The first issue I have with Reynolds is where she suggests, "To control textual space well is to be a good writer; in fact, controlling textual spaces is very much tied to both literacy and power" (15). Although I concede that computers have made available many fonts and constructions of texts, when is the last time you saw a published piece written, designed, laid out, and printed by an author? The control of the space is mostly taken away from the creator of the piece. Do you think Reynolds held the power over her own article? How it would be seen by readers? Did she have control over the space? Of course not.
As someone that works with two publishers, I can assure you that the author does have input, but not override. The house has the final call. If they want ten point font, they get ten point font. The power resides with who foots the bill--typically, authors do not foot the bill.
I realize I'm coming at this from a different perspective than most people, and I understand what Reynolds is trying to do, but I hope I've shown it falls short in at least one area.
However, one area it does not fall short in is the expansion of Geography as a discipline. It is quite true that Geography has taken a giant step forward and, actually, become almost as interdisciplinary as Rhet/Comp. Geography has crossed over from being merely about structures to being about the cultures on those structures. I think there is a lot of scholarship in geo regarding cross cultural theory and research that is ripe for our exploration. Yet, again, although I agree geo is very useful, it is not writing. Geography is, to some degree, a science with humanities tendencies. I fail to see the usefulness of suggesting that a comma equates to a continent or a semicolon to state lines. As Reynolds notes, "A driving force behind geography's renaissance is economics" and "capitalism" (17). I'm not sure if Reynolds wants to argue that writing is driven by a business model, but it seems like it.
As Reynolds moves to Transparent Space, I get another knot in neck because this section is controlled by gender stereotypes, not data. In my view, she sets up women as weaker because of "the threat to women who dare to walk alone at night" (20, my emphasis). Dare? Is Oxford, Ohio some mecca of crime that I'm not aware of? That's not my point though. My point, then, is that Reynolds is setting up space--all space--as some kind of gender biased area that threatens women. Spaces cannot threaten anything or any one.
I'm not suggesting that crime or unsafe environments do not exist; they do. However, the living things in those spaces create those conditions, not the space itself. Moreover, if we consider institutions being unsafe, there is a power structure at play that has allowed that to occur. New York City is a fine example. In the 80s, NYC was a dangerous place at night, and few dared to venture out with the drugs, muggings, and other crime. Yet, when the right people came into power, they had a new focus and changed that space. Now, NYC is a fairly safe city at night and that space has new power structures related to it.
Again, in this section, I agree with Reynolds on the point she makes that where writing takes place matters. Well, of course it matters! I do not think students can learn how to improve writing in unhealthy environments or conditions that are not at least somewhat comfortable (nor can we teach in them).
Page 24, Harris is right.
Using metaphors about place to explain or theorize about composition sure is interesting, but not very practical. Moreover, I'm certain that many more metaphors will be created about writing (and many already have). But when do we say enough? One can make a metaphor for just about anything and connect it to writing. As more and more of these metaphors come about, the overall meaning of writing is getting lost--replaced by metaphors. Is it possible that students' heads are filled with metaphors of place, construction, and cycles that the actuality of writing is being displaced?
Maybe we should focus on teaching writing and how to teach it better than trying to figure out how a city street light presents more of a challenge than a rural crossroad in the writing classroom.
Finally, do we really want "a more paradoxical" aspect to writing? Aren't we confused enough, like him? (Well, maybe not HIM...)
Rock,
ReplyDeleteI think this is one place where we get mixed up in the jumble of foci for articles in the field. I think Reynolds is more concerned with the metaphors we use to describe our discipline than those we use to describe writing. She certainly addresses the politics of space in classrooms, but the metaphors she analyzes are all used as symbols for the field of rhetoric and composition, not writing, and I think she is correct that we need a more complex and dynamic way to think metaphorically about rhetoric and composition than the three metaphors she problematizes. All these metaphors are based in privileging certain parts of the discipline, which works to silence voices who aren't out exploring the frontier, actively speaking in the agora (because the bus system is to much of a pain to get their from the ghetto), or fully committed to cyberspace (lacking up to date hardware or a good reason to want to be on-line).
Cra--I mean Rock,
ReplyDeleteI, too, wondered about the "to control textual space well is to be a good writer" comment. I really disagree with this because it comes off like that's all a writer needs. I do wonder if she's being a little more figurative than we're interpreting it--not so much text, layout, etc., but more like structure and organization. So in that way, I can see what she means. A writer who organizes and structures a paper well is, in a sense, controlling his/her space. But what about things like voice, timing/pacing, ethos and pathos? I can read the most spatially structured and organized paper in the world, but if that writer doesn't have a voice, or doesn't consider his/her credibility and audience, then I wouldn't say that person is good writer. So yeah, I'm with you there--though for different reasons.
As far as your feelings towards her playing off of gender stereotypes in her discussion of transparent space--I think you're right in a way. As you know, I read that passage and thought "You are SO ******* right, Nedra Reynolds." But, as I mentioned in my blog, had I read that a few weeks ago I thought it would have been dramatic and stereotypical. But, I *think* she's trying to get at the idea of oppressed groups negotiating space with a different level of consciousness and caution than the non-oppressed. Her choice of the MU campus, maybe not so good for exemplifying that idea...
Craig,
ReplyDeleteI see your point about Reynolds’claim that a good writer controls her space. I too wonder about our ability to control our spaces. What does it mean to control one’s space? Is it enough to be aware of my space or do I have to control it in order to produce good writing? Is controlling one’s place the same as controlling one’s space?