A graphic novel afterthought

The readings for today all seem to fit together and seem to fit with the class. Which is nice because I have been struggling with fitting the readings within the class. After going through the readings I couldn’t help thinking of a graphic novel, Alison Bechdel’s Fun Home. I specifically thought of the relationship between text and picture. In Fun Home Alison as well as her Dad struggles with their sexuality throughout the novel. The interesting thing that happens in this novel is that the text and the comic strips (pictures) do not align. What the author says gives us an image contrary to what the picture tells us. I wonder why this is. Mishra states in the article, that throughout early schooling we have been thought to analyze text and treat photos as afterthoughts. The reader shouldn’t except the drawing and move on. The reader needs to inspect the difference and ask why? It could be as simple as a difference in views but it is most likely an author’s critique on the natural world, as Mishra states on page 4. I think another example to think about is on page 7 of Mishra when he explains the word horse. Horse is just as relevant and typical as any other 5 letter word because we have an image associated with a word we can form imagination. In Fun Home Alison purposely displays differences between pictures and text to simulate the different ways she sees the world because of her different sexuality. The text that is read is how the reader/society is taught to view the world. Alison views the world as the pictures in the novel illustrate. I guess it is a little off topic, but it all boils down to the rhetoric of pictures. I think it is crucial to think about the rhetoric of pictures in our A/V shorts. What do you want each picture to say? Or what does the picture say to the reader? Do you need text to explain meaning to the reader? Or can you use the text to make a point contrary to your picture? 

A graphic novel afterthought 

Fishing for facts on fisher

“The Validity of Schell’s argument is not the question here. Our concern is its reception, which the limits, perhaps the impossibility of persuasive argument in our time, given the rational world paradigm.” (Porter 387)

As I was reading Fisher I found myself wondering the same question. In this postmodern information driven rational paradigm of a society is there any room for debate? Of course once you start to think about this you think about political debates. This is covered by porter when he defines traditional rational, “some sort of hierarchical system, a community in which some persons are qualified to judge and to lead and some other persons are to follow.”(Fisher 385) In my opinion and Fishers, intellectual debate is mental stimulating, aimed toward knowledge and the betterment of all parties of the debate, including the audience. In this modern society a heavy portion of individuals are already educated because of the internet and television. Fisher also says “being rational (being competent in argument) must be learned.” (Fisher 379) So, because information is so assessable, because programs to project trends, and because we have an easily excisable history there is no reason to learn rational when it is practically presented to you on a silver platter. So I ask again what happened to the intellectual argument? When I was reading Fish’s opinion on the important aspects of argument, I couldn’t help thinking about underground societies. The first thing that I thought of was the School of night. Basically, it this was an underground club of the best minds around England during the times of Shakespeare (it might still exist today). It was thought that these men sat around arguing and contemplating life, the natural world, the afterlife, astronomy, science etc… Some modern examples of this could be the skull and bone society or the illuminati. Beyonce Illuminati?  

 Where has this drive for intellectually stimulating conversations gone? Sure there are debate clubs in high school but is there any new knowledge being formed and contemplated? Or is it just the same knowledge getting repeated from a not card formed from facts from the internet? Because of this never-ending stream of knowledge have we gone straight past rationality and toward a fact driven society? I think it is interesting to bring up the last reading and the thought there is no original work. Fisher touches on that subject on pages 381-382 when he describes the unending conversation. All works seem to have stemmed from a main conversation. With this thought there is no original ideas, it is interesting to think about where society is now. Let’s just say I am correct and society is now only a fact driven society, could the reason for this be that there is no original ideas? Could society be dying like a star just building and building on top of our own ideas until we become too heavy and implode?

intro...

The Death of the Original Idea

After reading Intertextuality and the Discourse Community by James Porter I find myself wondering if I have ever come up with a new original idea in my writing. Now that I see that the American constitution was plagiarized. I feel as if there is no hope. Even if I feel like there is no connection to other texts in my writing it is likely that a word or phrase has been borrowed or taken from somewhere else without my knowledge. This can me in two ways, the first is subconsciously putting down a word or phrase without knowing it came from another text. The best example
I could find in the text was the term lobbed. In fact I have heard it said as a military term in movies, lob a grenade! I subconsciously heard it somewhere and I brought it into my every day language. The second way that I can borrow something without my knowledge would be if it is used in every day language. I immediately come to common Shakespeare phrases such as, dead as a doornail, or a laughing stock. Based on these two ways of intertextuallity and interpretive community I am struggling to find a conscious way to create an original work. Any suggestions, ideas, or examples of an original work?  Please let me know.