Plugging the CCCC

Not much time for blogging lately, what with prelims, teaching, two conferences, and a pending foreign language proficiency exam on the horizon. Over the past few weeks I’ve been working feverishly to stay even partially afloat in what’s quickly beginning to feel like a tidal wave of perpetual deadlines and frustrations. With the kind help of spring break this week, however, I at least managed to hammer out what I think is a decent draft of my CCCC paper—a hair too long at this point, but overall pretty close to where I want it to be. Though I tend to think of myself as a solid writer, conference papers always seem to give me trouble—too much to say and not enough time to say it in (if you’ve seen one of my papers, you probably know what I mean). Letting experience be my guide, therefore, I’m trying a somewhat different approach for this CCCC: rather than attempt to balance “theory” with an example/application, which in the past has contributed significantly to my “problem,” I’m planning to use the example as a refrain, at times initiating and even compelling certain lines of argument. In somewhat fancier terms, I’m thinking of the example as a spectre of sorts, haunting the analysis, perhaps even threatening to undermine it at certain points. Potentially cutesy I know, but I’m hoping this strategy will buy me some time to make that “theoretical” argument in as complete a way as possible (in 15 minutes).  

So, with this in mind, this year’s plug and panel invitation (F.11, “Visual Rhetoric of Comics, 'Spectacle' and Mail Art,” Friday 8:00-9:15) takes the form of two epigraphs: the first, an anonymous postcard, which appeared on Post Secret in February 2008; the second, a fragment from Roland Barthes’s semi-autobiographical book Roland Barthes. The paper, “Strange Correspondence: Friendship and Receivability in Network-Mediated Communication,” builds from these epigraphs to question the ethical and political assumptions underlying the hope for connectivity in network theory.

There. That’s all I’m gonna say. Hope to see you at the panel.

In S/Z, an opposition was proposed: readerly/writerly. . . . I now conceive (certain texts have been sent to me suggest as much) that there may be a third textual entity: alongside the readerly and the writerly, there would be something like the receivable. The receivable would be the unreaderly text which catches hold, the red-hot text, a product continuously outside of any likelihood and whose function . . . would be to contest the mercantile constraint of what is written; this text, guided, armed by a notion of the unpublishable, would require the following response: I can neither read nor write what you produce, but I receive it, like a fire, a drug, an enigmatic disorganization.

Comments

[Jennifer C]

Ooh... fascinating. I'll definitely be there. Your whole panel looks fun. (Although, man there are a lot of great looking panels at that time! Maybe there are just a lot of awesome panels.) We're doing graphic novels in my Visual Rhetoric class. And when we read Foucault's "History of Sexuality" in my Theory class, I thought about a paper on PostSecret and confession. I really like your idea of the receivable text in relation to that.

I hear you about the tidal wave, though. (For some reason it doesn't keep me off the Internet like it should). I need to write a paper on Graphic Novels, grade some papers, and THEN write my CCCCs paper. Should be a fun week and half.

[Scot]

Yeah, the panel sounds pretty interesting. Though I'm not really saying anything about comics or graphic novels (or visual rhetoric for that matter), my inner geek is really looking forward to some serious comic talk.

[Derek]

Sounds terrific, Scot. I appreciate the teasers to remind me which panels I need to remember to attend in N.O. Say, have you seen how Craig Saper uses Barthes' 'receivables' to touch off his book _Networked Art_? It's what springs to mind as when I make guesses about (and look forward to) what you are going to do.

[Scot]

Hey Derek--Saper was definitely on my mind when I proposed and wrote this. His use of the receivable as a way of examining networked art is what first turned me on to the Barthes passage and to mail art more generally. What I'm hoping to add to Saper's analysis is an attunement what a notion of receivable suggests about the possibilities for an ethics in networked art (or network culture for that matter).

Looking forward to seeing ya in NO...

[k8]

I'll drop by if I can - I'm still hearing about some interviewing opportunities so my schedule is in flux. I know you'll do great!