So we just sent off a manuscript on the Harlot adventure to be reviewed for an upcoming collection. Wish us luck!
To celebrate, here’s a wordle created from our article:
(click image to view larger size)
This past weekend I found myself participating in a lively (and at times heated) discussion about the future of the book and the value of the written word on paper vs. online. The characters nestled around the table at which the discussion ensued included a professor of medieval literature, a poet/writing teacher, a fiction writer/rare book salesperson, an aspiring writer, and a college composition teacher (myself).
The discussion began when the medieval literature professor said she was troubled by students asking if they could read ebook versions of the assigned texts in her course. She knew her answer to the students was no, but she said she also knew she had to think more about why that was her immediate answer. Certainly, she said, it’s important for literature students to read the specific edition she chose (because she chose it for a particular purpose), and certainly students need shared editions so when the class performs a close reading of a particular passage, they are all looking at the same text and can easily find it with the same pagination. But she knew there was another reason she said no to ebooks and it was more about the value of reading printed texts as opposed to etexts–about the different reading experiences students would have whether they read the text in print or online.
I quickly snapped in points about the cost of books and how ebooks could cut down on students’ expenses (a good thing, I believe) and also the changing nature of our students’ reading experiences and processes. Many of our students are now growing up reading online and reading etexts, so I tried to argue perhaps students could have valuable reading experiences reading online the same texts we first encountered in a hardbound book.
The medievalist and the poet disagreed, and the poet added that she will not submit her poems to a publication that exists only online. She doesn’t want her poems read in an electronic version, she said. She wants them read on paper.
And this got me thinking about Harlot, and about our readers’ reading experiences. All of us sitting around the table agreed that online publications can contain multi-media texts that can’t be reproduced in print journals, but a few at the table insisted that the same written text printed in an online publication could not possible be read the same way as it could be on paper. Agreeing that the reading experiences would certainly be different (as of course the reading experience depends on so many factors, not just the form in which it appears), I was a bit concerned by the undertone of a value judgment being attached to those differences. The woman who works in the rare books department of a well-known book store added to the conversation the issue of how “valuable texts” can only be bought by those with the proper resources, and how hard it is for her to observe people buying rare books solely for the purpose of owning them, rather than for an appreciation of the text itself.
All this is to say that I’d like to participate in and hear more discussion of people’s reading experiences with publications like Harlot. What do our readers gain and lose by experiencing our submissions solely online?
Because we at Harlot understand the mayhem of holiday season, we’ve decided to help out by extending the deadline for our special issue–“Rhetoric at Work”– to January 15th, 2010. So now it’s not only an opportunity to reflect on how persuasion is functioning in your own line of work, but a great way to take a break from the family and all those damn festivities!
What persuasive techniques do you use to accomplish your job? What kinds of moves work best (or worst) on different audiences? How does the boss seek to motivate you… and why does/doesn’t it work? Anything, um, curious about the way your company promotes itself? What types of workplace communication annoy the hell out of you?
Got an idea for article that you’d like to run past us? Questions about the issue’s theme? Don’t hesitate to write us at harlot.osu@gmail.com.
While I developed this application (with the help of a certain Smashing Magazine article) a few weeks ago, I completely forgot to tell you all about it. This application is for Facebook users to follow and comment on Harlot‘s blog from within Facebook itself. You don’t need to be a fan of Harlot‘s Facebook page (but, of course, we’d love that too: become a fan), so hop on board and keep up to date with what we’ve got going on in this here neck of the woods. Click the link, approve the permission, and this juicy little app is all yours:
Issue 3 is up and at ’em! We’re quite proud of the variety of articles we have this go round and are confident that you’ll find something that gets you salivating, so wander on over and take a look. Even more so, why don’t you let the authors know what you think by leaving them a comment.
And if you’re curious, here’s what’s inside:
Editors’ Letter for Issue 3
“From ‘Thank You for Your Support'” by Brian Hauser
“Why The Duke Lacrosse Scandal Mattered–Three Perspectives” by Heather Branstetter
“Harlot Of The Hearts” by Kaitlin Dyer
The Irony Of YouTube: Politicking Cool” by Jessie Blackburn
Interview with Frank Donoghue on The Last Professors
While you’re at it, take a gander at our call for Issue 4 (themed Rhetoric at Work) and get cracking on your submission.
Enjoy!
Here’s another site if you’re looking for incidental music for your multimedia Harlot compositions. I’ve already brought up Musopen and Funky Remixes, which are at different ends of the spectrum, I’d say, but the Free Music Archive contains a much broader sampling of genres. Of course, not everything on there is what I would label quality, but they seemed to have a great selection of classical, old time/historical, and electronica, while other genres are merely solid. It’s still worth an earful gander, though.
Oh, and the site labels every individual track with the particular copyright. Everything on there is either creative commons licensed or in the public domain and available for download. Lucky you, huh?
I’ll even give you something to start you off with. Hmm, let’s go with a little middle-eastern psych rock (love that combination, by the way): Hayvanlar Ami’s “Gökte Güller Açryor,” which has a creative commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike license.
Have you heard of Jezebel? I look at this publication kinda as a sarcastic Vanity Fair. Although they talk about celebrity, fashion, and stereotypically girlie things, they’re quite critical of it all. For instance, they have articles ranging from the ever-evolving drama of Jon & Kate Plus 8 to animal rights advertising to an excellent run-down and critique of Huckabee on The Daily Show. The site’s description:
Jezebel is celebrity, fashion, and sex without the airbrushing. The witty, informative tone draws a readership that is intelligent and sophisticated, but still willing to get down and dirty. Jezebel does what those women’s monthlies only wish they could.
Sorta reminds me of Harlot–exchange all of that celebrity and fashion stuff for rhetoric and we ain’t far off. Certainly, I think some of their articles fit nicely into the realm of rhetorical critiques of pop culture with a dash of wit. Given the site’s high readership, perhaps there’s something that Harlot could learn from its (maybe not-so) distant cousin. Of course, they’ve been at it a bit longer, have major sponsors, and their editors even get paid! Ah, to earn a wage at this. Harlot is a bit too indie for that major sponsorship though, eh? And we encourage our audience to be more participatory as well. It’s a thought. One still in development.
I’m working on an academic article about Harlot, and the irony does not make it a smoother process… so I was out in the backyard weeding.
I enjoy the excuse to sit around outside, but I always have qualms about weeding–in part, because I’m never quite sure I’m pulling the right ones. But even more so, because I get uncomfortable about messing with nature. (Or rather, “nature,” since this is my urban and bricked backyard, after all.) I have these funny guilty feelings about killing something that’s growing, like its an environmental sin (cue Catholic upbringing) to in any way interfere with the natural course of, well, nature. I know that this isn’t logical, that there are immense and innumerable complicating factors… but still.
Side note: My students were so put off by Gore’s rhetorical choices in An Inconvenient Truth that they seem to have found the movie less than persuasive. It sure as hell worked on me. I’ve always considered myself an environmentalist. But now, all the time, I think about these things, the tiny details of our relationship with the earth. Negotiations and love songs.
Anyway, back in the garden, I’ve found that I can pretty comfortably pull the weeds that grow up in between the bricks of the patio, or where they might adversely affect our vegetable plants. I don’t want to analyze this, but I also tend to be more lenient with the ones I like, like clover. So delicate and pretty, no harm there. Today I didn’t yank a big ugly dandelion because there was a ladybug on it. Not logical, but a system is developing.
I weed the human areas and try to let the plant areas mostly alone. Which brings me to the borders, the lines that can be drawn and redrawn, the liminal spaces, the messy areas. I thought maybe I’d take a hard line and just declare a point past which the weeds are not welcome. But that line is hard to draw–and more importantly, I thought, they place the weeds within the surrounding areas in an interesting and precarious position. They’re in contested space (in my head, at least) between human and natural environments–and again, I wonder, who am I to decide? Plus, I’ve read Anzaldua and believe in the dynamic, disruptive potential of the borderlands. Again, not necessarily the most logical thought process… But for now, I’m going to let those spaces be, just to see what happens there.
Which brings me back to that paper about Harlot, into which I now think I should work some of these ideas about the messiness and growth potential of such border spaces. That’s some good gardening.
I talked before about about Musopen for a good place to access classical music that’s in the public domain. Now, I can’t do quite that well again, but I can give you an option to update your music selection. Funky Remixes is a site dedicated to, well, funky remixes; however, they do generally try to list music that uses creative commons licensing. So, even if you need something a little more lively to accompany your project, check out the site and see if anything will fit. You might find something totally sweet you could use. They even have mixes from some notables such as Beastie Boys, David Byrne, Le Tigre, The Rapture (a personal fav), and Danger Mouse & jemini. Oh yes, and they’re all free to download.
If you need a recommendation, then I’d start with “I’M FUNKYN’LOVE YOU” by DEEJAWU. It’s just groovy–er, funky.