A new chapter one

New title: essaying (processing?) invention studies: an introduction. Focus on defining invention, including process in def. Relating to post-process movement; quick history of invention studies and an extended focus on topos since it's a crucial part of my argument later... Also: turn interchapters into process essay broken up like headnotes D'Agata writes in Next American... Continue Reading →


This is an interesting example of what I would call a "digital essay," for obvious reasons. . .something to teach with, just maybe? Or maybe I can figure out a Google map of my own for an interchapter of my dissertation. Maybe.


Need to play with the double meaning of generic-- as genre-based and as thinking about the essay as a kind of "generic" genre in comp.


So the job search can be depressing at times, but more importantly, it is a huge timesuck. Which is why I've not been blogging regularly. Of course, severe writer's block might also have something to do with it. After having a long conversation with my  director last night, I know I need to MAJORLY rethink the direction... Continue Reading →


Edward Soja, critical geographer, coined the term "thirdspace." I think this might help me. . .

Maps and Mirrors

I keep thinking that the essay as a genre is more like a mirror that is inserted into this map of invention studies (certainly a flawed metaphor, but work with me here). So my question is, what is the relationship between maps and mirrors? --Map as mirror of real world? This link might be interesting.... Continue Reading →

Invention Map

The first two chapters of my dissertation focus on place as a topos for invention studies; basically, I think that place has been a crucial organizing feature of the ways we've approached rhetorical invention theories and strategies in Comp/Rhet. We think of invention as occurring in or out--of the writer's mind, of generic conventions, of... Continue Reading →

An introduction attempt

Chapter two has become my "quick and dirty history to invention" chapter. It's weird to think about this as a book, with chapters that should connect and all. I'm not sure how an introduction to a second chapter that really is a continuation of the first chapter should look: do I need to "hook" to... Continue Reading →

A thought

When Young, Becker, and Pike suggest that provisional writing might be more persuasive to readers than dogmatic writing, they say provisional writing "focuses on the process of inquiry itself and acknowledges the tentative nature of conclusions" (Rhetoric: Discovery and Change, 207). That sounds awful essayistic to me. . .process as a topos anybody? Just sayin'.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑