Inspired by Alan’s post–and amazed he’s not in a coma after the high-energy marathon of the NMC annual conference just concluded–I offer my own Wordle del.icio.us tag cloud. Jonathan Feinberg has built a compelling visualization tool that can generate a tag cloud from del.icio.us or a word cloud from any text. (I just saw an amazing Wordle made from Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have A Dream” speech.) Because the image is more interesting–elegant, pretty, intriguing–it’s actually more informative, at least in my view. The emotional design bespeaks a fellow netizen with a deep understanding of the beauty of mutual augmentation.

Thanks as always to the big dog for the link.

In the mid- and late 1960’s, Charles Marowitz directed an interesting remix of Hamlet called “Collage Hamlet.” The technique, according to Marowitz, borrowed from Burrough’s cut-ups. It’s also eerily prescient of contemporary remix/mashup culture. I saw excerpts from his production in the A&E Biography episode on Hamlet. I wish I could see the whole thing.  (Digression: I’ve got a personally taped and now digitized copy of that A&E episode, but it seems otherwise unavailable. A&E appears to have bought the show’s content from the BBC–Melvyn Bragg narrates much of the material–and simply provided a Peter Graves “wrapper” consisting mostly of obvious remarks and bad puns. Perhaps A&E didn’t buy the retail video rights, thus accounting for the absence of this episode from their other offerings. A pity! I find it very useful in my intro. to lit. studies classes.) In any event, I was googling ’round today for information on “Collage Hamlet” as I was viewing Henry Jenkins’ closing keynote at the 2008 NMC summer conference. Jenkins was describing,  and showing footage from, a kind of remixed Moby Dick, and “Collage Hamlet” popped into my mind as an early analogous example of the technique.

Googling didn’t lead me to the footage itself–yet–but I did find an article Marowitz wrote that included his thoughts on the production. Here’s the citation:

• Notes on the Theatre of Cruelty
• Charles Marowitz
• The Tulane Drama Review, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Winter, 1966), pp. 152-172
• Publisher: The MIT Press
• Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1125194

If you have JStor, the links above should take you to the essay. If not, I hope your library has The Tulane Drama Review.

I’ve only dipped in to the essay so far, but Marowitz is marvelously articulate (another demonstration that media literacy must include verbal fluency as well!), and a section called “Contact” seemed especially rich to me as an evocation of the tight-knit, even telepathic sense that grows among members of a true community. Marowitz writes:

The building of company-sense demands the construction of those delicate vertebrae and interconnecting tissues that transform an aggregation of actors into an ensemble. A protracted period of togetherness (at a rep, for instance) creates an accidental union between people, but this isn’t the same thing as actors coiled and sprung in relation to one another-poised in such a way that a move from one creates a tremor from another; an impulse from a third, an immediate chain-reaction. Contact doesn’t mean staring in the eyes of your fellow actor for all you’re worth. It means being so well tuned in that you can see him without looking. It means, in rare cases being linked by a group rhythm which is regulated almost physiologically-by blood circulation or heart palpitation. It is the sort of thing that exists between certain kith and kin; certain husbands and wives; certain kinds of lovers or bitter enemies.

This idea of “ensemble” (perhaps sans “bitter enemies,” but who knows?) is at the heart of what I most value about communities of learning. It’s hard to get there, but some things I’m learning about priming and emotional contagion from Daniel Goleman’s Social Intelligence are convincing me that we can make a much nearer approach than we are currently doing. And I’m more convinced than ever that it is this kind of resonance (Goleman says the term of art is “empathic resonance”) we should be striving for, what our processes should foster, what our learning spaces should support, what our curricula should inspire. Cognitive diversity can actually serve this resonance, so long as that diversity is not simply about contention or sorting or anything but humility and gratitude for the humbling magnificence of the gifts we share.

Goleman’s book gives the lie to the idea that we are all locked away inside a cogito. Turns out there’s massive evidence that we can’t help sharing the feeling of our experience, as the feeling of our experience, our psychic responses to experience, are indeed written all over us.

Goleman thinks that online communication actually deprives us of social intelligence. I concede the dangers, but must also insist that online communication (blended, typically, with periodic face-to-face meetups) have provided for me an extraordinary growth of the “delicate vertebrae and interconnecting tissues” Marowitz says are essential to company-sense. No, online alone is not enough, just as books and painting and sculptures and movies and concerts are not enough. But vertebrae and interconnecting tissues are also not enough. No one’s saying they are. But they, like the artifacts and networks I hurriedly list above, are essential for support, for nourishment, for imagination.

Hi-tech vs. Hi-touch? Bah. A false dichotomy. Try “blood vs. bone” to see how silly such dichotomies can be.

There’s also something to juxtapose here with Bruner’s idea of “learning episodes,” but that will take even more mulling.

EDIT: I bet a few folks will see “company sense” and think “corporation sense.” But the word “company” need not simply be “what the man owns and operates,” whoever “the man” is. The company is the ensemble, the troupe, the dramatis personae, the group of companions. Companions, those who break bread together. What is it about taking nourishment together that knits those connections? We eat as individuals, but gathering together to feed ourselves we somehow also nourish the company.

Milton: Where full measure only bounds excess….

Given my love of metaphor, juxtaposibility, and “mappingness” (to say nothing of my love of oddball neologisms), I have to report on a particularly intriguing juxtaposition I found for my talk at the 2008 CHEMA meeting in Louisville last week. As I was finishing my prep for the talk, I’d pretty much settled on beginning with the Big Bang of Michael Wesch’s “The Machine is Us/ing Us.” Michael describes his creation as “Web 2.0 in Five Minutes,” and the five-million-plus views on YouTube testify to its power and clarity. What better way to start? Then it occurred to me that Robbie Dingo’s beautiful “Watch The World” would make a dramatic and poignant followup to Michael’s piece. If, as Michael suggests, the machine is us (and I agree with him totally, by the way), Robbie Dingo’s creation offers a stunning example of new modes of artistic expression and discursive reasoning available to us by way of our machines. Of course, Michael’s piece is itself a work of art as well, something that’s even more obvious when one watches Michael’s and Robbie’s works back to back.

I admit that I was also looking for an affective continuum here–aiming to present varieties of wonder acting on the heart and mind in different but complementary ways.

In any event, the juxtaposition was revelatory for me, and I think it worked pretty well for the audience too. Try it when you get a moment. First Wesch, then Dingo. Then take a moment for optimism, hard-won but necessary, about humanity at its best.

Promising new functionality from ITConversations: one can build a URL that will excerpt a portion of the recorded audio. I’m testing it here:

[audio clip]

The only hitch in the get-along is the requirement to specify a start time “after the intro.” As a former ITConversations post-production audio editor, I reckon this means after the show theme, sponsor mention, etc., ending with “and now, here’s blank from blank.” But I also reckon “after the intro” will be ambiguous to most users (heck, I may have it wrong too), and in any case, there’s no easy way to calculate this time. I’m guessing the intro lasts about 2 minutes, and doing the math from the readout on my iPod, where I heard the bit I want to quote. It would probably be a little easier to do this on the website, but one would still have to slide the slider back and forth to get the times, and then one would need to do some simple but tedious calculating. (EDIT: I was about 35 sec. off my first try, and needed to time my way into the clip and make the appropriate edit to the code. And it was a lot of hunt-and-peck to get the out time where I wanted it. Fortunately, the code is transparent and easy to tweak, even for a nonprogrammer like me. Still, at the outset I feel I’m shooting with a blunderbuss.) If the clip works for you, you should hear the line about low-risk activity and high reward being bad for fun, with some elaboration and a supporting example.

All of that said, this is a vital step forward and I congratulate ITConversations on taking it. Not for the last time, I am proud to have been associated with this operation.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (9.2MB)

Let’s see. I think I remember how to do this….

There was a continental divide of sorts in my semester this spring, neatly marked by Spring Break. The Thursday before break, I did the Coleridge reading detailed in the preceding post. It seems to me now that I may have sensed how much was about to happen in the ensuing weeks. It would have been better for me to blog my way through it all, certainly; I know myself well enough to know that. Yet for reasons I’m still sorting through, I didn’t. I tweeted a good bit. I talked and traveled and presented and met. The blog, however, fell silent. Tending it in my mind, which I did every day, doesn’t count. But perhaps the fact that I did tend it every day, mentally at least, will be at least a little reassuring for anyone who wondered if something was wrong.

Fact is, a number of things were right, but I fell into a blogging trap. It happens sometimes. So that was then and this is now, and we move forward–well, sort of. I have some unfinished business to sort through and I intend to do it over the next few days. I’ll be jumping around in the chronology a bit, for which my apologies.

The stoppage began just after I did my talk at the University of British Columbia on “Computers as Poetry.” Here’s a page on Brian Lamb’s blog with an embedded webcast as well as many other viewing/listening options. As always, Brian is very generous with his praise and encouragement, for which I am eternally grateful. Cyprien Lomas, another ed-tech inspiration for many years, was also very warm, welcoming, and supportive; his introduction was humbling and deeply gratifying. My thanks also to Scott Leslie for his very kind and thoughtful remarks. Meeting Scott was a most soulful and satisfying experience. I sure hope we have some more face-to-face time very soon; I feel we’ve just gotten started and have some very cool places to go.

The whole experience was great for me, so why the stoppage? Hard to say, but I know that at least two factors contributed. One is that I wanted to do some justice to an overwhelming experience, which is my typical blogging trap. I wanted to do a fantastic post that would convey my gratitude, my excitement, my stimulation; I wanted to communicate soul and a head full of ideas. I also wanted to write a post on the process of writing the talk. It’s a peculiar talk in many respects, one of the most ambitious I’ve done. I confess that I felt a little self-conscious about it, both because it was pushing into new public territory for me, and because my love for poetry is very, very close to the essence of what makes me live and move and have my being. I thought that blogging about the process might help reduce the self-consciousness and reveal more to me about what I was going on about. I do feel as if there’s some interesting work to be done in this area and I feel I can contribute to it. (I owe Bryan Alexander some gratitude here as well: he heard a very early version of some of these ideas back in November, 2006 and encouraged me to push on.) So now I had two mother-of-all-blog-posts to do, both of which I was excited about, but both of which grew to Sisyphean proportions as time went on (as time is wont to do).

Well, enough of fatalism and Hades for now.

How did “Computers and Poetry” come to be? In outline:

• I tried out the “readers’ theatre” idea at the aforementioned NMC Regional Conference in 2006. I love the play of voices and will be trying this tactic again, even more intensely. I also got considerable inspiration from the Fear 2.0 presentation that Martha, Barbara, Barbara, Laura, and Leslie did at ELI 2008.
• I taught my New Media Studies course last summer (2007) and completely baked my noodle, as my son Ian would say. During that course I discovered Marshall McLuhan, a writer and thinker and artist whose sensibilities are hovering over “Computers as Poetry.” The whole thing threatened to become completely McLuhanesque at times, and it even became a bit of a struggle to keep my own voice sounding. A worthwhile struggle–fun, even–but I could feel the effort.
• As I prepared to teach the unit on poetry to my “Introduction to Literary Studies” students last fall (2007), I once again read the opening chapter in Mary Kinzie’s A Poet’s Guide to Poetry. This time, having come off of my “Digital Imagination” talk at James Madison University, as well as my conversation with Jon Udell on his “Interviews with Innovators” podcast series, my mind was prepared to see that much of what Kinzie says about poetry was powerfully analogous to what I’d been trying to say about my experience with computing, particularly networked computing. Then, when the invitation came to speak at UBC, I immediately accepted (of course) and told them my topic would be “Computers As Poetry.”
• Then, of course, all I had to do was write the presentation. Commit first, compose later; it’s a methodology.

In this case, I decided to write the presentation out. Lately I’ve been experimenting more with speaking from notes or even from slides, but for this presentation I wanted the words themselves to resonate a particular way, and I also wanted to frame the quotations very deliberately. The tradeoff is a little less spontaneity for a little more precision. Given the abstractness and even idiosyncracy of some of my approach here, I thought more precision might be helpful.

As one colleague remarked recently, this is not light listening. It’s not anecdote-driven, or particularly sparkling or entertaining. I wish it were a little more sparkling, frankly. Perhaps I’ll find a way to do that as it moves through more iterations. First I’ll have to listen to the whole thing again, something I’ve been a little reluctant to do. Like everyone, I wince when I hear my own stuff played back, though in my radio years I learned to get past the wince pretty quickly and move straight to the self-critique. This one’s a little tougher along those lines, however, given my hopes for the topic and my sense that I’m only at the beginning of what I want to say.

I suppose one is always only at the beginning of what one now knows one wants to say….

POSTSCRIPT: The experience really was overwhelming. Brian’s already blogged and Flickred about the record-shopping and jamming. (I’d never been in a rent-a-room band hotel before. There’s a novel there, or at least a short story.) I had lovely meals with Cyprien and his family and with Brian and his family. (Both Cyprien and Brian are formidable cooks.) I got to see some very beautiful land and water. And I had a truly great breakfast at Joe’s. Clearly I live a charmed life.

I was privileged to read several lyrics by Coleridge this past Thursday as part of the University of Mary Washington’s venerable “Thursday Poems” series. The idea is simple: gather on Thursday afternoon to hear someone read thirty minutes worth of poetry. No lectures, minimal commentary, mostly just great verse. My colleague and mentor Bill Kemp (of Kemp Symposium fame) started the series several years ago. For my money, it was a great accomplishment. My colleague (and fellow music- and poetry-lover) Eric Lorentzen has kept the tradition going with panache, and with deep devotion.

Coleridge’s poetry can be difficult to read, and certainly difficult to take in on one listen. I’m not sure how intelligible I make it in my reading here. I gave it my best shot, aiming for a climax with “Kubla Khan,” one of my favorite lyric poems, and then a graceful close with the beautiful “Frost At Midnight,” also a favorite of long standing.

I got through “Kubla Khan,” only a little disappointed by the fact that my timing was off and I didn’t have the minutes I needed to read the prose at the beginning of the poem, a story of a forgotten dream that I’m convinced is an utter fiction, indeed part of the poem itself. But never mind: “Kubla Khan” does just fine in its traditional form, and I had a great time reading it. Then I turned to “Frost At Midnight”–and encountered a huge surprise.

I had not read that poem aloud in public for decades, probably not since I was an undergraduate. I’d read it to myself many times since, and of course had read bits of it aloud here and there when I taught it, but not the whole thing, aloud, in public. As I read, I found the pent-up yearning inside the poet as he recalls his lonely boyhood got more and more intense inside my own spirit. The poet thinks of the longing he felt as he watched that film of ash on the grate, the fluttering “stranger” that portended a visit from … someone, and as I read the lines I felt something welling up inside me, too–an expectancy, a grief, an overwhelming hopefulness.

The scene in his memory ends The poet turns to look at his child who is lying in the cradle at his side. “Dear Babe,” the section begins. And as I read those two small words, I was overcome. I struggled through the rest of the lyric, unwilling to let it stop, and at times unable to keep it going.

I’ve decided to podcast the reading pretty much as it happened. You’ll hear a long pause at one point, and you’ll hear the evident emotion as I try to continue. I do make it to the end.

I worried a little about the people in the room, that they would think something was wrong with me, or my family, or otherwise. But there was nothing wrong. There was simply beauty, and love, all the way through. My thanks to STC for giving us this wonderful gift, this poem called “Frost At Midnight.”

I’ve turned off comments on this post. If you enjoyed the reading, please go read some Coleridge for yourself. There’s more where this came from.

And may all seasons be sweet to thee.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (21.9MB)

WFB in 1984, about six years after I met him. Photo from NY Times story here.

Strange but true: I shook this man’s hand. It’s strange because I never enjoyed the two or three episodes of “Firing Line” I watched when I was a high school debater and eager to learn more about the dark arts of competitive argumentation. I didn’t like the snark (I can do snark, I understand snark, I do not like snark). I didn’t like the shouting and posturing. I didn’t like the predictability of the side-taking and the uber-partisan politics. I didn’t like the way WFB’s voice seemed to come out of his mouth and his nose simultaneously. And at that time in my life, anything remotely resembling patrician would get my hillbilly blood boiling. (I’m still not real big on patrician, but I don’t tar all patricians with the same broad brush anymore.)

But it came to pass during my junior or senior year at Wake Forest University–I forget which–that William F. Buckley, Jr. was invited to speak on campus. For reasons I no longer remember, but probably related to my work at Wake’s NPR station WFDD-FM, I ended up backstage with Buckley in the green room before he gave his talk. I shook his hand and exchanged pleasantries as best I could given my age and my mixed feelings about the encounter. Standing before him, I found that Buckley had a great deal of presence in person, though unusually so: it wasn’t a matter of physical size or charisma or extraversion so much as it was a matter of still intensity and a preternatural alertness. He seemed to me to be completely undistracted. That I was the person in his visual field was both unnerving and weirdly compelling, as he was completely undistracted from me, when there was no earthly reason he should be paying anything but cursory, polite attention to a 20-year-old college kid who had no clear reason for being in the room with him at all.

I’ve often noted how distractable many folks are in conversation. Their attention will wander, and their eyes will follow, and for some reason it doesn’t matter that the thread is lost. Most of the time these folks don’t even notice their attention has wandered, which of course suggests their attention has wandered long before any explicit sign of the wandering appeared. But Buckley had none of those signs of distraction. Quite the contrary. As soon as we had finished our how-do-you-do’s, he began asking me direct, warm questions about who I was and what I did at WFU. I answered him. He asked more questions, not to interrogate me, but certainly not as a matter of small talk either. I was shocked to get the strong feeling from him that he actually cared about my responses and was learning from them. I found this a little confusing, but also bracing. I mentioned that I worked at the campus NPR affiliate. He asked me how I liked that, what I thought about NPR, what programming I enjoyed most, what my particular role at the radio station was, and so forth. There wasn’t a whiff of condescension in his manner or his questions.

We couldn’t have talked for more than ten minutes, if that. I never saw him again in person. I didn’t follow his career, and I haven’t read his books–though one day I may–and I didn’t watch “Firing Line” with any more frequency or enjoyment than I had before. Nevertheless, in the years that have followed I have often thought of that brief conversation, and how rare it is to be able to feel any authenticity of encounter in such a situation, and how great it was when I did feel it that evening. I think what I felt a little of in that moment was not only Buckley’s intelligence but also his talent for friendship, a talent that many have testified to in the stories I’ve read since his death last week. That’s why I may yet read his books, whether or not I agree with any of his political points. In that moment, he not only put me completely at my ease, he taught me that I must never lose faith in the possibility of authentic conversation, no matter how exotic or odd the encounter.

I’m too tired tonight to do any justice at all to this story, but I would like to note it and perhaps return to it another time.

Today in the 11:00 section of my Introduction to Literary Studies class the discussion was particularly rich and intense. At one point I was asking one student a series of questions about some of her own cognitive states as she was grappling with the indirection of parts of the discussion.  As I was trying to weave her own answers into the responses other students were offering to related questions, suddenly yet another student, two rows back, made a quick joke about “author-function,” recalling our discussion of Foucault. In that instant, I could see that the student two rows back had made a huge cognitive leap. It was quite a thrill to witness. The joke was an aside, not a formal contribution to the argument, but it was catalytic and breathtaking. In that moment, the student had realized that for critics of identity, our sense of self is the same as an “author-function.” Foucault had said as much earlier, but it was in the midst of a dense explication of his point. Judith Butler had argued something similar. Said resisted Foucault’s argument at the point of identity and agency. Long story short: the student’s quick joke made several connections in several directions all at once, and launched the class into an even higher plane than it had been before. It was, for me, a moment of high cognitive drama to watch her find that idea. And the class discussion that followed fed on that moment wonderfully.

I’d like to analyze the moment and the events leading up to it in more detail. For now, I suppose what sticks with me is how right until the moment of “Bingo!” things felt to me tentative, uncertain. I had a feeling of “better get back on track.” I put the feeling aside for a little longer than I was entirely comfortable with. That’s not always a successful strategy. Sometimes stirring the pot keeps it from boiling. Today, though, we got to an understanding of certain kinds of arguments about identity that I don’t think we’d have gotten to if I’d been more systematic. Hard to say.

I do know that at one point I said, “There’s thinking going on in this class!”  For so there was, and it was very exciting to be in it.

We finished the McLuhan video in New Media Studies today, and the students learned that MM had children (six, in fact) with a very charming and intelligent wife who both marveled at her husband and waxed rueful about his idiosyncracies. We learned that his son could not convince MM that in fact Brasilia was now the capital of Brazil. This TV special, hosted by Tom Wolfe, is quite the ride. Highly recommended for anyone with any interest in McLuhan. At this point, I’m going out on a limb and suggesting that nearly everyone should have some interest in McLuhan. I can’t believe that it’s been less than a year since I read him for the first time. So many gaps, so little time. Yet desire still cries, give me some more to read. (Secret handshake there for “Astrophel and Stella” lovers.)

Rock/Soul/Prog was a mixed bag today. Some folks are not yet on the bus. I know I shouldn’t worry so much; I know all will be well, and not all is up to me. Yet I also know that there’s energy, passion, commitment to burn in these students, and I know they and we will need it for the work now and the work ahead. I think last term’s class learned that a little later than was optimum, and I think there were some regrets. Every narrative has its own arc, and hope springs eternal–Thursday is another day….

I was shocked when two students from my Intro. to Literary Studies class brought me flowers. They said they were being nice to their teachers today. I confess: I melted. Am I weak, uncritical, unskeptical? Posterity will judge. The flowers are lovely and I was touched. I’ve tried hard this time to be as imaginative about the symbolism assignment as I can be. Perhaps the ideas of resonance I’m working on and with have helped push the effort a little farther along. Hard to say. So hard to get readers to pay attention to the texture and conceptual-tactile joys of language. Maybe it was the Twilight Zone episode that helped. “Walking Distance”–the carousel as symbol–try it at home and report back. What resonates?

Then at last to an orchestra rehearsal. I have a voice-over narration part in one of the pieces commissioned to celebrate Mary Washington’s Centennial. We were rehearsing in the band room tonight. It’s a small room, and the orchestra filled it. I stood next to the conductor. To my right, a young cello player drew dark-toned beauty from her instrument. Ahead, I could see the winds, and I focused on the flutes and bassoons, the two wind instruments I played back in the day. To my left, the violins. Back and to my right, the brass. A harp, a full percussion ensemble, a score spread on the conductor’s desk, a baton dividing time in the air. A room full of timbre, vibrato, popping articulation, melisma. I was taken back to those many late nights I spent rehearsing in my high school bands, in the Roanoke Youth Symphony, in my college’s wind ensemble and orchestra, to that huge sound that took me out of myself and into a much larger arena of being. I wish everyone who loves music could hear a performance from the middle of the orchestra. Surrounded by that sound, one cannot think of power as a merely cultural phenomenon….

Today’s Washington Post features an unusually fine article from Joel Garreau (registration required) concerning the ways in which cellphones have changed, and continue to transform, our lives as a species on this planet. Twenty-five years of cellphone technology have brought us to the point that Google CEO Eric Schmidt can say, “Eventually there will be more cellphone users than people who read and write. I think if you get that right, then everything else becomes obvious.”

The article is full of insightful quotations and balanced judgment. There are the expected laments for lost privacy, for intrusive conversations in public spaces, but they’re contextualized in a much larger and more thoughtful analysis than I usually see. I’m especially impressed with the way in which Garreau has understood the intimacy of human contact represented and enabled by cellphones.

No educator can afford to overlook or downplay the ways in which cellphones are changing civilization on personal and global scales. It’s hard to imagine a technology in which microcosm and macrocosm are so tightly linked. We should have better ways inside the academy to think about these changes with our students, and to create within the possibilities these technologies afford us.

Here’s the way the article ends:

[Robert] Wright muses about adults in this new world: “An organism only gets to new levels occasionally. I wonder, has it ever seemed to any other generation that this is just a different world than the one you knew in adolescence?”

This is not the hyperbole of a techno-utopian, though some may say that “new levels” is too optimistic. The extent and character of the change, however, should not be in doubt.