Grant-Davie asks "What is the discourse about?", or more effectively, "what values are at stake"? By asking this, we are introduced to Porter's hypothesis of inter-textuality, and the constrains of the audience, or Text, limiting the writing. As Porter states, " genius is possible, but it may be constrained" (Porter 40). We examine the place of the writer within his community, and now the community's manipulation of the writer's product.
I particularly enjoyed his claim that we should revisit the very idea of plagiarism, and possibly redefine it's parameters to include "borrowing" from our chosen discourses.
Why is this applicable? Why should I care?
Porter might argue that our nation was founded on a plagiarized document. Jefferson's accredited Declaration of Independence was indeed drafted from legislative inspiration of the mid 1700's, and Porter even argues that 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' was a common cliche of the times. I can't help but think, are turns of phrase all intended to be coined? Can an author claim stake to every series of words he produces? Does this mean we cannot ever truly create anything new? How are we to understand proverbs in this light?Despite some initial skepticism, Porter's point asks us to reevaluate our own position in the relation between author and audience, rhetor and discourse community (or Fish's interpretive community, Grant-Davies inter-textual social community) and see that intertext in fact 'constrains writing' and therefore the author as well. He argues that students should learn from none 'heroic' role models who borrow from their discourse communities to better learn how to become a contributing writer in whatever field, or discourse community, that they choose. He wants us to understand that as writers, we are operating in a paradigm that "cultivate(s) the romantic image of the writer as free, uninhibited, as independent creative genius" (Porter 34), and that instead, it is the very community in which we work that should be our focus.
In essence, we, as writers/readers/consumers of literature and writing in its more interpretive forms, are entering an ever changing paradigm- a world in which boundaries and previous notions can no longer be set in stone. This brings me to several curiosities: What is our purpose, now in the height of modernity, to be taking this class? What discourse should we understand ourselves in, and are they different for each of us?
Porter also mentions that 'writing is non linear' which I couldn't help but understand in terms of the TED talk in class, and Erik Whitacre's virtual choir, and the mediums through which he used prose- in the most nonlinear ways. Attempting to redefine our more classical (or limited, linear) understandings of relationships, (i.e: prose/audience, rhetor/rhetorical situation, plagarism/inter-textuality) can cause us to stretch past what we have always understood to be 'true' (or existent as Lizzie pointed out in her blog post) and create something new, something genius, something that may even end up becoming the unaccredited 'Once Upon a Time' of our time.
I found that Porter had some very interesting insights. However, I didn't quite agree with his statements on originality. I feel that each person crafts knowledge in their own particular way. Each individual is original and their input is original, but what do I know?
ReplyDeleteGood write-up, I too found the section about Thomas Jefferson interesting, especially since I studied his life, a lot, my freshman year. From how smart that man was and how much literature he read, how could he have not included some of the knowledge he had read in his life? Crafting knowledge on a personal level is impressive.
I think you have a lot better grasp on these concepts the I do. I found it very helpful reading you blog especially when you summed each author up in one phrase. Good Job.
ReplyDeleteAny way I will try to answer your questions as best I can... I think it is important to ask yourself what is the purpose of taking this class. I think it is too early to answer that question but it is always good to start thinking about it. I think that is has something to do with another one of your curiosities... what discourse are we in? I think the purpose of this class, in terms of the 3 articles we have read so far, is to find what is influencing your discourse. Something or someone or some-work is influencing you. The purpose of this class may be to find what is influencing you, learning why, then either continuing in that discourse, or starting a different path. Best case scenario you shed your influencing discourse on the road to true originality. Just a thought...
I think you bring us several great points and I was struck by your line: I particularly enjoyed his claim that we should revisit the very idea of plagiarism, and possibly redefine it's parameters to include "borrowing" from our chosen discourses. I was raised on the strict boundaries of plagiarism, there was no ethereal shreds of ideas to pluck out of the air and use. It was yours or it belonged to others. The idea of borrowing seems foreign in that strict world, and in this context ‘borrow’ may not even work for can we return what was borrowed to the lender? In thinking about that it took me to your line about how we consume literature. Perhaps that is the return, we consume it, it feeds the group, a new round is created from that food and so on and so on. Our return to the borrower is not individual to individual, but to the group as a whole cultivating the next crop and allowing it to flourish. I enjoyed the post and the way that you provoked many more thoughts.
ReplyDelete