This understanding of remix and assemblage is not new, as Johnson-Eilola and Selber seem to imply. Rather, we can trace these concepts back to sophist rhetoric and their counter-part, the Romantic genius, to Plato. And, while I can't reference T.S. Eliot for my own support, I can quote Stephen King: "If you want to be a writer, you must do two things above all else: read a lot and write a lot. There's no way around these two things that I'm aware of, no shortcut." (On Writing, 145). T.S. Eliot's remark about poetry (that a poet must be well versed on all poetry before him/her), is evident in King's statement. Furthermore, it's easy to slip into cliches and abstract theory when discussing exactly where writing comes from. On one level, it arises out of other writing, other ideas. On another, it is the product of a mind that constantly consumes. And even on another level, writing is the product of a mind that is tempered by the practice of production --by the practice of writing. Composition, as you and I both agree, is basically the putting together of materials to construct meaning. Therefore, as these materials exist before the text is produced, composition, by definition, is plagiarism. The irony is more than sweet. Great post! -Josh-
Great podcast! I like how you bring your own background to the material in a provocative (and thematically consistent) way. A quick technical note: you're speaking so quickly that it's often difficult to follow your train of thought without replaying the podcast.
First I want to emphatically agree with you. To treat assemblage as if it's something new or emergent as a result of a technology or a particular paradigm shift is wrong-headed, and you do a fantastic job of showing the role of assemblage from the Classical through the Modern period. Like in Barthes's "The Death of the Author," you show that singular authorship and genius is not something that has ended at a particular point in history, but it is something that never existed in a significant way in the first place.
I'd like to hear more about the interplay of technology in all of this. Isn't it true that the technology of print is largely responsible for the practice of attributing literary work to a singular author? Before title pages, as in Plato's time, there wasn't any reason for attributing (or method to attribute) a work to any one person. Jeffrey Masten has some great work on the development of title pages in early print.
It strikes me that what we see with Johnson-Eilola and Selber is a refiguring of the idea of collaborative assemblages because they are laid bare again because of web technologies. These same assemblages were erased by an older technology, print, and replaced by a philosophy of authorship that better matched the way literary work was disseminated: individual genius. I would say that's part of the reason for the disconnect between what the Romantics, and Eliot, seem to realize about text and what they actually profess about authorship.
Again, really interesting stuff. I would love to talk about these ideas more sometime.
Comments
Basically Restating Your Point.
Jonathan,
I agree whole heartedly.
This understanding of remix and assemblage is not new, as Johnson-Eilola and Selber seem to imply. Rather, we can trace these concepts back to sophist rhetoric and their counter-part, the Romantic genius, to Plato. And, while I can't reference T.S. Eliot for my own support, I can quote Stephen King: "If you want to be a writer, you must do two things above all else: read a lot and write a lot. There's no way around these two things that I'm aware of, no shortcut." (On Writing, 145). T.S. Eliot's remark about poetry (that a poet must be well versed on all poetry before him/her), is evident in King's statement. Furthermore, it's easy to slip into cliches and abstract theory when discussing exactly where writing comes from. On one level, it arises out of other writing, other ideas. On another, it is the product of a mind that constantly consumes. And even on another level, writing is the product of a mind that is tempered by the practice of production --by the practice of writing. Composition, as you and I both agree, is basically the putting together of materials to construct meaning. Therefore, as these materials exist before the text is produced, composition, by definition, is plagiarism. The irony is more than sweet. Great post! -Josh-
This Comment is a Figure of the Demiurge
Jon,
Great podcast! I like how you bring your own background to the material in a provocative (and thematically consistent) way. A quick technical note: you're speaking so quickly that it's often difficult to follow your train of thought without replaying the podcast.
First I want to emphatically agree with you. To treat assemblage as if it's something new or emergent as a result of a technology or a particular paradigm shift is wrong-headed, and you do a fantastic job of showing the role of assemblage from the Classical through the Modern period. Like in Barthes's "The Death of the Author," you show that singular authorship and genius is not something that has ended at a particular point in history, but it is something that never existed in a significant way in the first place.
I'd like to hear more about the interplay of technology in all of this. Isn't it true that the technology of print is largely responsible for the practice of attributing literary work to a singular author? Before title pages, as in Plato's time, there wasn't any reason for attributing (or method to attribute) a work to any one person. Jeffrey Masten has some great work on the development of title pages in early print.
It strikes me that what we see with Johnson-Eilola and Selber is a refiguring of the idea of collaborative assemblages because they are laid bare again because of web technologies. These same assemblages were erased by an older technology, print, and replaced by a philosophy of authorship that better matched the way literary work was disseminated: individual genius. I would say that's part of the reason for the disconnect between what the Romantics, and Eliot, seem to realize about text and what they actually profess about authorship.
Again, really interesting stuff. I would love to talk about these ideas more sometime.