfully delivers a writer's intended message. When done in a proper fashion this completed text can withstand the elements of criticism and maintain a solid line of communication to its reader. Even when it comes to the foundation of the book, "they say" and "I say" are presented as two separate entities absolutely bound together to lay the foundation for better writing. Graf and Birkenstein insist, "You need to enter a conversation, using what others say (or might say) as a launching pad or sounding board for your own ideas" (3), and offer a compilation of "templates" to aid in achieving such entrance. In turn, the templates themselves are exemplary of the importance of each specific part in writing.

Who knew entering grad school meant relearning to write? But then again, in the back of my mind I always had a lingering notion that a couple steps backward is sometimes necessary in order to take 5 steps forward. Right when I was on the brink of plunging into the glorious depths of imaginative and creative writing, set on sending professors into states of sweet surrender, I get smacked in the face with the reality-check that maybe I should learn to write first. The way Graff and Berkenstein break down the form, reason and logic of academic writing puts me in awe. I look forward to reading further and learning more about the strategic moves of writing. They say, here are some established forms for you to use as imaginatively as you can. And I say, "O-kay!"

What it's boiling down to so far is that a body is only as good as its limbs and a hand as good as its fingers. In the same way, a piece of writing may only be as good as its moves...so move accordingly.

Testing...

2008-09-30T04:27:00.000-07:00

1,2,3.