Grant-Davie, Porter -- 9.2.14

   Throughout the Grant-Davie article, all I could think about is this image ^. Of course the "rhetors are as much a part of a rhetorical situation as the audience is," (266). Of course "rhetors may invite audiences to accept new identities for themselves," (271). Then, I stopped and thought, "Kelsey -- where is your sign?" I read these statements and think of them as common knowledge, but don't question how they fit into my work as a writer. I often find myself returning to this idea of "collaboricity" that was introduced to me by Dr. Downs and Dr. Miley. As writers, we are in this constant state of give-and-take between ourselves as rhetors, our reader, our discourse community and our sense of identity. Here, you may say, "Well, DUH!" but how are we applying this to our writing?

   Porter discusses the framework that makes up our discourse community and questions whether educators are introducing this framework to writers at an early enough stage. As a creative writer, my instinct is to scream, "Let them be INDIVIDUALS!" But, then I question myself again. Is it more effective to allow writers to establish their originality first, or to see where their writing fits into a discourse community before finding a way to let their freak flag fly? I keep going back to my tutoring sessions in the Writing Center, wondering how these may have gone differently if I had introduced this idea to these writers from the get-go. Then, I find myself questioning how this fits into my own writing. Am I understanding the framework of my discourse community and seeing how the collaboricity between myself and all these other factors are affecting what I write? Or, am I stubbornly sticking my writing out there, saying, "I'm an individual. I am unique. And that is why you should read this." Have I passed this "phase"?

   So, here is my sign. My sign to understand that what I write is a product of textual precursors (Porter 34). To see where I fit into my discourse community. Shit, to understand who and what my discourse community is. Am I taking my reader into account as much as I am thinking of myself?

   How many more questions can I ask myself? (I'm sure Doug will say, "Many, many more.")