As I was reading the Kohl et al article, I realized that I was reading a collaborative essay about collaboration. I think that this was an appropriate choice on the authors' part, and it caused me to think 'behind the scenes' of this article as I kept reading. I had to ask myself if my understanding of writing shifted at all with the knowledge that "collaborative processes of writing dissolve the central intention of the author" (174). In short, my answer is no. While collaboration can be useful during the 'bouncing ideas around' stage of writing, I think that writing goals are ultimately solitary, and therefore benefit from solitary pursuit. However, I'm speaking purely about one stage of composition here, which is the actual writing of the draft. I think collaboration is useful again when it comes to editing so that a more objective perspective is available. With this in mind, I had to wonder what the writing process looked like for Kohl et al, since there were three authors. The essay flows surprisingly well, which brings up another quote from page 174: "the authors only work on passages and never on the entire text." Of course, this quote was in reference to Wikipedia, but I think that it's generally true for writing collaborations. Obviously we read through our co-authors' sections, but in my experience it's often with far less scrutiny than we would read our own sections with. Why is this?
This goes back to my 'writing goals are solitary' statement. When we complete our area of responsibility, we look at our co-authors' responsibilities as secondary because we already have a sense of accomplishment. This is a dangerous attitude, because the finished product will have everyone's name attached to it, without indication of who wrote the 'better' sections. Writing is work, and part of that work is understanding that different writing styles often clash, and knowing how to smooth the transitions between styles. How does Wikipedia do this? Well, the wiki pages ridicule each textual input for sources to ensure that all information is accurate and properly cited, but that doesn't smooth stylistic differences. From what I've seen, 'correct' Wikipedia entries are concise sentences that are only concerned with the facts, and less concerned with cultural perspectives. So how collaborative is it really, if all textual input is derived from a database of reliable sources instead of opinions?
This leads right into Johnson-Eilola's main question, which is "where does writing come from?" Although I've stated that writing goals are often solitary, I agree with the point made here that "all texts are interdependent" (200). Writers are not in isolated bubbles (except the filter bubble), generating completely original ideas out of thin air. We can only generate content that draws from other sources, which means that solitary writing goals must draw from the societal collaborative experience. In other words, we need to be aware of outside perspectives in order to form our own inside perspectives.
I'm finishing up this blog in class as we discuss these readings, and I came to an important question. Doug summarized the concepts by saying that we have reached an age where we no longer build things, we build ideas, and sell them as goods or commodities. I agree with this, but it begs the question...does this mean we are selling perspectives?
Adam,
ReplyDeleteAs always, your energetic writing expertly handles the texts as wholes, while also pointing to moments of intrigue and issue throughout. I also appreciate how you challenge moments where you see inconsistency, rather than assume the author's position is omnipotent and therefore invariably "right."
This line stood out, where you discuss issues related to collaborative writing, and put forward that composing is best a solitary pursuit: "I'm speaking purely about one stage of composition here, which is the actual writing of the draft." I hear what you're saying, that issues of style, cohesion, and authorial mission more easily complicate with numerous voices involved, but I think you are primarily considering writing as linear, written text in English. How does co-authoring change when the composition is a webpage, say, or an infographic? How does the mode change the process of production, and do multi-modalities or digital texts lend better to collaboration?
To me, we always write/compose/create in concert with other authors, whether those authors are active agents or embodied passively in a cited text. I think the solitary author is a past, albeit romantic, ideal. Today we are plugged in and connected, for better or worse, but I think our job is to make it for the better.
Thanks for writing,
Anjeli D.
Adam,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your thoughts on collaborative writing; you mentioned: “While collaboration can be useful during the bouncing ideas around stage of writing, I think that writing goals are ultimately solitary, and therefore benefit from solitary pursuit,” and I agree. I think that the key benefits of collaborative writing are to generate ideas, but the ultimate goal is to enhance our own ideas. I think that collaborative writing can only take a singular idea so far, before it fractures, and each writer begins delving into a different concept altogether. I also appreciate the quote you pulled from Johnson-Eilola: “where does writing come from?” It is a great question to analyze, and reverting back to collaboration, I think that collaboration is important for generating ideas, like you said. Writers need inspiration, and it often comes from intellectual conversations or collaboration with others. Sometimes other people can trigger a link between two ideas that can set the stage for exigency and something compelling to write about. I have had plenty of interesting ideas that were triggered by others, so I believe that collaboration is important to writing–maybe not so much the process of writing, but especially in the brainstorming stage. Agreed, and well said.
Cheers!
Hey dude,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your section about collaboration, and mostly how you disagree with Kohl. I've never enjoyed collaborative work, as I'm sure not many here have, and as a senior in college, I've had my fair share of it. That's why I enjoyed the writing program, though. While it was challenging and social in many ways, it was still solitary. I could write my piece, no one else. And yeah, we need collaboration for new ideas, editing, what-have-you, as you mentioned. But a piece shouldn't be written collaboratively. I'm speaking from experience, here. Never in my years of any schooling did I ever write a "group" paper/piece of writing. It just never happened. Projects, presentations, even math or science homework, sure, but you were on your own for writing. Even some teachers discouraged collaboration, as I recall. It was cheating, I guess....
But then I took a Criminology class last semester, and one of our tasks was a group paper. It seemed odd at first, but not completely barbaric. But it was; oh, it was. It took my group five hours to write a paragraph. Sure, that is also due to the paper's guidelines, but it was also because writing in a group of five people was actually extremely difficult. Everyone had an idea and an opinion as to how something should be written, and therefore, we never got anywhere. Other groups decided to split the work and just do certain sections separately, so they never had to meet or interact. But then their paper was super catawampus and didn't flow; there were often typos, grammar issues, and just plain bad choices made because it wasn't written with these things in mind or the coherence a paper written by the same writer would have.
I'm not saying collaboration is bad, necessarily. But after writing that paper (eventually I had to say, "Okay, I'm a writing major; I'll take it from here), my attitude toward it plummeted. I often wondered how professionals wrote collaboratively. But then I think, well they're professionals, and that comes with editors, time, resources, and, most importantly, passion.
But I agree with Anjeli: writing is at least always somewhat collaborative. We use other authors and ideas all the time, through citing or just through past learning. For example, recently I've read some of the works from sociologists like bell hooks and Pat Hill Collins (just some of many), and my writing has changed/been influenced because of it. Just like Porter's Intertextuality: the shaping of text through another text. Was this the guy that said no writing/ideas are original? Anyway, I'm ranting.
Thanks for the ideas,
Alex