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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...

1,2,3.