Sizing the Dark

Sizing the Dark. In this illustration, a pair of figures (silhouettes) sit in folding chairs on a lit front porch. A small, circular table between them has a pair of drinking glasses on it.
Sizing the Dark. In this illustration, a pair of figures (silhouettes) sit in folding chairs on a lit front porch. A small, circular table between them has a pair of drinking glasses on it.

The OnlyPoems Poem of the Month arrived via email last Monday. The assignment cycle has become routine by now. I have drawn an illustration to pair with the poem of the month every month since April, so October makes seven times. July and August were you-picks, where the editors chose between two drawings, so there have been more than seven illustrations, but all-told seven months, seven full moons. I count on the poem to arrive within a few days or as much as a week before the end of the month, but I don’t block out time on the calendar for drawing. Instead the drawing tides finds gappy hours or half hours here and there, usually later in the day. But last week, Monday, I taught until seven, and then Tuesday I was preoccupied with the šŸ€Celtics-versus-KnicksšŸ©³ NBA season opener, and for whatever reasons, I didn’t get around to drawing until Wednesday, and even Wednesday’s pixel work was a hard startā€“tentative, second-guessing, sand in gears. Chew on your Apple pencil until it gives you a toothache.

I pressed on and worked all the way through the drawing on Thursday, and gradually I felt the process pick up momentum, snowballing tints of what I wrote about last time, carrying on like poetic misprision: orbited in small but growing circles from a serendipitously keyed generativityā€“merely a phrase or line, follow what clicks. Maybe it is comparable to being towed out to sea, little one-person lazy river air mattress-style, calmly and without wavering, not heavy, slow barge or cruise liner or rusted armada. As an inventive process, the flow state also reminds me of secondary imagination, which I have not read about directly but heard CGB describe this past summer, citing Freud, pretty sure, as that which, as from dreams or hazy memories, reassembles something uncanny in language and images though not always bearing fidelity to reality. Here the peculiar and the ordinary eddy, swirl, inexact edges bounding them. This, if we learn to listen for it, sparks wonder.

An animated GIF shows five plastic chairs in a row. In the leftmost chair, a human-like figure twinkles and sparkles, its form made of stardust.
Starfieldmentor.gif. An animated GIF shows five plastic chairs in a row. In the leftmost chair, a human-like figure twinkles and sparkles, its form made of stardust.

For this particular drawing, Sizing the Dark, I held closest (and returned) to a few images from middle lines, about sitting on the porch in folding chairs, about a yellow light. You can read them here. The poem’s phrases recalled an animated gif I have used in a couple of presentations over the years. I didn’t know it until a recent writing group session when I posted it to the chat and asked if anyone knew, but the image is a brief cut from The Bird and The Bee’s video for “Polite Dance Song.” That video released on January 1, 2008, but I never had heard the song, never had watched the video, only knew the gif. The gif is all over Pinterest boards from 2010, yet in post after post it appears unattributed. I always thought of it as the twinkling specter gif, stored where I can remember to find it under the filename starfieldmentor.gif. It is an image I first used in a talk about mentorship and social media at the Computers & Writing Conference at Purdue U in 2010. Seven years later, it resurfaced in a talk I delivered at EMU called “In Walks a Snowflake.” “In Walks” was a presentation about the unseen, inobservable company we keepā€“elders and mentors and relations who we carry with us when we enter a room, and about why and how to involve that inobservable company, literacy being all about involvement, as Deborah Brandt teaches us. The EMU presentation wasn’t as conventionally academic as most other presentations I’d delivered up to that point. There I was on January 20, 2017, presenting the talk about sponsors of literacy, sponsor avatars, ethereal relations, and snowflakes to a full room for the Academic Success Partnerships Scholars’ Banquet. Even more, Ph. took time out of his day to attend. He sat to my left and even took a photo of me as I stood full-throated and nervous on that platform, following script and slides, voice occasionally quaking, verklempt in moments like standing at shores of affective groundlessness can make us feel. Here is that photo he took.

A presenter, Derek Mueller, delivers a presentation in 2017 titled "In Walks a Snowflake."
In Walks a Snowflake photo. Ph. took this during the keynote presentation I gave at the Academic Success Partnerships Scholars’ Banquet, January 20, 2017.

I’ve used the photo as a professional head shot for a few years, and I have been cautioned casually by university PR types that it doesn’t quite pass the standards for the genre, that it is too much action shot, too much full body, that it is too much a younger person than I happen to be now, evidently all crow’s feet, withered by time and stress and sitting too much, and gray race stripes catching me up with other grandies. Holding out, my nonchalant defense is that I have throughout my career only used as professional photos images of me that were taken by Ph. and Is., as this underscores what an abundant source rejuvenates, to see myself as they have seen me. Whatever else can be said of that loop, it somehow always picks me up, brings me home.

And so with starfieldmentor.gif in mind, making its return every seven years or so, I read the poem of the month one more time and one more time the middle lines stuck. Silhouettes. Porch sitting. Folding chairs. Yellow light. Whiskey pours.

The line art for "Sizing the Dark" shows outlines for the folding chairs, silhouette figures, and porch scene.
Line art for Sizing the Dark.

I think I drew rough sketches of the chairs first. Added the porch-like platform beneath them. Then attempted to fill in scenic details, fashion a secondarily imagined cyclorama, mulling over What porches do I really understand?, their architectures even crudely enough accessible to form lines without going about reviewing porches, studying their forms directly. There is this one, here at the end of Rosemary Road, front porch where I sweep leaves or pluck tiny hornet hives, where I sit and read and fiddle with ideas. Also the porch at the condo in Ypsilanti where the octagonal window holds on as unique 1970s punctuation, translucent and shapely. Once I recognized that porch to be this illustration’s porch, the lines fell easily. Perhaps for another post one day, is this what it means to be a so-called visual person?, to follow a step farther the overlaps among language, image, memory, and making as if special the thing stirred by these conditions?

Process video. The video shows the sketched lines, the filling in of color for the background elements (fence, porch, chairs), and the outlining of figures in each of the two chairs.

With the 2D illustration reasonably complete, late Thursday I added an animated element. I wanted the silhouettes to appear both empty-ish yet activated. Continuing in Procreate, I saved a copy of the 2D jpg, then added it as a background layer. With the selection tool and the outlined silhouettes, I could add layers to the animation and in each layer fill the space with color and texture. Finally, I added a fixed foreground layer with a yellow crescent, gaussian blurred, and tuned the frame rates until I found the twinkle rhythm I thought worked best.

A pair of silhouettes sit in folding chairs on a lit front porch. In this animated version, their bodies are filled with moving patterns.
Final version, Sizing the Dark. A pair of silhouettes sit in folding chairs on a lit front porch. In this animated version, their bodies are filled with moving patterns. I realize the OnlyPoems site may not be able to host or display the animated gif, but that’s digital life.

This entry is beginning to feel processually overwrought, so I’ll close with this, the final touch, about titling. I considered variations of porch lighting, porch light, leaving the light on, and so on. And then I stumbled onto this Charles Wright poem from 1977, “Sitting at Night on the Front Porch“ā€“another vector altogether new to me but also familiar, in that it pointed to this animated gif I’d made, pointed toward what I meant, much as the animated gif pointed soft arrow and dotted line back to it. And herein was the drawing’s title:

ā€œSitting at Night on the Front Porch” by Charles Wright

Iā€™m here, on the dark porch, restyled in my motherā€™s chair.
10:45 and no moon.
Below the house, car lights
Swing down, on the canyon floor, to the sea.

In this they resemble us,
Dropping like match flames through the great void
Under our feet.
In this they resemble her, burning and disappearing.

Everyoneā€™s gone
And Iā€™m here, sizing the dark, saving my motherā€™s seat.

Poetic Misprision

After teaching the graduate seminar on Monday evening, I stumbled onto “poetic misprision” because I went looking for words or phrases meaning something like “inventive misreading.” Poetic misprision is credited to Harold Bloom, who wrote about it as an interpretive-hermeneutic misstep, such that while reading (and otherwise making sense of) a literary text, the reader follows a fork in meaning’s path and forges way through and along a kind of misunderstanding. Within this context, the causes, delights, and generative takeaways linked to this phenomenon are fuzzy, or not emphasized, not in the few snippets I’ve read, though this could simply be a reflection of how shallowly I’ve waded in.

For class, we had read Prior and Shipka’s 2003 chapter, “Chronotopic Lamination: Tracing the Contours of Literate Activity,” and the wisp directing us all to consider inventive misreading owed to one seminar participant disclosing a blink impression that the title was “Chronotopic Lamentation.” Dialogue played this out for a few minutes, but it brought me back to whether or not we had a fitting term for those clicks of miscomprehension that carry on and that sometimes become inventive (moreso than mnemonics or than retold tales for a chuckle, which are other gainful takeaways). In other words, extending from chronotopic lamentation the misreading flutters, buzzes, and chances spinning an unexpected web of meanings. I consider the phrase in this specific case more the happenprovenance of the seminar participant, so rather than revisit those meanings, for now I will simply note them as more than we expected and return to the point about poetic misprision.

Misprision seems to translate more or less as “to take wrongly.” And this fits well enough with reading lamination as lamentation, but ‘taking wrongly’ still does not venture through the looking glass as fully as I would like. ‘To take wrongly’ could come with a hermeneut’s scold. But the misread word worlds…or can world into a meticulous if entirely unintended and accidental yarn. Poetic misprision doesn’t authorize the weaver to carry out boldly the unraveling of pulled strings. But what then would be an apt name for the phenomenon of accidental, generative misreading at the level of a word or phrase? I am laminating the fact that the best I can come up with is heuristic euprision, so something like ‘to take and run away with.’

Digital Rhetorics: Simply Too Complicated a Phenomenon

Cross-posted at the SDRC.

Digital rhetorics1 provide a vast suite of generating principles. These principles are difficult to collect into a simple model, much less to name, substantiate, and prioritize. Fortunately, difficulties like these are much of what motivates digital rhetorics scholarship (some of which was reviewed by others in previous entries), and they are also what I find both exciting and challenging about the field. Digital rhetorics often draw on reasonably well-traveled rhetorical theories (Aristotle’s appeals, Burke’s dramatisms, stases, etc.), but they also subject traditional concepts to renewal and reinvention. Collin Brooke’s Lingua Fracta comes to mind as a terrific example of this renewal for the ways it reconceives rhetoric’s five canons in light of new media, but also because it explicitly recognizes ongoing change as inevitable. Thus, it stands to reason that we must refrain from settling too comfortably into static definitions lest we appear monolithic in how we think about digital rhetorics, how we enact them. Where rhetorical principles–new, established, cultural, applied–converge with hypertext, blogging, SMS, sonic mixing, still image and video editing, and more (a comprehensive list remains forever out of reach), distinctive practices emerge, and with them come abundant opportunities and responsibilities for teaching and learning, for rhetorical education concerned with composing across screens. Underscoring circulation, participation, contingency, and immediacy, digital rhetorics shift, intensify, or subside with particular tools, materials, and media. So digital rhetorics, as I think of them, tend to follow a crosshatched pattern, a meshwork similar to the boat wakes Burke noticed in the WWII gallery photograph (see Spread 7): one set of threads responsive to rhetorics, the other responsive to new media, and among them multiple junctures due for exploration.

Yet, considering all that digital rhetorics make possible, the quick sketch above remains an incomplete response to the carnival call: “What does digital rhetoric mean to me?” Perhaps another approach can enter a bit more definitional richness into play. For this, I turn to Googlism.com. Googlism is a playful site (also rather like a para-site) that has been around for almost a decade. Basically, with search terms entered, it draws upon Google’s indexes to retrieve a list of equative phrases (e.g., [search term] is […]) related to one of four designated conditions: who, what, when, or where. A Googlism for the what of “digital rhetoric” yields this:

  1. digital rhetoric is characterized by many new genres
  2. digital rhetoric is similar to the classical rhetoric of ancient
  3. digital rhetoric is ?rhetoric? that is ?digital
  4. digital rhetoric is would you like a KML file to go with your fine map
  5. digital rhetoric is more of a disciplinary nebula than a field
  6. digital rhetoric is Jeff Rice’s Grammar <A> contending with English A, Grammar B while creating a curricular opening for Grammar PHP
  7. digital rhetoric is at once exciting and troublesome
  8. digital rhetoric is not such a new idea
  9. digital rhetoric is the sattelitization of a lost dog found with an embedded RFID chip
  10. digital rhetoric is capacious: the parlor as Tardis
  11. digital rhetoric is this concept of genres and media
  12. digital rhetoric is to me
  13. digital rhetoric is a Roland Barthes hologram annotating images of his mother and more in a Flickr set called “Almosts”
  14. digital rhetoric is less about technological devices and more about a process or
  15. digital rhetoric is Yancey’s “Composition in a New Key”
  16. digital rhetoric is that it has the potential to completely change or even slightly alter the purpose of discourse
  17. digital rhetoric is a bridging mechanism between digital consumers and producer
  18. digital rhetoric is worthy of greater attention by rhetoric and communication
  19. digital rhetoric is databasic literacy
  20. digital rhetoric is especially important now that so many citizens rely on official websites as sources of information
  21. digital rhetoric is simply too complicated a phenomenon to be able to figure out so swiftly
  22. digital rhetoric is unavailable designs available
  23. digital rhetoric is a course designed to engage online composition and push the edges of theory and practice
  24. digital rhetoric is objects by which I mean units by which I mean things by which I mean nonhumans
  25. digital rhetoric is wasted if those same students aren’t also able to see the relevance of digital rhetoric to their own lives once they leave
  26. digital rhetoric is appearing all the time from scholars in communication
  27. digital rhetoric is about writing ?clearly
  28. digital rhetoric is a book
  29. digital rhetoric is that it is inferior to extended argument
  30. digital rhetoric is especially important now that so many citizens rely on official websites as sources of information

The core list (21 of the items here) comes from “digital rhetoric is” strings appearing in various places on the web. But I’ve also embellished the list with a couple of add-ons of my own. Without cross-referencing Googlism.com, can you guess which ones they are? Which of the statements do you find most useful? Least useful? What “digital rhetoric is” statement would you add? Which one would you place at the top of this list? Why?

[1] I think it is fitting to assign the ‘s’, thus making digital rhetorics plural.

Good Ideas

I like much of Steven Johnson’s stuff, and undoubtedly I will pick up a copy of his latest book project, Where Good Ideas Come From, though probably not until next summer. As I watched this TEDtalk, though, I’m dissatisfied with how little work on rhetorical invention surfaces here. Johnson’s “liquid network” is an intriguing metaphor, indeed: drink together, think together…eureka! Or, sometimes, “I’ve got nothing. May I have another?” But I wonder whether this “natural history of innovation” will do much more to advance thinking about how good ideas happen than did Karen Burke LeFevre’s Invention as a Social Act (1987), a book whose premises have by now become a given for contemporary rhetorical thinking. This “noodling around” and “hacking” is fascinating stuff, especially when such innovative acts are paired with vivid, thoughtful anecdotes, a storytelling strategy Johnson deploys with distinction. Since Johnson is great at making theoretical concepts accessible, maybe this new project will be a good fit with existing work on invention. On the other hand, absent some acknowledgment of a larger family of ideas related to invention, e.g., “systematic serendipity” (via Merton via Halavais, a concept we discussed yesterday in ENGL326) or contingency (an alternative to managerial rhetoric Muckelbauer develops smartly in The Future of Invention), the originary “where” from which good ideas come will remain partial, incomplete, problematically runny.

Allowing that I haven’t picked up the book (!), I look forward to reading it with these few provisional concerns in mind. In that sense, I guess this amounts to some sort of TED-motivated pre-review. Furthermore, I wrote it while sitting all alone in my campus dorm-office, which probably means good ideas here are few, far between.

Theory Blackmailed, or Invention Hobbled?

Yesterday–day one of teaching in the new semester–did not quite go as planned, and in the wake of a couple of surprises, I didn’t get around to posting like I intended to in recognition of the nth annual RB of September. After a few years such postings carry a some heavy, if solitarily imagined, burden of tradition. Thus, “theory blackmailed”:

Many (still unpublished) avant-garde texts are uncertain: how to judge, to classify them, how to predict their immediate or eventual future? Do they please? Do they bore? Their obvious quality is of an intentional order: they are concerned to serve theory. Yet this quality is a blackmail as well (theory blackmailed): love me, keep me, defend me, since I conform to the theory you call for; do I not do what Artaud, Cage, etc. have done? –But Artaud is not just “avant-garde”; he is a kind of writing as well; Cage has certain charm as well… –But those are precisely the attributes which are not recognized by theory, which are sometimes even execrated by theory. At least make your taste and your ideas match, etc. (The scene continues, endlessly.) (54)

Why blackmailed? Translator Richard Howard could have selected a different connotation of “la chantage,” e.g., bluff, or intimidation. When the avante-garde serves theory, theory in turn may be said to hobble invention, to wrap it in a splint, to contain it. I read in this Barthes passage a concern for theory’s disciplining of innovation. Unexpectedly, this clicks with concerns in the Introduction and first chapter of Muckelbauer’s The Future of Invention, a book I’ve just started. Related are questions about what becomes of “the attributes which are not recognized by theory,” put another, perhaps more helpful way, Can theory keep up with avante-garde performances? Must it?

Anyway, happy RB Day, twice belatedly.

Everything Inventive Is Good For You

Earlier this week I wrapped up Steven Johnson’s latest, The Invention of
Air
, a pop-sci biography of Joseph Priestley. The book was typical, enjoyable
Johnson: cleverly woven anecdotes, theoretical hints concerning networks and
ecologies of influence, and iterative trigger-phrases that pop just enough to
keep the narrative lively and fast-moving. I soared through the first 160
pages in-flight last Friday and then got back into the final chapters a couple
of days ago. And I liked the book very much, except that it slowed ever
so slightly near the end: the young, experimental Priestley was more provocative
than the aging, dislocated Priestley. The latter, it turns out, suffered late in
the religious and political aspects of his life because of the the same
"congenital openness" (190) (or "chronic intellectual openness" (142)) that
helped him become so influential on enlightenment scientific inquiry, and this
section of the book worked at a noticeably different pace than the one dealing
with Priestley’s tinkering with plants.

Johnson characterizes his own ecological approach to Priestley’s life with
the phrase "long zoom":

Ecosystem theory has changed our view of the planet in countless ways,
but as an intellectual model it has one defining characteristic: it is a
"long zoom" science, one that jumps from scale to scale, and from discipline
to discipline, to explain its object of study: from the microbiology of
bacteria, to the cross-species flux of nutrient cycling, to the global
patterns of weather systems, all the way out to the physics that explains
how solar energy collides with the Earth’s atmosphere. (45)

The "long zoom", thus, is both a description of Priestley’s intellectual
manner and also Johnson’s method of developing the biography. "Long zoom"
is an idea Johnson incubated in an NYU seminar he taught on Cultural Ecosystems
and through an invited talk he gave to the
Long Now Foundation
in 2007 (according to footnotes in TIoA). I
doubt that The Invention of Air does full justice to the concept as
Johnson thinks of it, but the project does, on the other hand, seem to enact the
"long zoom." In the passage above, the reference to scale-jumping exposes one of
the rough edges of the concept. The "zoom" also comes off as predominantly
vertical, along the lines of the orders of magnitude, more than horizontal or
some combination of the two (viz. networked); it is not, in other words, a "long
pan" or "long track" (here I’m thinking of the extended camera metaphors–pan,
track, zoom–adopted smartly by Rosenwasser and Stephen when they talk about
inquiry, research, and modes of engaging with an object of study). I mean that
Johnson’s "long zoom," even though he does not say so explicitly in The
Invention of Air
, seems to work both horizontally, vertically, and extra-dimensionally,
as suited to networked relations as to ordered magnitudes, and all the while
alert to the dangers in too recklessly skipping from one scale to another
(Latour).

Priestley comes to light as a "roving" intellectual (205), one whose "hot
hand" series of scientific breakthroughs culminated as consequence of a 30-year
"long hunch" he’d been following (70). The "long zoom"–a kind of
scale-shifting, one-thing-leads-to-another approach–allows Johnson to pin down
Priestley’s knowledge-making wanderluck. Yet, at another point,
Priestley’s success with hunches appears to be as much grounded in his "knack
for ‘socializing’ with his own ideas" (74) as a credit to his roving, generalist
sensibility. Where Johnson writes of Priestley’s affinity for socializing with
his own ideas, TIoA comes remarkably close to delivering a product
placement ad for DevonThink–almost to the point of making me thing I’d

read about it before
(re: Johnson, not Priestley).

There is much more to say about The Invention of Air, but I’m out of
time, viz. paradigms and anomalies (44), coffee and coffeehouses (54), hack vs.
theoretician (62), ecosystems view of the world (82).