“The Unsucessful Self-Treatment of a Case of ‘Writer’s Block’”

A couple of days ago, I wrote about my recent struggles with writing. As I indicated at the end of that post, I’ve decided to turn this experience into an occassion for scholarship, something we’ve started calling “the silence project.” To start with, I’ve found a few others wiling to talk about their experiences with severe writing difficulties and I’m organizing a panel for next year’s Conference on College Composition and Communication. Some where along the line, I need to see if I can work into my work this 1974 article, published in The Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis: “The Unsuccessful Self-Treatment of a Case of ‘Writer’s Block’” (.pdf). It’s short and well worth the few minutes it’ll take you to read it.1

I’d like to thank Tim Laquintano (@tim_laq) who tweeted the link.

  1. It’s a good thing that I can now laugh at all this, yes? []

Relearning to Write: Of Great Struggles and Small Victories

Screen shot of 750words.com showing I'd completed the April Challenge. I’ve written about, or at least mentioned, my using 750words.com a couple of times, first briefly at the end of a post in February when I’d only used it a few times, and then in late March as part of my documenting my participation in A Day in the Life of the Digital Humanities. I started using 750words because, as I mentioned back in January, I’d been quiet for far too long. In fact, while it didn’t always look like it online, I’d largely become silent in far too many ways and had been so for four or five years. Simply put, I’d become unable to engage in most forms of formal writing, especially professional writing, which, for an academic, is disastrous.

Long story short, in the build up to the ending of my marriage—an 18-year relationship—I became deeply depressed and that depression manifested itself in an inability to write, a problem which eventually took on a life of its own and became a second loci for depression. The writing issues really took hold in 2005, the worst of my depression was during 2007-2009, and a couple of friends intervened in late 2008. For a while, I tried addressing both issues simultaneously, but eventually realized I wasn’t going to get anywhere unless I let go of the struggle to write and focused my attention on my original issue. By March 2010 I’d regained enough of a sense of self to start reclaiming my life, and that summer I started struggling with writing again, which usually resulted in depression jags that could last from a few days to a few weeks. By the end of 2010, I decided I needed to stop fighting myself, which meant, among other things, giving up my job at Creighton. (A decision which made it much easier to say yes to a radical life change a few months later.) If I started writing again, it was going to be because I wanted to write rather than because I was required to.

And that brings me back to 750words.com. In August, for the first time since I started kindergarten, a new academic year started without me. I want back in. So I tried writing again. I’m not sure I can really convey the struggle I had. Trying to write could still induce panic attacks and depression jags. In working towards writing again I reread and read more deeply Peter Elbow’s work and took much inspiration from his own account of dropping out of graduate school because he’d lost the ability to write,1 and I took much inspiration from Lisa‘s own struggles with silence after she was widowed in 2000. In October, I failed in my attempt to write a conference proposal about how I’d been teaching Marshall McLuhan over the past four years. The panic attack was so overwhelming I couldn’t even dictate enough of my ideas for Lisa to cobble together a draft for me.

Finally, at the end of December something broke. It might be more accurate to describe it as a breakthrough, but it never felt like that. It felt like something broke, and I found that an episode of Elbowian free writing wouldn’t result in a session of self-loathing. It took me a few months to trust myself, to believe that I could sit down to write and not fall apart, but I found that I could. Finally, one day in late February, I wrote nearly 3,000 words in one sitting (some of which was the post “Memory Work: Making Another’s Past Your Own“), and in March I wrote a CCCC presentation with little difficulty even though it was under serious time constraints—my presentation was  to be a response to the rest of the panel. I’m sure the CCCC presentation went so smoothly because I’d been using 750words.com, not yet daily, but 4-5 times a week.

When the end of March came, I was using 750words.com daily, so I decided to bite the bullet and take up the April Challenge—write at least 750 words/day for the entire month of April. Yesterday, the last day of April, I wrote for the thirty-eighth day in a row, meaning I completed the challenge. (The image at the top of this post is a screen shot from yesterday’s report.) Considering that less than six months ago my attempts at freewriting could induce a depression spiral, this is a real victory.

I’ve been wanting to write about my struggle with writing for months now but I’ve been afraid to. Writing is what academics do, and as a specialist in rhetoric and composition, I teach writing. One thing I’ve learned, however, both from reading up on the issue and from talking with others, is that serious writing difficulties are far more common among academics than we all let on. And by serious writing difficulties, I’m not talking about your typical writers’ block or procrastination that afflicts most of us from time to time. I’m talking about writing difficulties that pyschologist Robert Boice classify as “pathological.”

In the introduction to his book Professors as Writers: A Self-Help Guide to Productive Writing,2 Boice explains that under pathological writing difficulties, “[w]riting projects acquire aversive, even phobic, qualities while writers grow distressed, even depressed” (1). This problem, he argues, is made worse by the fact that pathological writing difficulties are rarely discussed publicly, keeping those who are struggling from realizing how common the issue is within academia. In fact, he notes, that in his more than two decades of treating academics with serious writing difficulties, he has found that most people are more comfortable talking about sexual dysfunction than their struggles with writing.

I want to work towards changing this, and based on a number of graduate students and tenure-track faculty who have come out to me as I’ve selectively whispered my own story to them, I know that we desperately need to talk more openly about serious writing difficulties and we need to become better educated about them as well. This is of vital importance for those who supervise and mentor graduate students and pre-tenure faculty. I have much more to say about this issue and will do so, both here and in other venues.

  1. He gives an account of this struggle in “Illiteracy at Oxford and Harvard: Reflections on the Inability to Write,” first published in Reflective Stories: Becoming Teachers of College English and English Education (1998) and reprinted in Everyone Can Write: Essays Towards a Hopeful Theory of Writing and Teaching Writing (2000).  []
  2. Boice has written extensively on writers’ block and overcoming writing difficulties. In addition to finding a number of his articles useful for understanding my situtation—for instance, I learned I suffered from five of the six most common causes of blocking—I’m finding both Professors as Writers and How Writers Journey from Comfort and Fluency to be helpful for a long-term strategy for keeping me writing. []

A Fundraiser Worth Supporting: Ride to Computers and Writing

Among the reasons I love the computers and writing community and the Computers and Writing conference is the strong sense of mentoring and support and its DIY hacker spirit. Case in point: Some years ago the community decided to create the C&W GRN Travel Awards, available to graduate students and non tenure-track faculty who participate in the Graduate Research Network, a pre-conference works-in-progress workshop. (The GRN is itself another example of the mentoring spirit of the community.) The Travel Grants were originally funded through direct donation and an Ebay auctions of donated items. For the third year in a row, the travel grants will be funded by Ride to Computers and Writing, a pledge ride in which various attendees of the conference will travel all or part way by bike, roller ski, or foot in order to help raise money for the travel grants.

As both past recipient of and a contributor to the GRN Travel Grants, I ask you to consider joining me in making a tax-deductible cash donation to help fund this year’s grants.  [Ride to Computers and Writing web site.]

“Don’t pirate my editions; do plunder my visions”: A Note for World IP Day

From the Library of Congress’ twitter feed, I learn that today is World IP Day. In honor of World IP Day, I’d like to share my favorite essay on copyright, Jonathan Lethem’s “The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism.”1

I know, I know, you’re likely as surprised as I am to learn that there is a World IP Day. It was, according to Wikipedia, founded in 2000 by the World Intellectual Property Organization in order to “raise awareness of how patents, copyright, trademarks and designs impact on daily life” and “to celebrate creativity, and the contribution made by creators and innovators to the development of societies across the globe.”

The concepts of copyright and intellectual property are quite modern. In fact, the first copyright law granting creators financial rights to their work was the Statute of Anne, passed in Britain in 1807. Britain had also passed the earlier Licensing of the Press Act 1662. It was passed to regulate the printing industry, essentially to allow the British government to censor that which it didn’t want published. It’s important to realize that copyright came about because of the printing press. The printing press enabled books and other texts to be commodified, and with their commodification came the sense of ownership of the content—the intellectual property—inside a book. Fights over digital rights management protections which keep legal owners from making copies for their own personal private use, heavy-handed lawsuits against individuals, the question of whether or not to place online content behind paywalls, and the inability of restaurant employees from singing “Happy Birthday” to customers are all examples of how the print-based model of copyright and fair use isn’t scaling well in the digital age.2

In the United States, the first copyright law, passed in 1790, granted a creator a copyright of 14 years plus an additional 14 years if they exercised their right of renewal. Its purpose, as the law states, was to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” US Copyright law, as originally envisioned, sought to strike a balance between a creator’s right to earn money from their creation and the public’s right to reuse and build upon the intellectual and creative work of others. The length of copyright in the US has been continually extended so that with the passage of the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, individual copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years and corporate copyright lasts for 120 years. (See chart below to see how the length of US copyright has increased.) While the right of creators is firmly enshrined in current copyright law, the right of the public to reuse and build upon the intellectual and creative work of others has largely disappeared.

Chart representing the expansion of US copyright law

Expansion of U.S. copyright law (Assuming authors create their works by age 35 and live for seventy years.) From Wikimedia Commons.

The point of all this is that on World IP Day, the day the World Intellectual Property Organization wants us to consider “how patents, copyright, trademarks and designs impact on daily life” and “to celebrate creativity, and the contribution made by creators and innovators to the development of societies across the globe,” we should consider the original purpose of copyright laws and concept of intellectual property, we should consider how the concepts of copyright and intellectual property as products of the printing press are modern creations which post-date Shakespeare,3  and we should consider how vastly the concepts of copyright and intellectual property have changed during their few hundred year history.

I can think of no better way to celebrate World IP Day than to return to Lethem’s essay and to share it with others. It’s an excellent meditation on the tension between the right of the creator to benefit from their creation versus the right and the importance of the public to use those works to further “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” I find the end of Lethem’s essay, the passage from which I get the title for this post, beautiful in both its sentiment and its expression, so let me end this post with that full last paragraph. If nothing else, it sums up for me the both spirit in which we should celebrate the day and the spirit in which we should ruminate upon it:

As a novelist, I’m a cork on the ocean of story, a leaf on a windy day. Pretty soon I’ll be blown away. For the moment I’m grateful to be making a living, and so must ask that for a limited time (in the Thomas Jefferson sense) you please respect my small, treasured usemonopolies. Don’t pirate my editions; do plunder my visions. The name of the game is Give All. You, reader, are welcome to my stories. They were never mine in the first place, but I gave them to you. If you have the inclination to pick them up, take them with my blessing.

  1. The title of this blog post comes from the last paragraph of Lethem’s essay. []
  2. For those looking for a good introduction to this issue copyright and intellectual property in the digital age beyond what’s offered in Lethem’s essay, see Harvard law professor (formerly at Stanford) Lawrence Lessig’s books The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World, Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity, and Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. []
  3. All of Shakespeare’s plays, except for The Tempest, are reworks of histories, other plays (some contemporary), or other works of literature. And The Tempest itself has Calaban recite a passage right out of Michel de Montaigne’s essay “Of Cannibals.” []

Rhetorical Fallacy Cheat Sheet

Screen capture of Information is Beautiful's Rhetorical Fallacies visualization chart. Information is Beautiful has produced a lovely visualization of rhetorical and logical fallacies, what they’re calling “rhetological fallacies.” The chart is divided into six categories: Appeal to the Mind, Appeal to Emotions, Faulty Deduction, Garbled Cause and Effect, Manipulating Content, and On the Attack. Each category is color coded and each fallacy has its own image. The screen shot here is of two of the ten fallacies included in the category appeal to the mind. Definitely a resource to share with students. Also available is a version for playing rhetological bingo.

Day in the Life of the Digital Humanities

Screen shot of my Day in the Life of the Digital Humanities blog. Today I’m participating in the Day  in the Life of the Digital Humanities (Day of DH), a project and event intended to document who digital humanists are and what it is that we do. As part of that project, I’m  both tweeting activities and keeping a blog, Day of John Walter, at the Day of DH site. The screen shot is of my Day of DH blog as it currently exists and I’ll be adding a few more entries as I move into the afternoon and evening.

“Wait, wait,” I’m sure someone’s saying, “you’re a technorhetorician, a compositionist, a media ecologist, an orality-literacy studies scholar, a memory scholar, and now a digital humanist too?” First off, you forgot science fiction, fantasy, Tolkien, and medievalism, but yes. “Fine. Whatever.” I know at least some of my family members are now thinking, “Call yourself a digital humanist if you want to. What the hell does it mean?”

As part of registering for the Day of DH, I was asked to write a breif definition. I’m not going to claim it’s all that good, especially as it’s an off the cuff explanation. That said, here’s what I mean when I say I’m a digital humanist, slightly revised from what I originally submitted:

I define digital humanities as the engagement and practice of the humanities with and through digital technologies. This is far from simple, however. Digital technologies change the way we do work. They change the way we compose and revise even when we are writing for print publication. They also afford us new ways to distribute and publish our work and how we can analyze and manipulate the information that informs our work. More radically, however, digital technologies change the way we organize and perceive the world, and this in turn leads us to ask new questions and adopt new ideologies.

For example, the notion of a fixed, unchanging text and the notion that we can own ideas through copyright arose from the world view that came with the engagement with print. They are, simply put, print-based concepts rooted in the ideologies and noetics of print culture. The rise of open access scholarship, Creative Commons licenses, and remix culture, on the other hand, are new concepts that have emerged through our engagement with the digital.

I could add to this by pointing to my notion of database rhapsody as a form of mnemonic composing, which I explained in my Computers and Writing 2007 presentation “Databsae Rhapsody from the ‘Singer of Tales’ to ‘Geek DJs’” and, among other places here on this blog, in the post “Rice on the Network as Rhetorical Strategy.” This understanding of various pre-digital and digital technologies as database technologies, including oral-formulaic poetry, proverbs, the places and images mnemonic (aka, memory palace, Ciceronian mnemonic, and architectural mnemonic), research note cards, blogs, and Flickr as database technologies from which to inventively compose is a perspective allowed us from the digital age even though these pre-digital technologies were used as such.

For those interested, you can see how other participants have defined digital humanities on the Day of DH site.

Close
loading...