What is writing?

I loved this reading because it completely and utterly addressed the research question that I intend to work with for my Critical Photo Essay! I was excited to see that I'm not the only person questioning what on earth writing is, and how are we redefining and re-evaluating it as time goes on. I think we like to think of writing in the most traditional sense, where we see ourselves scratching letters on paper with pencil or a pen. Or typing black words onto a blank document. We see writing as the act of physically stringing words together to create sentences which in turn create statements and arguments. The beauty of this reading, particularly Johnson-Eiola, is that it questions this notion. This article calls into question what the difference is between writing and composition, and how to situate the role of writing within today's culture.

There was once again the separation between what is "truth" and what is "creativity." I found this to be interesting too. I know we've talked about this before, but I find it impossible that something factual cannot be creative and something creative cannot be factual. I simply find that notion too simple and ignorant. But the biggest part of this was that creativity was defined as producing something that had previously not existed in the world. That was intriguing to me because it brought me back to the question, then what is writing? Is writing creativity? Is writing the act of creating a unique text? And on that same note, the article brings up intertextuality again, and calls into question if there are any original texts left to be created? Can there be original texts anymore if all we do is break down texts "in order to reconnect them, over and over again" (208)? And if, in fact, there are no more original texts, and writing is the act of creating an original text, is there really writing? Which brings us right back to what the hell is writing anyways?! This all seems like such a hot mess.

I think that Johnson-Eilola brings up a really interesting quote, along the same lines of creation and writing and originality and shtuff, that got my brain turning in circles, a bit. "And despite the realization that our culture increasingly values texts that are broken down, rearranged, recombined, we rarely teach forms of writing that support such production. We unwittingly (of sometimes consciously) still think of writing as a way to help the self become present to itself, as a method for personal growth and discovery" (209). I find this quote awfully intriguing. You see, I think of writing as a way to express myself-- a way to grow as a thinker, as a writer, as a person. I think of writing as one of the many ways that I can take a piece of who I truly am and present it to the world in writing. Yet I also see where this quote is going when it says we increasingly value texts that have been cut, copied, and reassembled. We are most often asked to write pieces using "textual evidence." We need that copied quote from someone else in order to validate the point of our own writing. And when we are asked to simply give our thoughts and opinions, without the support of someone else's thoughts and opinions, we just don't know what to do. We don't really know how to handle writing for our own understanding and personal growth, yet we still like to think that writing is to help us better understand and discover and grow as a person. It's quite a conundrum.

I don't actually know what my point is, but those were my thoughts, particularly on Johnson-Eilola. I feel like I probably talked myself in circles a little bit, but that's kind of where my train of thoughts went over the course of reading these texts. And I realize that I've rambled on and one about one article and basically neglected the other, but it happens.

Infographic

Simply because I have a deep love for football, and specifically a deep love for the Seahawks, my infographic is all about my Hawks! Enjoy and Go Seahawks! #12thman

Boa Constrictor

What I liked most about these texts is they talked about the constraints that we place upon writing, and what kinds of effects that those constraints have on the quality of the writing. I look at some of these things as if they were a boa constrictor for our writing. We place ourselves within some set of rules depending on what we are writing for, or who we are writing for, or how we think something is supposed to be written. From there, those very rules that are supposed to give us a structure and guide to follow for our writing actually begins to choke us out and constrict our ability to fully delve into the writing. If we strictly define the way that writing is supposed to be done, we cut ourselves off from deepening and improving our writing.

Take structure for example. From a young age we are told that paragraphs are a minimum of so many sentences long, and that those sentences must include (at the very least) an introduction/thesis, a statement or point to be made backing up the thesis, some proof of that statement, and then a conclusion sentence. Boa constrictor. From that very moment, we have taken our writing and shrunk it down to a specific structure that we are expected to adhere to, and creativity is therefore cut off. We have a hard time taking our writing further, and making it better, because we tell ourselves that the structure that we want to write with does not follow the structure we are supposed to be using. Additionally, if we do not explore with different structures, we cut off an entire audience or level of understanding that someone could come to. If we do not entirely adhere to all of the rules of structure, we might just be able to reach a different audience or allow our current audience to come to a new understanding of the text. That seems to be exactly Bernhardt's point-- "If we were to encourage students to experiment with visible features of written texts, we would increase their ability to understand and use hierarchical and classificatory arrangements. Because of the opportunities it offers for visual inspection, writing heightens awareness of categories and divisions, changing the ways people conceive classificatory relations" (Bernhardt, 66).

Now let's look at media and genre. When we define genre, we say that certain types of writing are done within that genre, and those types of writing are done a certain way, and that that certain way of writing is used to talk about these certain types of topics. Boa constrictor. From the moment we define a genre, or a piece of media, we cut off anything that falls outside of that definition and we discount its worth within the genre. And another problem we create here is that we say that only certain types of literature fit within the terms "writing" and "literature." Something I've been exploring in LIT438 is that literature is not just works of written words that have been compiled into pages upon pages of written words to tell some sort of story or give some sort of information, but rather, it can be anything that tells a story--including movies, music, and comics. It seems that Kress is also making this point. We tend to restrain what can and cannot be a certain genre, or what applies to a certain media--when in reality, so many more things than what fit within our "definitions" can actually go within that genre or media if we'd only open our minds to it.

Grammar is another thing that is rigid in rules.
"Don't say, 'Me and Amanda.' It's improper. Say, 'Amanda and I.'"
"Ain't isn't a word."
Girl on internet
-- "Your so cute!"
Grammar Nazi
-- "*you're"
(A side note on Grammar Nazis, you should just go to Google images for a grammar giggle!)

What they told me in my younger years
--"In a list there should be a comma between every word."
What they tell me now
-- "Actually, the Oxford comma isn't necessary."
Me
-- "WELL SHIT!"
I could go on and on. There are so many grammar and punctuation rules. I get it, I am actually one of those people who thinks you're pretty idiotic if you can't get simple grammar and punctuation correct. I know that it's important and I am a stickler on it. But I repeat. BOA CONSTRICTOR. Punctuation has the power to absolutely transform a sentence, and the proper use of it can literally change the meaning of a sentence
-- Let's eat Grandma.
-- Let's eat, Grandma.
Those two sentences have very different meanings, and the proper use of a comma clears up the true meaning of the sentence (and save's Grandma from getting eaten). But like all of the other things in this post, when we put a constraint on how something is supposed to be used we cut ourselves off from a vast possibility of different things to say and ways to say them.

Now, I'm not saying that all rules should be thrown out the window, and that we should just have a free for all and write however we damn well please. I am simply saying that sometimes, if we push the boundaries that we have set for ourselves, or even break the molds that have been set before us, we have the potential to really expand our writing in new and amazing ways.

Process Reflection on the AV Short

My AV Short is essentially about contradicting the stereotypes of what makes a sorority woman, what being in a sorority is all about, and generally enlightening viewer on the reality of something they think they know all about. This piece came into being because it was the first thing I could think of that I had tons of material for, and something I could criticize and inform on at the same time. I wanted viewers of this video to be able to address their views on what a sorority is all about, and then to contradict everything they've ever thought they know about sorority life. I wanted to show my viewers that just because they think they know all about something, doesn't mean they actually know anything about that thing. There's a beautiful saying that we throw around a lot in Greek life, and I think that this is the only real way I can describe the point of my AV Short, "From the outside looking in, you can never understand it. From the inside looking out, you can never explain it." This statement I have seen prove itself true time and time again, and I wanted to attempt to explain an integral part of my life to someone who is an outsider looking in.

The writing for this piece was similar to most writing I do, because I had to draft the words I wanted to put inside the piece. I had to sit down and think about the things that I wanted to convey in my 3 minutes, and how I wanted to word them to my audience. I probably drafted what text I wanted displayed on the screen two or three times before I came to the final product, and even then, I think that I would go back and change somethings if I could. This piece was different to draft in that I have never had to break up my piece of writing, put it to music and photo, and place it in the most effective place within the photo stream and the flow of the song. That was an honest challenge for me, although I quite enjoyed the challenge.

I think that the biggest thing composing this video has taught me is that I can't take any piece of information at base value. I need to see beyond what I think I see and find deeper meaning in things before I make judgement on them. I think that this piece taught me that it is particularly important to know that you don't know, recognize it, and allow a piece of reading or writing to change your views on something you thought you knew something about. This project also kept me on my toes, in that with every small change that I made--photographically, musically, or textually--I had to change multiple other things as a result. This project definitely showed me that it is important to recognize the impact of everything we put into a finished product.

Girls and Boys and Shapes and the Middle

I'd first like to apologize for my lateness on this post. I hate to be late on things and it makes me feel like a real jerk, but I simply didn't get the reading and response done quite in time. Homework has me drowning just a little bit, so I just had to let this one slide to the back burner for this post. Good news is I am getting it done now, so that's good! Anyways, I'm sorry for my slacking everyone, but here goes nothing!

My first thought upon reading Jamieson's pieces was "Wait, WHAT?!? Women were thought to be WHAT if they decided to pursue the conception and delivery of ideas?" I was a bit infuriated. It's unfair to call women "manly" if they choose to pursue a life of discourse, and it is unfair to constrain women in such a way. I also cannot believe that gender was once considered a hindrance to a person. As if being a woman was some sort of ailment that needed to be overcome, like you have to be joking me, right? After all of the angry thoughts ran wildly through my mind, I remembered that it was once a common belief that women only belonged in the home and that they had no place to keep other than one in the kitchen. So, then I calmed down and read the piece with some real logic!

It's interesting, to me, to categorize writing as either feminine or masculine. To me, a woman can write in a style that is "impersonal, unemotional, and competitive" as any man can; and any man has the capacity to write in a discourse that "pleases." I can agree that men and women generally conform to certain types of writing styles suiting not only their personalities but also the gender bias that comes with them, but I have a hard time laying a distinct and hard classification on what is considered masculine in writing and what is considered feminine in writing. Anyways, I don't really know what my argument is here, other than that it is hard to place a limit on what a woman can do with writing, or what a man can do with it for that matter. I think that the true artist has the capability of being amorphous. A person who is truly a master of the art of words has the capacity to dive into both the "male" mind as well as the "female" mind, and write from such a perspective. I think of T.S. Eliot's The Wasteland here. Eliot has a unique was of creating a voice that is distinctly male or female based on the story he is telling within that part of the poem. To me, one is not a masculine writer or a feminine writer, but has the capacity to write from either style based on his or her needs.

As for the Wysocki piece, I loved the idea that form could quite literally shape the way we read and interpret a piece of writing. If a piece is aesthetically pleasing, we are more inclined to enjoy what's written, Also, a shape can really play a part in the meaning of a piece, which is really quite neat. For example, if someone is writing about the beauty of the female body, and the words are constructed to the shape of a female body there is a beautiful sort of multi-modality there. Or if you are writing about love, and the words are constructed withing a heart. It simple draws more attention to the "point" of the piece, and that's pretty damn cool. Wysocki's article also give importance to placement on a page, which brings be back to basic writing skills. When you are first learning to write essays and papers, you are taught that the main idea of the essay is to be found in the first few sentences of the paper. You are supposed to tell the reader, right off the bat, what the rest of the paper is going to try to demonstrate to them. This article brings me right back to that idea, only it states that the central idea is best placed int he center of the page, because a reader is most likely to see whatever is central on the page as the central point of the argument or essay. It is interesting to think how shape and placement actually make a difference in our writing. Like if I were to put a giant Bobcat logo in the middle of this paragraph, a reader would be lead to believe that the central part of my argument or post was about the Bobcats, when in reality it might only be placed inside the post as a supplement to my argument and not be the central point of it. Interesting, huh?

AV Short