Today we delivered our first editorial presentation to the OSU Literacy Studies Grad Student Interdisciplinary Working Group (or something with some combination of those words), a dry run of the presentation we will deliver next Friday at the Feminism(s) and Rhetoric(s) conference in Little Rock, AR.

So, WHEW. Big sigh of relief after weeks of astonishingly intense stress and sleeplessness — and not a little bit of excitment and even confidence. And, for the most part, things went as hoped… especially in the sense that this run-through served its purpose of teaching us what we need to revise to make next week’s that much better.

We have put a moratorium on apologies, so I will only say that my presentation will need the most revision. I knew this going in; the campus talk targeted a vastly different audience than we will face at Fem/Rhet — who won’t be quite as interested in the cast of supporters, for example. More importantly, the audience today helped us realize a major gap — a concretization of the project and product from the opening. So my “film” will be scrapped (and those lost hours mourned appropriately) in favor of a brief origins/development story culminating in a thorough exploration of the site and submissions. Problem solved… and humility safely intact.

The pride, though, is also still there — especially when I consider the amazing performances given by the rest of the board. They were smooth, professional, and inspiring. We were, however, gently called out on our tendency towards self-deprecation. As rhetoricians, we need to be mroe aware of our own ethos, in our persons as well as our site.

To close on a positive note, then, we found our work validated by the warmth of the audience’s response — and even more so by the engaged and engaging conversation that followed our presentations. Such provokative and good-natured dialogue is exactly Harlot‘s theory in practice. Thanks to all who made that happen.

As I compile and formulate my thoughts on digital rhetoric for a Ph.D personal statement, I often feel wonderfully overwhelmed with the possibilites for rhetorical studies and the distribution of its findings in our tech-age. Harlot is attempting to push rhetorical literacy into new realms using new technologies; and discovering what is on the forefront of technology can be truly astonishing. Such is the case with multipoint interfaces, illustrated in the video posted here:

http://boiseboyblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/dont-click-it.html

Check it out! I love to hear the speaker’s repeated use of “making it more intuitive.” Furthermore, I found it fascinating how much technology, forethought, creativity and intelligence goes into “making it more intuitive.” Any thoughts?

Aristotle is haunting me. As we approach the pilot launch and conference presentations for Harlot, I find myself wondering: Is Harlot employing all available means of persuasion? This is, after all, as much an experiment in digital rhetoric as it is an exploration of rhetoric in digital and other media. We are launching a rhetorical campaign on behalf of rhetorical literacy — circles within circles…

In some ways, this is exactly the sort of “practice what you preach” exercise rhetoricians — and teachers — can really benefit from, in term of new perspective, productive frustration, and heightened critical awareness. Not bad for an extracurricular activity!

But back to Aristotle: how can Harlot take advantage of all her available means as we attract (and hopefully seduce) potential audiences?

Have you heard?! The audience for academic writing is being held captive! It’s true! Various factors – such as the need to “stay current” in one’s chosen field or a syllabus that dictates what we read for a seasonal cycle – function to capture a readership through the fetters of “requirements.”

The danger in all this, it seems to me (for there are plenty of positives as well), is that the rhetorical styles of academic writing are attenuated in the process. We read lots of dull writing. Seriously. It goes without saying that dull writing doesn’t equal, or even indicate for that matter, solid and serious scholarship. And it SHOULD go without saying that scholarship can benefit from exposure to a range of rhetorical styles that vary in philosophy and execution; but perhaps it goes better with it being said.

If you had to fight for your readership – that is, if the person wasn’t required (in some way or another) to read your writing – how does that change your delivery of content? How do you cultivate the skill of keeping an audience glued to the subtleties of your argument? How might one learn to make their writing engaging to the degree that a close reading is both desirable and necessary?

Short answer?

Write for Harlot.

Slightly longer answer?

When one must capture and sustain a reader’s attention – when an assignment, an upcoming tenure review, or a grade doesn’t create it for you – one’s assessment of what it is precisely that needs to be communicated is tested. Obviously, this is not to imply that in purely academic writing one doesn’t do such a review on their ideas. The point, rather, is to stress that when we seek an audience that isn’t beholden to us, we strengthen and enrich our rhetorical tools. I come to this idea, admittedly and respectfully, by way of Michael Bérubé and his book, Rhetorical Occasions.

Bérubé suggests that writing for nonacademic venues not only involves a careful examination of audience, but a reassessment of time as well. He writes,

“We are not accustomed to thinking about public writing in terms of public time … [these] rhetorical occasions are not simply a matter of intervening in such-and-such a space in response to this or that debate; they are also a matter of recalibrating work time, especially when one’s public writing is required to be timely” (3 author’s emphasis).

One’s writing is, unsurprisingly, improved by accepting such a challenge. Bérubé notes, “as it happens, some of the features of ‘popular’ writing are actually conducive to better, sharper writing than one ordinarily does in the course of one’s academic work [and leads to] intellectual stimulation, a matter of learning new modes of address and strategies for revision” (3).

Hell yeah; that bears repeating: “learning new modes of address and strategies for revision.” For those reading who may have nodded their head (even if slightly) at any of Bérubé’s comments, Harlot is the place for you. Join us.

Although I’m tempted to, I hesitate to get caught up here on “popular,” and its implied opposite of “private” (which, sadly, is understood as “academic”), and wish instead to end on a note of encouragement: Let’s go fight for our audience. Doing so, broadly speaking, will invigorate our communicative ability. Furthermore, by publishing authors whose ideas and style compel one to keep reading, viewing, or listening, Harlot will, in turn, create a savvy and substantial audience.