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.