Reading The Future of the Book this morning, I saw Ray Cha’s post on Kairos’ anniversary issue 11.1. Ray draws attention to a comment Jim Kalmbach makes regarding the number of hypertexual essays that have found their way into Kairos over the last ten years. Jim provides a detailed overview of some of these hypertexts and concludes with the following commentary regarding the journal’s future and continued production of such hypertexts:

In short, we do not need ever more stunning hypermediated essays; we need new forms of scholarship; we need to think about new ways of using digital writing spaces to make meaning. And Kairos, I am sure, will be leading the way.

I agree with Jim. At the same time, I want to - once again - draw further attention to those already making such gestures in very non-hypermediated ways (or, not always “stunning” hypermediated ways). They are right here already, on the Web. They are mostly those members of my or others’ extensive blogrolls. They are writing about mashups, networks, networks and thin-slicing, mapping, blogging, documentaries, and other items. And, of course, they are doing these things that they write about (as opposed to the traditional analysis/critique move). In fact, many folks online are questioning the instrumental reasoning which has dominated the profession for so long, how it - particularly in the area of computers and writing - has settled too quickly on exact representations of scholarship (if it is written by a “computers and writing” person, it is legitimate, if not, it’s not as relevant) or on the will to pedagogy (”That’s interesting, but show me how you taught that! Show me some student work!”) or on the correlation between theory and digitality (”I need a text on the digital” as opposed to understanding how other texts may speak to the digital in novel ways not yet explored) or on the “legacy” of the area called “computers and writing” (the various “pioneer” narratives that resurface every year at or prior to the conference).

This is not a critique of Jim (who I respect) nor the overview he presents, but rather a comment on recognition. What does it mean to be recognized, particularly today as online writing and print writing meet up in various ways, some predictable (quoting/citation), some less so (responses, connections). What does it mean to continue the practice of the “call” (We need more X) when, in fact, the call may already be performed in places one has or hasn’t yet explored? What does it mean to shift perspectives regarding what is or isn’t digital or who is or isn’t working within this area of scholarship and teaching?

I suppose the point I am inching towards is part frustration over the question of recognition and part frustration over the question of ethos. The WPA Technology Plank was an obvious place for that frustration to surface (and still is since its authors seem to have paid little attention to the online critiques it generated). With further “calls,” it is not the same feeling, yet still, there is an odd feeling of despondency. If anything, we are beyond the mantra of requesting calls. More to the point is the question of where our attentions are being directed, or where we are directing our attentions, or who is commanding our attentions. I’ve come to feel that the dozen, two dozen, or however how many who are online and reading each other online, are too small a number. But this issue is also problematic in that a false impression is often created regarding what kind of work is being done. I remember an exchange I had a few years ago with someone either on WPA-L or TechRhet about weblogs. This person - who is well known - dismissed the importance of weblogs while also noting that he was not familiar with them. If weblogs are important, he asked, where are they? To which I responded, go to a blogroll and follow the links. He declined. Recognition, and where we direct that recognition, begins with shifts in perspective: how we read, what we read, how we connect what we read.