The editors of RAW, Cheryl Ball and Jim Kalbach, tell us that “to study new media is to study something that is constantly changing, and that means being more interested in questions than answers, in reading and writing processes rather than in textual artifacts” (5). While Ball and Kalbach do start here, it suggests that in their text, there will more questions than answers. And, interestingly enough, the text is a traditional publication. To many reviewers (e.g., Stephanie Vie, Fort Lewis College), the format—it’s not even available on an e-reader—is greatly disappointing. There is supporting new media. Indeed, the companion website is quite lack-luster, with a few broken links to author pictures.
But, this isn’t a review of their text. Instead, it’s a discussion of new media that starts with the Ball and Kalbach’s assertion that studying new media means asking more questions than there are answers and not worrying so much over the textual artifacts. Why is that I wondered. And, most certainly, as some point out, new media is simply rapidly developing and changing. My papers that I saved to my floppy disks would be difficult for me to access—first I’d have to find old technology that works and find a process of transference leading to today’s hardware. Then, there’s the issue of the software. WordStar 2000 has been defunct as it was known in the 1980s for some time. But, that’s not all that I lost. I lost the “hello” program my father wrote for me on my first computer that I toted off to college with me in 1987. Hello programs were the messages that computers displayed as they were booting—much like that Microsoft screen and bing that happens when booting a windows PC. It’s gone, and I miss it. But, it was a textual artifact that used 1980s new media.
So, you see, writing using new media that won’t translate into the traditional paper book format is risky. The new media most likely will not stand the test of time—yet. But, as I watched the commercials for e-readers for children and adults alike, the possibilities are quite astounding! The ability to supplement that written word seems boundless. You see, when I help my son learn, we often head to the web to watch a video—it’s not replacing the reading we’ve done, it’s enriching it. Most recently, we watched a video of Hagia Sophia that a tourist had uploaded—such a beautiful building. The words in the book helped us picture it, and then watching the video, in combination with the words filled in what was a little flat. Would the video do without the words—No! Video just doesn’t capture being there—or anywhere—and words aren’t quite perfect either. The two together, though, build a richer envisioning of the architecture, of the grandeur—and made my 7-year-old want to travel to see it in person. New media is quickly being woven into the very fabric of composition.
Three years ago, the NCTE, noting that writing has changed: “Today people write as never before—texting, on blogs, with video cameras and cell phones, and, yes, even with traditional pen and paper. People write at home, at work, inside and out of school.” Specifically, in the 21st Century Curriculum and Assessment Framework, the NCTE advocates assuring that students “have experience with and develop skills around technological tools used in the classroom and the world around them. Through this they will learn about technology and learn through technology. In addition, they must be able to select the most appropriate tools to address particular needs.” Of course, in the usual form, this goal is outlined, and it is argued that learning to read and use technology when composing enlarges the classroom, making more space for diversity and expression of voice: “the use of technology allows a wider range of voices to be heard, exposing students to opinions and norms outside of their own.” In fact, NCTE clearly states in this document that “Students in the 21st century must be critical consumers and creators of multi-media texts.”
Yet, to say that we should incorporate new media in our composition classes because it’s the thing that everyone is doing on the outside of the classroom and we need to keep up, or to say we should do it so our students can be competitive in the job market, well, those are practical reasons, but they tend not to appeal well to academics who bask in learning new things and teaching what they know because they love knowledge and they have faith that education will help people, making their lives better—even if those educated people chose to hold jobs they love but don’t require college education.
So, instead, I offer this argument for moving toward including new media assignments in our composition classes. We have an obligation to educate any and all who would pursue it. Education, quite different than job training or an apprenticeship, is about developing the faculties of the mind; it’s about being able to ask questions and find answers for one’s self, acknowledging that the same answer is often not the right answer for each individual when it comes to social realities. So, if education is about gaining access to understanding the world—the human condition—then ignoring or excluding new media limits our abilities as writers. Writing is in the digital age. Most recently I finished Stephen King’s new book, 11/23/63—at the end was attached new media—my Kindle is an old model, so I can’t watch it there (and that takes me back to the fixation with the product over the process), but it’s there, along with historical photos—in a pulp fiction book—on my e-reader. And, yes, the pictures—as a part of the text—contribute significant meaning. Think of the most recent common read book by Alexie. What would his text be without the drawings–drawings, videos, pictures, illustrations, audio files, animations—they’re not just for kids or people who aren’t serious readers. They are a part of the fabric of composition—imagine insisting students use a typewriter rather than a computer for their papers—I’m not sure I could ever get a paper typed; I never used a typewriter, except on job applications. Ames Hawkins argues that “your [composition faculty] resistance [to new media] will only result in your own disability, your own immaturity” (21). While I’m certain that disability does not correlate to immaturity, I do believe the point that faculty who can’t compose with new media will be at a disadvantage, and their composition skills will be immature in comparison to the world around them that has moved forward.
So, where does this all take me? First, new media is not a composition only concern. New media is interdisciplinary. And, if we begin requiring compositions that include new media, it most certainly doesn’t mean we’re usurping broadcast classes or computer programming classes. In fact, it should be quite the opposite. Will we need to teach students how to use some of the software? Of course, but they just have to be functionally literate in the software—they don’t need to be quizzed on jargon or memorize the steps to render a video, or even get the new media aspect of the composition perfected. What they do need is to see the role writing plays in the creation of the text. To illustrate my point, consider the numerous YouTube instructional videos available—and then find one in which the author was savvy enough to write, edit and record—then edit again—a script; the visuals are probably edited too—why do you need to watch for the length of time it takes the author’s computer to load a new program—speed up the film. That is the difference between an author who has spent time practicing and learning to compose with new media and one whose skills are not developed. It’s the difference between a rough draft and a final draft.
Here’s a couple of links to illustrate my point:
Here is a tutorial video that is scripted and edited: click here
Here is a tutorial video that is ad-libbed will using a screen capture program: click here
Additionally, literature is being produced that depends upon new media—digital literature
The Economist writes of twitter being used: http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2011/10/twitter-and-epic-poetry . At your own risk you can read the Twitter feeds: http://www.elsewhere.org/MayorEmanuel/ .
lossofgrasp.com is an amazingly interesting piece of digital literature which won the 2011 New Media Writing Prize. And here is the 2012 winner: http://www.novamara.com/window/ The people’s choice was http://kristibarnett.wix.com/karenbarley –a twitter movie that seems to call on the Blair Witch movie. In fact, you can see the 2012 short list here: http://www.newmediawritingprize.co.uk/shortlist.html
The one I like best is the 2010 winner: http://crissxross.net/elit/underbelly.html
You can also try Young-Hae Chang’s literature (http://www.yhchang.com/ ) or read “Twelve Blue” by Michael Joyce (www.eastgate.com/TwelveBlue )
And here is a great interview reposted on The Salon about digital literature: http://www.salon.com/2012/10/29/after_e_literature_theres_no_going_back/ . Chang and Joyce are both discussed.
You could also check out this creative writing assignment called Code Poem: http://www.digitalwritingmonth.com/2012/11/23/codepoem/ . Be sure you follow the example, then copy the code, click HTML and paste it in the window!!
Still, even though digital literature is so different from a print book, it has some common—it is meant to be experienced by one person with one computer screen. We can even argue that the experience for each reader is unique in both situations. But, the thing is, digital literature doesn’t translate to the printed page. And, this, if we come back to our new composition, means something for composition—new media isn’t a supplement; it isn’t a repetition of what’s already written in the traditional format. It is, instead, an integral part of the composition, and expresses ideas not expressed elsewhere. Without the new media, information would be lost. And perhaps that is why Ball and Kalmbach’s book doesn’t have additional elements. The two editors, working to reach faculty who may be resistant, uncomfortable, inexperienced with new media selected the media best suited for their audience—and they already understood that new media isn’t a supplement; it either is or is not vital to the composition.