Stevens, Anne H., and Jay Williams. "The Footnote, in Theory."
Critical Inquiry 32 (Winter 2006): 208-225.
Tag: journals
Daly-Goggin, Authoring A Discipline.
Daly-Goggin, Maureen. Authoring A Discipline: Scholarly Journals and the
Post-World War II Emergence of Rhetoric and Composition. Mahwah, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000.
Searchable text available in Google Book Search.
Clouds, Graphs, Maps
A couple of days ago Mike posted notes on
my
CCCC talk from late last month, and I was reminded that I’m at least ten days
past due on the video
I said I would
produce following the conference.
I recorded the talk to an mp3 yesterday afternoon and went to
campus last night where I planned to use iMovie to sync the audio with jpegs of
the slides. Because the slideshow includes text, I needed to get the
resolution right, but, well, it started to get late. I started to get impatient.
I was able to output a reasonably readable mp4 file, but for whatever reason, I couldn’t get
Google Video or
Daily Motion to encode it.
Finally Jumpcut accepted the file, so it’s
available below the fold (even if much of it suffers from jaggies). The original mp4 is available for download
here.
Fulkerson, “Four Philosophies of Composition”
Fulkerson,
Richard. "Four Philosophies of Composition." Composition
in Four Keys: Inquiring into the Field. Barbara Gleason, Louise Wetherbee Phelps, and Mark Wiley, eds. Mountain View, Calif.: Mayfield, 1996. 551-555.
Moran, “Computers and Composition 1983-2002”
Moran,
Charles. "Computers and Composition 1983-2002: What We Have Hoped
For.’" Computers and Composition. 20 (2003): 343-358.
Bibliometrics JACing
I got caught up reading the
Moretti Event
over at The Valve, but I still have a minute to post a few notes about something
I was thinking about earlier today. I read the introduction to David
Smit’s The End of Composition Studies yesterday; there, he has this to
say about the ideological dissymmetry among compositionists, divergences
characteristic of the field at-large:
CCC Online as Teleidoscope
Inside Higher Ed is running
Collin’s piece
today about CCC Online called
"Mirror, Mirror on the Web." The column puts a
beam on CCC Online
and introduces a few of the features of the site, but beyond that–and more
importantly, I’d say–it makes explicit some of the ways blog-based thinking
influenced the creation of the site. As the article makes plain, the three
of us working on the project are active bloggers; I think it’s safe to say
that the practice of blogging made the current iteration of CCC Online conceivable.
Serendipity and a diccionario
Serendipitous text day, today. Started yesterday actually, when one of
the cohort at SU distributed an email to the grad list asking if anyone was
interested in a scattershot of duplicate journals she had–JAC,
Composition Studies, Business something or another, CCC.
Excess copies of a smattering of non-sequential, eight-year-old journals.
I clicked on reply, politely accepted the copies of JAC and
Composition Studies. Already had the copies of CCC (maybe), and
decided the business items wouldn’t get any time because my reading list has
grown immensely in these four months. I ‘d swear the heap of reading grows
by four books every day and reduces only by a chapter or two–the pattern of my
low-effort break, anyway.
I lumbered up to the office for some pre-term PDFing around noon today,
grabbed the journals from my mail slot in the lounge, and set to leafing through
the tables of contents. First pick: JAC 17.1 1997. A couple
of interesting finds, but most notable was a review of JoAnn Cambell’s edit of
Gertrude Buck’s work, Toward a Feminist Rhetoric: The Writing of Gertrude
Buck. What. have. we. here? See, I just signed up to give an overview
of Campbell’s book on Buck for CCR611. Actually, the bit will cover the
historiographic method employed by Campbell. Picked it from a generous
list of histories of comp; grabbed up this text even though I read it late in
the last century (spring of ’99) for EN555M, a seminar in feminist composition
history. The review, by Virginia Allen, introduces several sharp bits on
"excavating our disciplinary roots." Allen’s review is duly generous to
both Campbell and Buck; jogged my memory, too, about Buck’s vexing "organic
scientism"–tendencies to lever metaphors of nature and evolution (growth?)
against the logics of biological and human sciences. No need to go farther
with this just yet, and, of course, I’ve said very little about Campbell’s
method, so that remains–among many other busy-makers–for the weeks ahead.