LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for CASLL-L Archives


CASLL-L Archives

CASLL-L Archives


CASLL-L@LISTSERV.UTORONTO.CA


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CASLL-L Home

CASLL-L Home

CASLL-L  May 2001

CASLL-L May 2001

Subject:

inkshedding on inkshedding

From:

Peter Elbow <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

CASLL/Inkshed <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 21 May 2001 11:35:56 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (32 lines)

Dear Inkshed participants from Canmore,

This is a longish "monologic" post (from Peter Elbow) to the list because I'm composing it before getting myself subscribed--and while I have some thoughts in mind.  Since you invited me to begin the conference with a sustained train of thought, I'll beg the privilege of composing a train of thought afterwards.

First, I want to say how much I enjoyed the conference. There were so many things I enjoyed:  the chance to learn more about inkshedding;  and the pleasure of seeing a conference with such a strong ambiance of cordiality and community--and a strong dialogic tradition.  (Also the chance to meet Russ after long knowing his work somewhat.)  I've found it very helpful to think about inkshedding the relation between it and freewriting (or private freewriting)--and would like to keep doing so.  Things kept ticking over in my mind during the conference and afterwards.

In a sense, this is a PS for my paper--and proof, I think, that I really don't see inkshedding in competition with private freewriting.  These comments are, in a sense, critical, but I don't want to sound ungrateful--or indeed even to be misunderstood.  To summarize crudely, here's what I'm saying in a nutshell:  "The Inkshed conference was the most dialogic conference situation I've ever been in;  yet I want to complain that it wasn't dialogic enough!"  So--in the tradition of all teachers--let me leave the praise brief and global and spend more time on the complaint.

What I value most about inkshedding is the dialogic process of it--as contrasted to the "monologic" process of conventional conventions (!) like CCCC.  (I want to avoid fuzziness or mysticism about these two terms, mono- and dialogical.  I use them crudely simply to highlight the difference between two opposite set-ups:  (a) mostly single persons speaking and others listening, vs. (b) mostly interchange between folks--maximum mingling and "interpenetration" of each others' minds.

As I say, I felt the pervasive dialogic tradition throughout.  But still, I was surprised to feel that the actual process had drifted inappropriately far toward the conventional monologic process.  There seemed to be an ongoing shaving of the TIME for writing.  (Sometimes people couldn't keep from starting a discussion while others were writing.)  And the time for sharing inksheds among participants right after they were written often went down to zero.

From my limited experience, it is at THIS point (after inkshedding and immediate sharing) that discussion is most fruitful.  That is, even though discussion lets only one mouth speak at a time--there is an increased dialogic quality to discussion when everyone has written and then read at least 5 to 10 inksheds.  I found that the publication of bits of inkshed the next morning--while terrific--was not a substitute for the more immediately interactive process I just described.  The published bits are such tiny snippets--and there's little processing of them after they are distributed.  I heard some people saying that the inkshedding felt boring.  I think this is a function of it's not being processed more.  (However, I would explore some experiments with private freewriting.  A number of people [including Russ] said that they found things to write in private freewriting that they wouldn't have found in inkshedding;  and voices too.  Inkshedding makes you play it safe.)

I fear this sounds ungrateful or not understanding.  For of course I understand perfectly well the cause of this situation.  I often saw Doug TRYING for more inkshedding--and apologizing and being uncomfortable at not having more time for it and for sharing.  And of course the lack of time came from what might be called a deeply "inksheddish" and "dialogic" tradition at your conferences:  the tradition (I gather) of accepting ALL proposals and avoiding concurrent sessions.  Doug (and the agenda planners) had no choice but to push us relentlessly from presentation to presentation.

But do you really want things to drift this way?  It makes me sad.  It seems to me that you can't have the real dialogic inkshed process if you accept too many proposals.  And there's no way to keep this tradition inviolate:  what if there had been 4 more proposals:  you'd have had to refuse some or skip eating!  I can't help thinking that there is an inevitable conflict between taking time for the INKSHEDDING PROCESS for a limited number of presentations vs. having the maximum number of presentations.  CCCC has gone the latter route.  Possibly it's appropriate there (though it seems sad to me), but surely not at Inkshed.

Besides, Russ suggested in conversation with me that you actually COULD accept all proposals if you decided that some of them would be "presentations" only on paper.  This would still let people accurately tell their universities that they were presenting at the conference.  Presentation on paper--with some time for response--is a hallowed and in some ways preferable form of presentation.

best,
Peter

                -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to
   [log in to unmask] or, if you experience difficulties,
       write to Russ Hunt at [log in to unmask]

   For the list archives and information about the organization,
the annual conference, and publications, go to the Inkshed Web site at
         http://www.StThomasU.ca/inkshed/
                 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011, Week 1
January 2011
December 2010
October 2010
April 2010
February 2010
January 2010
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.UTORONTO.CA

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager