Final Thoughts on the Rice Piece: DJ's and Writing, 2nd of two posts

I've finished reading the Rice piece now. There are a few points I'd like to bring up.

"To cry theft is to refuse to recognize the mix's role in new media based expression and how that role may destabilize rhetorical and pedagogical expectations" (Rice, 68). I am puzzled at his defense of plagiarism, almost a dismissive attitude toward it. Rice seems to want to identify writing and "the mix" as the same thing. It is not. Yes, the DJ can be a writer, no doubt. He may write his mixes, and the introduction of the Mellotron made it possible for musicians to sample all kinds of previous sounds and songs and borrow them for a new composition. But, note: that is music. When Public Enemy samples something from Frank Sinatra, there is a built in acknowledgment that it is borrowed and is being mixed into a new song by Public Enemy. No one is thinking that Public Enemey is trying to pretend that the Sinatra part is theirs! But in writing, when a student borrows ideas for a history research paper and does not acknowledge the source and passes the information off as his own, that's different. In this case, the writer, knowingly or not, is placing his or her credit on that information.

"The appropriation-motivated mix is not recognized as human nature in the average writing course because the emphasis is often on salvaging an assumed authorial authenticity; students are asked to maintain singular identities distinct from their writing" (69). Is there something wrong with salvaging an authenticity? If we mix to the point of the loss of authorial authenticity, do we risk turning individual authorship into a colorless, homogenous, formless stew of language and image without anything authentic left--no singular mark of identity? Furthermore, I contest the idea that mixing is anything new. The technology to mix in the writing medium is greater and more exciting than ever, but it has always been done, and it has always been done in every medium. Religion may be one of the first sources, what with all the prophets and such playing with our notions of time, predicting the future, and the future when it comes referencing the past, the writers of scripture mixing songs and poems and narratives and history and science all into one! Imagine. Now, mixing is more dramatic, more obvious, and maybe potentially more entertaining than ever, and we should embrace the concept. But again, mixing has always been done, sampling has always been a part of writing; what is new is the technology to provide hyper mixing.

Rice's excitement about alter egos in the hip hop world seems to overlook the fact that each and every time we write, we write with a different identity. Okay, when my students turn in their work, they sign their names, usually, to it. But, in the range of discouse, a student who writes an analytical paper on the Great Gatsby and then the next day pens a spoken word poem for his spoken word open mic night is most definitely mixing in different identities, whether he or she stills goes by the same name or not. What's in a name? What we are aware of as writing teachers are the different voices, the different discourses.

What do I agree with in this article? I agree that mixing is a good thing in writing. I agree that the powers that be often appropriate the cool as a means of maintaining control or equally as a means to actually make socially responsible progress--depending on the motive. I agree that "using appropriation within the rhetoric of cool allows writers to write outside of the limitations of student writing" that allow them to further enjoy other forms of writing. I agree wioth much in principle. But, I find the article narrow, dismissive of core writing, dismissive of the process of mixing that is a form of thinking that is now massively stimulated by technology but that has always been a part of creativity. I also believe in coherence and clarity, which may come in many forms, including incoherence and unclarity in a Zenish way--if it works, it works. If it doesn't, it won't.

For Seminar on Rice's chapter "Appropriation": What the . . .?

Something in me says that this is way over theorizing. I am about 2/3 the way through the article. I have taken one nap and I have been reading for nearly two hours. Yes, I am a slow reader, but this is a really slowly written article, full of words like "foregrounding" (what the hell does foregrounding mean?) and "recontextualizing," and "reinscription" and "topos." I find what Rice has to say interesting, but at some point, the point he is making is just taking too much work to get there. My whole aescetic sensibility (ah, now I sound like Rice--or perhaps more like that old foggie Wayne Booth) when it comes to writing and communication in general is, does it work? And frankly, much of what he is talking about, Burrough's "cut-up" does not work and will not work as much as we want it to work in writing.

I love Burroughs. I have a t-shirt with his picture on it. I should cut it up. But I've never really read much of Burroughs' work because it is too hard, too cut up, doesn't make a lot of narrative sense to me. The cut-up method may work great for movies, for painting, for music--but for writing? I'm not sure. Yes, it will, as experimentation, for sure, and great works will employ its method. But I just don't get the paranoia around making coherent sense?

I do understand that as writers experiment with narrative and cohesion, those that are really good at it will help shape the structure of thinking in the end. But, here's something I'm not too sure about: "As a writing strategy, its purpose is to undemine the dominant ideology of a given text, to reduce 'control symbols pounded to word and image dust; crumpled cloth boides of the vast control machine" (63).

I'm not naive. I understand that rhetorical structures are part of a power structure and appropriation of the cool can be a power play by the powers that be to deceptively include the marginalized (and the cool) while actually maintaining power by siphoning off the cool for themselves. On the other hand, what happens if there really is a revolution? What happens if there really is drastic, radical change of social order and an action that strips away the corporate greed and insidious tyranny of the corporate capitalistic beast? Will the leaders of this revolution lead the masses with rallies of cut-up rhetoric? Will the inspirational text of the revolution be split into four parts so that the actual order and cohesion of the message is deliberately decodified so that no one can understand what the ?+%* is going on?

I feel I am being cynnical and perhaps being old foggie (how do you spell that word?)here, but I just wonder what would have happened to the speaches of Dr. King if he had employed cut-up?

Now, with paintings, music, even plays, I can see it. I get it. Picasso did it. MTV did it. Becket did it. But they don't lose the story when they do. My fear is, what happens to the story? What happens to science? What happens to history? (okay--history could use some cut up--needs a jolt.) I'm just a little put off by all the theorizing when an artist, a writer, basically has a point to make and the point will be made by whatever means possible, but it should not be made at the expense of the enjoyment or the message itself--otherwise, what is the point? Are we supposed to be outraged by advertising appropriating cool? By white society appropriating black cool? Can Dick Cheney be cool? Would we be pissed off if he actually were?

Enough said. I'll contradict myself on the issue tomorrow. Maybe I should finish the article first.

For students in Tom's class: URL updates

Hi. Below is an updated list of everyone's URL, except for Nick's, whose URL I don't have yet (?)

Kunga: http://lakashak.blogspot.com

Shawn: http://Ace5134.blogspot.com

Makayla: http://imjustme3.blogspot.com

Linh: http://sophiaLex.blogspot.com

Chasidy: http://chase-young22.blogspot.com

David: http://goblin-david.blogspot.com

Enis: http://6floooooo.blogspot.com

Jared: http://jyoungbuck.blogspot.com

Becca: http://xkoolchiickx.blogspot.com

Devonna: http://dajpepz.blogspot.com

Natanya: http://onatzwords.blogspot.com

Ricky: http://ricky-tan-ricky-tan.blogspot.com

Larenda: http://lmaul.blogspot.com

Michaela: http://peopleblog-makadayla.blogspot.com

Jhazmne: http://ilikeapples23.blogspot.com

* Double check that I have copied your URL correctly.

* As of Tuesday, June 30, you should have the following work done:
1. blog site set up
2. all class URL's listed in your blogs I'm following list
3. all the outside URL blogs I've listed for you to add to your follow list
4. This I Believe essay posted to blog
5. Three This I Believe essays read and comments posted to those three bloggers
6. At least one outside blog article read, and then summarized, critiqued, and responded to as a New Post on your blog.

Keep working. Keep writing. Remember, you are writers and thinkers.

First Post in Response to Yancey article

I will start with Yancey's conclusion: "In helping create writing publics, we also foster the development of citizens who vote, of citizens whose civic literacy is global in its sensibility and its communicative potential, and whose commitment to humanity is characterized by consistency and generosity as well as the ability to write for purposes that are unconstrained and audiences that are nearly unlimited."

I think this is a noble endeavor. It is a great objective, and it will be one that I try to remember to keep at the forefront of my own teaching. One thought that comes to mind about the quotation, other than its noble intention, is that it seems that this objective has always been at the core of teaching writing, perhaps forever. Regardless of the advancements of technology, helping to create writing publics and to foster democratic citizenship has I think always been part of the teaching agenda.

The point that Yancey makes is perhaps the same one that occurs each and every time a society hits a new turning point in technological advancement. When hieroglyphics evolved from picture writing to phonic symbols, new possibilities for spreading the power of communication was also most likely urged. Now, Yancey seems to suggest, with the proliferation of electronic media and the eyeblink speed of world-wide communication via the web and other media possibilities, we must again adapt to the times and incorporate what is becoming main stream into our curriculum so that we as teachers don't become irrelevant.

It is only this year that I have begun to feel like I am swimming up current in the tech-river. I do feel behind now, and it does affect my effectiveness. However, that said, I want to just share this very short anecdote. In the copy room last semester in school, I expressed to a colleague this feeling of falling behind. And he said, "Yes, maybe, but we have to remember that now matter what, teaching still boils down to asking good questions and soliciting good answers. Teaching is still about an idea, no matter how we get there." I take this notion too to be true. The core is the same. To update delivery method is important, but it is not the most important. The idea at the heart of the matter is still what counts the most.

Welcome to Blog-in

This blog site is under construction and development for a class or classy students in the PEOPLE program. Stay posted.