FoolsCap

An exchange on Jeff’s blog moved here and edited slightly for general consumption.  Jeff wrote:

To do that kind of consideration, one would have to do a “lateral search”; that is, one would have to understand how various relationships (textual, personal, conceptual, physical) organize a given experience or idea. One wouldn’t do only a search for X, but would also investigate various relationships that do not go by the name of X (but can be understood as related in given experiences).

Feeling frustrated in my efforts to write my own assignment, I was going to e-mail Jeff with some questions about suggested starting places (since, to some degree, the assignment is modeled on the assignment outlined in “1963 Hip-Hop Machine”). But I’ve reread this blog entry (esp. the above passage) a few times now and I think I’m beginning to see a few things.

First: For my purposes, the “experience or idea” in question is the writer’s relationship to a given text (in particular, Danielewski’s House of Leaves). So, in the lateral search model Jeff outlines, the first “step” (although I’m resistant to making everything a formualic 1-2-3 process) would be to outline what relationships organize my experience of that text.

Second: This is where things get tricky for me. I can identify some levels of experience that organize the me-text relationship: the discovery/reading/passing along of the text, the theoretical explications of the text (which I’ve started reading), and the connections between the novel and other theory–theory that (now) informs my experience of the text, though HoL is never mentioned. So, I’ve sort of identified the personal, textual, and conceptual fields you suggest. But I’ve been frustrated by my efforts to learn more about the physical relationships of this text. I understand your use of physical relationships here as material–and, even further–in particular the material history of the text. But, since this text was only published in 2000, its influence hasn’t really been evident yet, I think. Since new media/digital theory is still in its infancy (or perhaps early adolesence) [I was completely wrong about this, btw.  MLM], this text is starting to gain more attention–the articles I’m reading now were only published in 04 and 06.

Three: So, the question perhaps becomes one of expectations, standards, and pragmatics. I’ve found that I can’t really produce the writing that I want in the time I’ve allowed myself–which, admittedly, isn’t very much, but I didn’t know what way my syllabus was going until a week ago myself. But, to some degree, I think the paper I’ve got in my mind reflects some of the values I want the assignment to reflect: research, personal investment in the research object, the value of serendipity (several sources are from things I’ve read in classes or elsewhere). And, for me, at least, some measure of self-discovery–I can’t require that as part of the assignment, but it is a motivating factor behind the assignment nonetheless. Nevetheless, I am stifled by imagination (where else do I look?) and institution (I have other research demands for other classes).

I am left then with a quandary: Assuming I produce the writing I can given what is available to me, do I play altruistic and judge it against my original ideas for the assignment, or view this as a lesson in pragmatics and perhaps realize that the assignment as originally conceived might need tinkering? On one hand, as mentioned, the assignment (as it might come out) fulfills many of its intended goals. On the other, I am disappointed and frustrated by my poor planning and inability to make it work the way I want to. Can I extrapolate then that my students might meet similar frustrations given the “old” standards for the assignment?

I suppose all of this (including the previous “all of this” statements) can be reduced further to the following: I am resistant to the idea of asking my freshman students to just produce another “research paper,” if only because one thing that interests me in much of my current reading is ways to move past old models of writing/research/reading. Further, the new models being explored offer many virtues, but the one that sticks out most to me is that of personal investment in the research object–pleasure in text as motivating factor for pedagogy/research/writing. Does this assignment (as it might pan out) exploit that? Yes. The question then is this: what is the aim of an “old” research paper as opposed to that of the “new” research text–a distinction made by Scholes et al. in Text Book? Their answer is that the paper is about hermeneutic/interpretation/proof, while the text is about heuristic/aesthetic/recognition–such that writing becomes a textual performance. Does the “new,” “reduced” model of my assignment accomplish these? I think it does.

As you noted a few days ago via e-mail, this is not the last class I will teach (with any luck, hahaha). As my own understanding of pedagogy (both pragmatically and theoretically) and research (both cold searches and lateral searches) develops, I may find a way to make this assignment work in its old model, but–since I’m still struggling with it now–it might be best to reassess my expectations for the assignment for the time being.