Tag Archives: CCCC

x6: Fitzpatrick and Miller (and some thoughts on CCCC)

I’ll be interested to start our conversation next Friday by hearing about your impressions of our “virtual”—and admittedly diffuse—class this week. What impressions did you have of the #4c14 twitter feed? How satisfying (or not) was it to discuss Lessig through the medium of posts and comments alone?

Let me offer two quick thoughts about attending the conference while trying to keep in touch with this group. First, I both enjoyed tweeting the conference and found it distracting. It’s very different from simply taking notes, which are a far more expansive genre, both in terms of how much you can say and their expressive range. Which leads me to my second thought: I attended one session which I did not tweet, because it was a “big-name” panel  that I found very annoying when it wasn’t simply tedious. But the conference twitter feed did not seem the right forum to make such a remark (and still retain a number of people as friends). Which in turn made me think about what seem some pretty striking limits of Twitter as a space for critical conversation.

From a distance, I was struck by the tepid responses to Lessig. Upon rereading him, I think I can see and feel why. Lessig is important for his advocacy of an open culture and his critique of expanded copyright. (I think for many of us oldsters he was the person to make that argument.)  But his tone now feels off—more combative, more dichotomizing, less willing to recognize  and build from the non-RO aspects of our culture. (In that vein, I continue to find Standage’s emphasis on continuities appealing, even if he doesn’t like TV.) My hunch is, then, that for the purposes of this class, we can probably acknowledge what Lessig contributes and move on.

Which will be, to my mind, toward a much more engaging book. I am reading Fitzpatrick’s Planned Obsolescence for the first time and enjoying and admiring it immensely. So I’d like us to try to read through the whole of her book for Friday—but given that I am only halfway through it myself, I’ll understand if you need to make an “in progress” post on Tuesday. (Remember that our new deadline is 11:59 pm.)

1534362_827440907271719_701961609_n

This will be a free response, but I suspect it might prove useful and interesting if you can scan Richard Miller’s text2cloud (or some other online academic writing you admire) in relation to Fitzpatrick’s book. In any case, please  keep in my mind that we will have Richard in seminar with us on Friday, and that he will giving a public talk on Thursday afternoon (3:30, 111 Memorial). Richard is a very engaging speaker; you’ll want to hear him if you possibly can, and I will be counting on you have some questions and thoughts for him in class.

I apologize for the impromptu and rambling form of this post. It is being composed directly in the text box at a lunch table in Indianapolis. That is, of course, precisely the sort of thing I warned all of you never to do—but I felt it was urgent to connect. I look forward to seeing all of you in person next week!

Advertisements

x5: Virtual 685

As an academic, one thing I’ve grown good at is self-rationalization. Not to mention an ironic self-awareness of my efforts at self-rationalization. It is thus with full and ironic self-awareness that I propose turning a problem into an interesting experiment in the issues we are considering in this course.

Next week I’ll be at the annual Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) in Indianapolis. Yes, I will not be teaching my writing classes so I can go talk about teaching writing with other writing teachers who are also skipping their classes. And so, while we won’t be able to meet as a group (at least not with me in the room), I think this could be an interesting occasion to see if we can continue our work together online.

I propose doing so in three stages.

  1. Tues, 3/18, 11:59 pm: Read and respond to the first section of Lawrence Lessig’s Remix, “Cultures” (pp. 1–114). Consider this  a free response—that is, you can use any (or none) of the affordances of digital media in your work.  Your goal should simply be, as always, to provoke thought and response from your classmates.
  2. Thurs, 3/20, 11:59 pm: Post comments to several x5s.
  3. Thurs, 3/20, and Fri, 3/21: Log in as many times you can to both our class twitter feed (#685dw) and the CCCC feed (#4C14).  I will try to tweet as much as I can from the conference (although I’m not used to doing so, and thus can’t make too many promises). You should try to participate as meaningfully as you can in these feeds—either by retweeting or replying to #4C14, and/or commenting on what you see there on the  #685dw.

Let’s see what happens!

Class, Fri, 3/14

Concepts in 60

Let’s watch the videos together and talk about both what they accomplish and what struggles their authors experienced. And, let’s try to come up with at least two more tags for each video identifying its distinctive  genre.

Thinking About Twitter

jay-rosen-yearbook-1978In pairs: Jay Rosen says that what he values in a tweet includes beauty, economy, continuity, and rereadability. Using the #685dw feed as a corpus, identify several tweets that exemplify these values.

CCCC 2014

K22: From Page to Screen: Rhetorical Theory, Text, and Originality in New Media

  • Christine Cucciarre, “A Digital Humanity: Using Classical Rhetoric in the New Media Classroom”
  • Joseph Harris, “Teaching the Essay in a Digital Age”

To do

  1. Tues, 3/18, 11:59 pm: Post your response to Lessig’s Remix (x5).
  2. Thurs, 3/20, and Fri, 3/21: Keep the conversation of this class moving forward by (a) commenting on several x5 posts, and (b) participating in both the #685dw and  #4C14 Twitter feeds.
  3. Tues, 3/25, 11:59 pm: Post your response to Fitzpatrick, Planned Obsolescence (x6).
  4. Thurs, 3/27, 11:59pm: Post comments on x6.
  5. Fri, 3/28, class: Richard Miller visits. Please be ready to talk about both Fitzpatrick and his web project, text2cloud.