In Mary L Gray's conclusion to Out in the Country, she summarizes the points that she makes throughout the book.  But what I find particularly interesting are her arguments about how rural youth do visibility.  Gray argues that "rural queer youth rework their disorientation from self, in places that prioritize familiarity through codes of sameness, discourage claims to difference, and have relatively few local 'others' to turn to for queer recognition" (3331-3347).  So rather then claim an identity of "otherness", they cling to an identity of familiarity to garner as much local support as they can.

As I've made reference too many times, I grew up in a rural area, and I can't imagine what it would have been like for me to try to claim a lesbian identity during those years.  I knew I was different, but I had no way of knowing what that difference was or how to label it.  I wouldn't have even thought it was sexual at the time.  Unlike many of the youth in Gray's text, I had no way of searching for "what was wrong with me" because of course I knew there had to be something!!!  Gray's investigation of how media in general and new media in particular help rural youth work out their identity and find realness in being a rural LGBT youth is critical for helping researchers understand how these youth negotiate this terrain.

For me, it wasn't until I went away to college that things began to make sense to me.  However, I was still in a very small town, with no family and only a few close friends, and certainly no internet.  Life, for any rural youth in my day who questioned their sexuality or gender, were pretty much doomed for a life of misery until they got it figured out; if they did. 

Gray's research is interesting, and there are some things to note in her Epilogue which I will get to in the next post.

Sometimes, actually, quite often, I lose sight of what it is I want to do when I grow up.  Wow, this sounds like it's gonna be one of those confessional type post, doesn't it?  At any rate, I have come a long way in achieving what it is I want to be when I grow up, but there are times that I lose sight of certain parts.  I try to force myself into a box I just don't quite fit into.

Today was my wake-up call.  I sat and listened to Cheryl Ball and Ryan Trauman talk about digital design, and it all started coming back to me again.  I love being an academic (although I'm sure some would question whether or not I'm truly there :-)), but I also love being a tech geek.  Yes, that's me, a geek, a nerd, a gadget gurl, and I'm proud of it.  So it's time I start immersing myself into the types of text I want to create. 

To that end, tonight I read Susan H. Delagrange's "When Revision Is Redesign: Key Questions for Digital Scholarship" published in Kairos.  Delagrange's reflection on her revision on a piece she submitted to Kairos that was returned with "revisions and resubmit" opened my eyes to what digital composition can and even should be.  The article (found here, http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/14.1/inventio/delagrange/index.html) explains Delagrange's revision process and lays out what she believes she did wrong, as well as the things she insisted on keeping in the text for strong rhetorical reasons.

Delagrange remarks that "by highlighting some of the complexities of the design and redesign of one digital project, I hope to demonstrate the complicated relationship between seeing and design in envisioning and enacting argument, to make more visible the rhetorical and intellectual work of scholarship in digital media, and to argue by example for publishing scholarship about new media in new media" ("Introduction").  Delagrange has inspired me once again to strive for what I want to be when I grow up.  I want to be a new media author and designer.  I have to marry my past (techie) with my current status (academic) in order to be happy.  I have to find that balance.  Delagrange has reminded me once more of what I want to do, and I am on the right track again (for now).

I can't believe the first of May is already here.  This is the official day that I decided I would begin my project of reading at least 260 articles or book chapters in a years time.  This means that by April 30 of 2011, I should be at or beyond Project Post 260.  For me, this is exciting.  This is a journey for me: both a personal and a professional journey.  I am not doing this for anyone but myself.  However, joining into a conversation with others about things I've read, and hopefully what others suggest I read, will be an added benefit.

With that said, the article that I decided to start with today is Jennifer deWinter and Stephanie Vie's "Press Enter to 'Say': Using Second Life to Teach Critical Media Literacy."  Second Life is my area of study, so I thought this was perfect to begin with.  I'll start by simply saying that in the margin on the front page I wrote "Seems like most of this article is underlined!!  Sign of a good article for me!!!"  And it is.  I find if I am underlining and writing a lot in an article, then it is one that has engaged me.  In the abstract of this article, deWinter and Vie state that they will "argue that students need to develop critical awareness of their own subject formation and their position in new media environments" and they "further contend that composition instructors can look to Second Life . . . as a dynamic text to engage students in questions regarding power, ethics, intellectual property, and community" (313). 

I couldn't agree more with these statements.  As someone who has used Second Life to teach first year composition, I have witnessed students engaging in these types of dynamics.  An SL resident accused three of my students of harassing her, these same students battled with issues of power and control in this world, and others felt marginalized during assignments.  I believe using the tool of SL in composition classes can teach students critical skills they will need in life.

But there are some things that deWinter and Vie mention or say that I do not believe they discuss enough or I do not agree with.  The first thing is really very minor, but as an immersed resident of SL, I think it is important to point out.  They use the words "play" and "player" a few times in conjunction with SL.  I think perhaps they make this rhetorical move in order to connect with what James Paul Gee discusses about using video games in education.  I never consider myself a player or playing when I log into SL, and I discourage my students from using that language as well.  I want my students to treat this environment as another culture.  To that end, I often have them keep field notes about the things they witness.  If we expect students to treat the environment seriously, even at times of play within the world, I think it is important that they understand it as a different cultural experience.

The other thing that deWinter and Vie touch on briefly but I wish they would have delved into a little more is the risk involved in using SL.  The authors note that "instructors must be aware that racism, sexism, and other forms of harassment may be unavoidable; as such, instructors should approach these as teachable moments to help students understand the changes that online environments have wrought on our understandings of privacy and safety" (319).  This is all very true.  What I think they fail to point out is that this "environment" is no different than taking students into third world countries to perform research, or just down the street.  I think if SL is approached as research, and the possibilities discussed, taking students into SL should be not more of a legal issue than taking students to other cultures to learn.  Just as we cannot control our students' lives once they leave our brick and mortar classrooms, we cannot control what they do in SL outside of class.  That is life.  At least they can simply log off if they find themselves threatened in SL.  One cannot log out of real life situations.

deWinter and Vie's article has succeeded in validating my own ideas about using SL in the composition classroom.  So many things can be explored in this environment that simply cannot be in RL.  Want to queer something?  Take a walk into SL and queer away.  Want to challenge authority?  You can do it with little risk.  This was the perfect article for me to begin my journey of 260 days of learning.

The article can be found on ScienceDirect but requires a subscription through a library.

Today I read the introduction/first chapter to Radan Martinec and Theo van Leeuwen's text The Language of New Media Design: Theory and Practice.  First, I'm not afraid to admit that this is one of those texts I ended up reading out loud.  Some times that is about the only way I can focus and take in what I'm actually reading (and even that doesn't always work).  Unlike some books where you can read the intro and get a general idea of what the book is about and then fill in the blanks as you read, I have the distinct impression that with this book you had better understand this first chapter completely before proceeding or else you will be lost.

The authors discuss New Media Design in terms of semantics or semiotics.  The authors state that the purpose of the book "is that new media are, or should be, structured by invisible underlying patterns that connect image, sound and text into meaningful wholes" (1).  They then get into a brief but interesting discussion of systemic linguistics (about here was when I decided reading out loud might be beneficial), move to a discussion of non-linear models such as the part-whole tree and star, and then talk about strategies for employing models and methods, all based on semantics.

Even though I had difficulties at times staying focused, this is definitely a book that I am interested in jumping right into.  The intro was only 14 pages and yet I have notes scribbled all over the margins.  I was definitely immersing myself into this text and interacting with it in a meaningful way (the marginal comments are not snarky).  One thing the authors note toward the end of the intro is that "the intention of the text, as realized by its lexical and grammatical patterns, needs to be respected when translating it into a non-linear model.  Domains (and texts) of any complexity tend to require more than one simple non-linear model to map out their semantic structure" (13).  I think that this is often over looked when new, and maybe even some seasoned, designers take on the task of designing new media products.

This introduction even got me to thinking about the purpose of this new media site and whether or not I am reaching my intended audience.  When a text immediately gets me thinking about things I am doing, then I am interested.  While I am not a huge fan of semiotics, and have picked up and sat down the Introduction to Semiotics a million times (well, maybe only three or four, then I lost it), I like the way these guys are employing semantics to drive home the point that the design of a site has to connect to the meaning!!

Ok, enough said by me.  Feel free to blast away or simply comment if you'd like.

I have decided that over the next couple of weeks I am going to read the introductions to ten books that I ordered or bought while at CCCCs in Louisville Last month.  This will be good practice for me and help me to decided where I want to begin this project.  I had originally said I would finish reading Hamlet on the Holodeck, but I think I want something newer, more cutting edge, something that is current and not two decades old already.  So, while I fully intend on finishing Janet Murray's seminal piece, I don't believe I'll start there.

So, the books I'll be reading the intro's too and making comments are

1. The Language of New Media Design: Theory and Practice by Radan Martinec and Theo van Leeuwen
   
2. Exploring English Grammar: From Formal to Functional by Caroline Coffin, Jim Donohue, and Sarah North
   
3. Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication by Gunther Kress
   
4. Digital Literacy for Technical Communication: 21st Century Theory and Practice Ed Rachel Spilka
   
5. Producing for Web 2.0: A Student Guide by Jason Whittaker
   
6. Rhetorically Rethinking Usabiliby: Theories, Practices, and Methodologies Ed Susan Miller-Cochran and Rochelle L. Rodrigo
   
7. Lingua Fracta: Towards a Rhetoric of New Media by Collin Gifford Brooke
   
8. Going Wireless: A Critical Exploration of Wireless and Mobile Technologies for Composition Teachers and Researchers (wow, what a title) Ed Amy C. Kimme Hea
   
9. Digital Tools in Composition Studies: Critical Dimensions and Implication Eds Ollie O. Oviedo, Joyce R. Walker, and Byron Hawk
   
10. Webbing Cyberfeminist Practice: Communities, Pedagogies, and Social Action Eds Kristine Blair, Radhika Gajjala, and Christine Tulley

So, I will begin reading the intros to these this week.  I am excited about officially beginning this project and hope that reading these intros will lead me to a good start.