In early October, I journaled about the process of engaging with my Lit. Review and why I decided to change my total approach. Appropriate to the identity of the web as a nebulous zone, my Oct. 15th entry seems to have been banished to the detritus that clogs the aether of the interwebs. Unfortunately, the vanished chronicle of my thoughts and renewed reasons for doing the Lit. Review has been a blow to my process. Fortunately, I have records of conversations that I've had with other writers and scholars through email and Facebook. I will attempt to present the following here as a record of process and potentially fruitful discussions.
There were many impulses behind changing my research area from the difficulties in taxonomy/identity to a focus on the cultual practice of reading writing. Yet, even with this new focus, I still felt like I was engaging in an interesting, but ultimately unsatisfying project that didn't align with my current passions. I would simply be recrossing the Ts and dotting the Is of others' cyclical debates. While a overview of these questions is admittedly useful, I realized there was a big black hole in regards to examining how the WRITING/COMPOSITION process is affected by new technologies. Especially, what it means to reconstitute the writing process in tech. through the intimate efforts of writers. Finally, how do the demands that emerging technologies place on the thought process and time of writers teach us about contemporary cultural production?
This change in topic stems from the above impulses and the following observations:
- There is a gaping hole in thinking about digital literature as a process. Theory centered on the ontology of product rather than process. Both are integral if we want to holistically consider WHAT it is/does. It would be great to start an archive of practice based methodology that coincides with critical reflection. Since very little literature exists, an extended network might be able to offer suggestions on forthcoming sources.
- How do the actions of renown hybrid writers/scholars contribute to the body of critical discourse?
- Can the split mind process of engaging with digital tools during composition teach us something about their ultimate ontology and foreshadow their future role?
- When I'm thinking around a composition problem through writing with digital tools, I feel more aware of what these tools truly contribute to our culture/society.
A>Email correspondances and abridged conversation log:
John CayleyReason for Contact:
Mentor, Career Model, Successful Hybrid Writer/Scholar. He's probably thought along this angle and has some form of literature to support it.
Response Record:
"don't forget the Goldsmith/Dworkin+Perloff's patronage conceptual writing configuration since this allies with ours and is a formation of practitioners."
Suggestions:
- Will consider resources from the conceptual writing movement, since our work is that, really.
- Will also use his DHQ meditation titled: "Writing to Be Found and Writing Readers"
Stephanie Strickland
Reason for Contact:
Mentor. Very smart and insightful. Has both a celebrated print and digital practice.
Response Record: "I have been mainly interested in the great breadth of things thatoccur when people address themselves to digital writing, or to a digital object, rather than a theory of such writing--seems earlyto me to be pronouncing on that"Suggestions:
- Judy Malloy's list of software that chronicles uses by digital authors.
- Forum link to 10 years of the empyre list that features relevant discussions: most recently the so-called New Aesthetic "and right now a discussion of rendering (in both senses) pain and grief online and whether and how it can be done" (Strickland).
- Stephanie's forthcoming DHQ article with Nick Montfort: "cut to fit the toolspun course". Her essay "addresses how and why the code does what it does by consisting of the code extensively glossed in an interpretive manner. That's another way to think of getting at process and our underlying assumptions about a certain kind of digital writing."
David Jhave Johnston
Reasons for Contact:
Favorite Artist and Writer. A solid practitioner who has been in the field for a while and just finished a related Ph.D.
Suggestions:
- Jhave's Ph.D thesis: http://glia.ca/conu/THESIS/ that contains "bits in latter half tht examine my own work and occasionally refer to its roots in the sort of quasi intuitive gut-autonomy that is so difficult to speak of, almost impossible to freeze-dry in the glazed apparition of theory."
- A copy of Jhave's MFA thesis sent over email
- Private Access to Jhave's edited and unedited interviews of practitioners and scholars in dig. lit.
Judd Morrisey
Talan Memmott
B>Facebook Discussion and abridged conversation log:
Reason for Contact:
Friends that are international writers and scholars who have an invested academic interest in this topic.
Likelihood they would have access or know of non American sources. All are also members of the ELO and similar institutions.
Response Record:
Reason for Contact:
Friends that are international writers and scholars who have an invested academic interest in this topic.
Likelihood they would have access or know of non American sources. All are also members of the ELO and similar institutions.
Response Record:
- October 24
- Thursday
- Thursday
| Zuzana Husarova | 1:15am Nov 2 |
Samantha, I also uploaded the interviews with Andy, Maria and Kasia on my mixcloud: you can listen to them, they will make more sense to you than the Slovak versions ![]()
http://www.facebook.com/l/DAQGQloE7AQH6YXJ62fdnF_sKI7I8qPkxysUoxuzrFER6lg/www.mixcloud.com/tachykardia/
http://www.facebook.com/l/
No comments:
Post a Comment