• I went to New York City last weekend, as I mentioned in my previous post. State College leaves me unfulfilled in so many ways, but mostly it has to do with the lack of people, diversity, good food, interesting architecture, the carnival — you know, city life. The trip was rejuvenating in ways I couldn’t imagine. I came back to town and felt a will to work like I hadn’t felt in weeks.
• While in NYC, I visited Printed Matter, a great store with all sorts of zines, old books, artwork, prints, and magazines. I picked up the book Queer Zines, which is a catalogue of various zines with some articles about queer zine practices, history, and theory. I’m excited to read it, if I can ever get through my homework.
• Teaching went really well today. We had a great conversation about cultural assumptions regarding literacy technologies. I think students are starting to pick up on what I’m talking about for their second paper — though we still need to discuss narrative in more detail, among so many other things. Writing classes = trying to cover too much, as always. Even with a theme, I find it impossible to fully narrow down the scope. It’s like my own writing: too much too much too much. Narrow, focus, and define!
• Something really interesting was said in one of my graduate seminars today, but for the life of me, I can’t remember it. I remember thinking: I want to blog about that! I didn’t write that down, so I am not blogging about it. Plato was right: writing hurts memory. Plato was wrong when he claimed this is a bad thing. Writing is memory! (So it doesn’t actually “hurt” memory.)
• I feel that this blog needs a new look and feel to it. Also, in case you missed it, this blog is boring. Roger Wilson says so.
• I’ve been thinking about audience recently again. Perhaps I should focus my paper for 584 (Postcritical Perspectives in Literacy Studies) on audience instead of my previous topic (authenticity, related to Sennett’s The Fall of Public Man. Not sure. But how does audience change in electric/digital writing — that is, does our (composition studies’) conception of audience need revisited, post Ede/Lunsford? Not sure…
