[Previous entry: "1989"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "How Come"]
04/04/2005 Archived Entry: "W.P.A. Rag"
W.P.A. Rag
Blogression:
1938. Big Bill Broonzy records "W.P.A. Rag"
The rag was a popular style of the '30s, a dance or piano-driven composition usually associated with ragtime.
2005. Post to WPA-L listserv requests readers to visit this.
To rag: to put down, critique. That composition still has no clue what hypertext is about encourages me to rag on this short article. Then again, Inside Higher Ed, so much like its cousin The Chronicle, is just a rag. A useless piece of information. A scrap. A throwaway. A tabloid of educational journalism.
Gimme that rag. I feel like rubbing out that article on hypertext which says absolutely nothing.
Our point here is that even techie teachers get technological blues. However, once we begin to figure a few things out, then interesting and good things begin to happen. We learn a new skill, our students get better Web resources, and both teacher and students have yet another new technology to think through practically and critically.
Ah, the rag. The fragment, the scrap circulated over and over in English and composition studies: critical. We must always be critical. Yet this rag is anything but critical. It is an overused, meaningless trope whose purpose is to divert attention from actual scholarship and inquiry into technology so that the least common denominator prevails. "Critical thinking/pedagogy" has become a meaningless term when there is little to no critical thinking going on around its usage.
Are professors today doing enough to use, improve, reflect and criticize our use of computers as tools to teach writing and support learning across the curriculum?
The article answers itself: no.
It rags me to see this kind of work taken as scholarship; banal observations as inquiry? In fact, this article I rag on is raggedy scholarship: tattered, shabby.
"Rice, your critique is too ragged. Too sharp. Take it down a notch."
Yeah yeah. Quit ragging.
Hail stones beatin' on the roof
The bourbon is hundred proof
It's you and me and the telephone
Our destiny is quite well known
We don't need to sit and brag
All we gotta do is rag Mama rag Mama rag
And don't accuse me of being on the _.
Replies: 11 comments
Nope. You didn't. But what you did do was avoid the content of the critique.
And of course by doing that, it's easy to make it about my personality on my space. A move of distraction. This is my space. But that has nothing to do with the problems in your piece which have been brought up.
And I remind you as well: YOU asked folks to read your piece when you posted it to WPA. Welcome to academia. If you can post, I can respond. I chose a platform that isn't WPA. You came to me when you visited my blog and left a comment. On the listserv, you sent your work to US.
Posted by jeff @ 04/07/2005 04:26 PM EST
Dear Jeff, I read a piece you published in C&C several years ago and was unimpressed...nevertheless I respect your work as a contribution to the field.
You failed to see the 2004 piece in Kairos--also you failed to understand that hypertext Reflections broke new ground. You seem to want to break new ground but to do it at my expense is hurtful and unnecessary. Your anger that our field hasn't advanced enough might be tempered better. I share your desire for a more forward thinking, online presence to the teaching of writing and I've worked too hard for the last 25 years in support of that progress to let your little snarking slow me down. A quick google on you didn't turn much of interest (unless you are also a filmmaker) in the first 3 pages. Yes, I'm getting snarky here too because I've listened to you respectfully, visited your blog and contributed intelligently, and I still don't sense any collegial exchange in your posts so much as a desire to assert superiority. You win Jeff--you are the king of your blog and I'm out of here. Can't say it was nice visiting, but I hope I taught you something. Will Hochman
Posted by Will Hochman @ 04/07/2005 04:18 PM EST
"The fact is that most professors have not advanced their own learning spaces into cyberspace in ways that I believe are necessary and wise. The fact that this irritates you is a positive sign for me--maybe the times are a changin..."
And there is the problem - a problem Collin does an excellent job taking to task here . I would extend that position you identify to the field in general. If a 1998 Kairos essay was the end of discussion, we'd be in big trouble as a discipline.
The quote you take from Cindy about paying attention was once important. The time to pay attention is over. The work is here and is being done daily. I take your editorial to task for a lack of recognition of that work and for once again doing what many in composition do: repeat the mantra of critical thinking, which in itself, reflects a lack of critical thinking! Merely repeating this phrase is a way to not actually keep up with what is going on in digital studies/work today.
You point me to an old Kairos essay. Have you read my work? Have you read Collin's work? Have you read about new media/hypertext outside of composition studies?
Anyway, Will. Forgive the tone. My critique isn't even about you. It's about a position in composition studies that has become too dominant and it's a position I felt your essay keeps alive. That position has the field sitting on the outside while technological innovation occurs elsewhere. For a more historical account of how this happens, see an essay of mine due out shortly in Composition Studies.
Posted by jeff @ 04/07/2005 03:43 PM EST
I don't take your criticism "hard" because I don't think it's valid.
I use the word "critical" because I've studied criticism, written a dissertation on it, and understand the term's meaning in a variety of ways that may or may not reach readers. Your interpretation of the word "critical" is welcome and stimulating, but not a valid reason to put our use of the term down.
Jeff, maybe it's you who should read some collaborative work on hypertext that I did...you can easily see my l998 contribution to "Hypertext Reflections" in Kairos (it won their "Webtext" of the year award) and more recently Chris Dean and I collaborated with two other teachers to publish a critical piece called "Fashioning the Emperor's New Clothes." It's also in Kairos.
Jeff, maybe you are using the blog form as a misguided sense of authority. I don't know why you assume I'm not actively involved in hypertext and writing. I've published enough so a quick search would prove your point false.I may not be active in ways you like, but I resent you trying to erase my work. I've created computersized writing classrooms at all three universities where I've worked, and I've published in print and on screen as actively as most professors I know who also teach 3-4 course of FY writing.
I do agree that the position Chris and I take is not new in our field. However, it's "news" on my campus and I've already heard from several people that it will be useful for them on their campuses. The fact is that most professors have not advanced their own learning spaces into cyberspace in ways that I believe are necessary and wise. The fact that this irritates you is a positive sign for me--maybe the times are a changin...
Posted by Will Hochman @ 04/07/2005 02:38 PM EST
Will
It's a pity if you take the critique hard...but I do find serious flaws and problems in the piece. Whether editorial or "scholarship," you put the piece out there. Now comes the response. For those of us invested in this work, we are troubled by a position that circulates an overused word like "critical," when the real critical gesture is to note that the repetition of this gesture moves us nowhere. You want to be actively involved in hypertext and writing? Then read those of us who do this kind of work. Repeating a position from 10-15 years ago as if our work never existed is not critical at all. It's bad scholarship and bad editorializing.
I do thank you, though, for stopping by and reading the critique. Read Collin's as well.
Posted by jeff @ 04/07/2005 09:32 AM EST
First, If you call a publication a rag, would you have more credibility if you show that you can get published in such rags?
Second, If you know how to read, then why are you attacking an editorial as though it were scholarship?
Third, If you really want to know, I worked hard on that short essay.Sorry it didn't meet your standards. The reason I'm replying is that I care about all readers and I do want to thank you for reading the piece.
Posted by Will Hochman @ 04/07/2005 07:51 AM EST
So, should we all just make nicey nice and not say anything critical of our journals, disciplines, etc? Keep puckering those lips, lest you look like you're bitter! You gotta have your critical voices to go along with all that syrup, my friend.
Posted by jenny @ 04/06/2005 12:55 PM EST
Precisely! It is very typical.
Posted by Arno @ 04/06/2005 12:31 PM EST
Actually, he sounds just like Jeff Rice! It's friggin' uncanny!
Oh well, Ricey. We love you.
Posted by jenny @ 04/05/2005 10:45 PM EST
I think you're being unfair, Rice. Did you know Blackboard lets you create your own quizzes online? Quizzes! Online! My web savvy students love online quizzes. We "keeps it real."
Posted by jenny @ 04/04/2005 05:48 PM EST
Are professors today doing enough to use....
They could have stopped the list of questions here.
Posted by cbd @ 04/04/2005 05:10 PM EST