1.) I would rather do an endless sink of dishes than read a lot of the writing scholars do...not because of ideas but because they are BORING writers. And it's hard to take ideas about writing (especially style) from people, despite their credentials, who write like the walking dead.
2.) I am a hyper-audience aware writer (and thus, reader) who feels marginalized by many of the authors I encounter in this sect of academia.
3.) I actually ache to read literature, something with even the slightest bit of personality, humanness, below a pithy and esoteric shell of larger-than-life language.
4.) I value scholarship, citation as a conversation, research, credibility and exploration of new spaces of thought...but I value above all, the ability to deliver and perform, while informing.
So, with all that off my chest, I said out loud to a colleague yesterday for the first time that "this is not my place" - I think she might have thought, based on the context of the conversation that I meant education, which I didn't (and I held myself back from sending an email to correct what was simply a casual conversation). What I really meant, was "this" as in, academia. In some alternative universe, if I'm ever feeling masochistic enough to undertake a PhD, it will not be in Rhet/Comp, nor will it be to sit in the ivory tower of scholarship among writers who, largely, in my opinion, don't practice what they preach. What I meant by "this" was that in the last four months of reading for this exam, I have had to go to war with my soul, my very essence of creativity and spark, to digest this stuff without losing my marbles. Now, I write to you in this free-ease and of course, will put on my "playing the game" hat to write for my exam, because I've learned how to become a shadow-voice, how to dance in genres like I belong and how to swallow myself long enough to get through the tasks. And, as I never expected, I am thankful for those lessons as well. What does this have to do with Lingua Fracta? I read this book in two grueling days. It was written last year. It's about new media (a subject I LOVE in my field). Blogging, WOW, desktops, visual rhetoric - the fun stuff, the front-line of the future, the current and present interests of scholars in just about every field...yet it's written in some of the most dry and pedantic, removed and downright miserable style I've yet to encounter. "Lingua fracta" comes from the term "lingua franca" which was a trade language that incorporated Spanish, French and Italian - a sort of sub-language that was used in the exchange of money for goods. "Fracta" was chosen by Brooke because he feels new media is such a grounds for collaboration and intermingling, which I like.
As far as concepts, this post could be at least a few webpages long with ideas, but I've already handwritten my notes (part of my studying process) and honestly just cannot go through them all again. In short, Brooke suggests (wisely) that we bring the rhetorical canons back from the dead and use them to create new rhetorics in order to analyze new media. He breaks the five canons down (memory, style, delivery, arrangement, invention) and gives examples from new media (RSS, tagclouds, trackbacks, etc.) which we can use to understand them in contemporary context. Wholly, an amazing book that will be cited for years to come. My disturbance, why, when the subject is so relevant and revolutionary, must I literally have to DRAG my teeth through it as a reader? Sigh. But I digress. Good ideas, painful book. You'd think I'd be used to this by now, but I'm a fighter...
I get what you mean about academia not being your place; I have felt that way time and time again in my grad. studies. BUT I think experiencing that world forced me out of my comfort zone, which was a plus, and humbled me a bit, which was also a good experience :) Good luck on the comps-- I know you'll knock 'em dead.
ReplyDeleteJust think-- this time next week you can be lounging poolside with a FUN book in your hands!!