English Club Chatter

Of course it was "a means of eliciting some strong emotional reaction." You had a good thing going until people started screwing around. it was intended to get someone riled up enough to start writing againg.

And speaking of “offensive” tell me Sarah wasn’t trying to piss off the Catholics(or anyone who believes in a God). For instance… “she also harbored another emotion: expectation of the eminent consumation of her love with Saint Peter's most hansome priest….At last she was safe! And about to know the physical attributes of a love that until this moment was merely spiritual…
her clothing askew, her face flushed...oh god. Oh god. No it couldn't be, she was his pure love, his Virgin Mary…we can marry instead of your parents sending you off for theological.”

This is not an attack on Sarah! I like her and her writing, it was just that her entries made for the best example. Tisk, tisk, tisk…and right after we were encouraged to look at and consider some of the gay romances. I would dare say I was less graphic with “alternative sexual images” than some of these authors have been.

Unless you were responding to the school shooting thing, I threw that in for one of your folks who like killing in stories, but I wont drag him/her into it.

After reading the post, I do see where your apprehension came from Trish.
However, censorship sucks. And I'm not talking about kiddie porn or something like that. Literary censorship is yucky. Life is crazy and gross and racey. Life really can't be censored, at least beyond childhood. Our minds are free, our pens (keyboard) should be free as well. It's part of the point in most writing.
However, whether or not this is a public forum is a good question. It seems to me that it is. Unless someone is being personally attacked, my vote is that anything goes.

I'm going to be blunt here. Didn't like the last post. Probably would have sat in front of the screen like trish, thought about taking it off--and remembered Milton's essay on cencorship. *sigh* but that doesnt mean i have to like it.

As for satan's little helper. Sara was funny. Sara IS funny. and you are just a dog on the simpsons...

---oh thats santa's little helper...

so fine.

jesi

"I have my own--"

I don't believe in censorship either, but my first thought in regards to this post was that it was meant as a sick joke, and that if it didn't serve a purpose, it should go. I didn't say I was right (or wrong) to think that, just that it was my gut reaction. Frankly, I take the liberty of 'censoring' pornographic spam- which at first glance I thought this particular post might be.

And, you are right to point the fine line between something Sarah posted in all its raciness, and the post in question. I do however, take some issue with the fact that it was posted anonymously (which makes me think the writer isn't so proud), as well as what this writer has posted above. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "screwing around." We were certainly having fun with it, and that was the point (Bulwer-Lytton, who I got the first prompt from, has a bad writing contest named after him, so the thread's silliness I felt was its best feature). And if what we were doing was screwing around, then what were you doing? It seems rather condescending to play the 'blog bandit' and drop a bomb in order to get us all 'riled up' so we write more.

As for the tapering off of the blog, I think that's as much due to the end of the quarter crunch as loss of interest. My experience has shown this quarter that these threads have a very definite shelf-life. But luckily, you have provided a very interesting topic for the latest thread, and for that I thank you ;)

I by no means want this post to sound as a dressing down of any sort... it is hard to get tone of voice across in a blog. You have simply piqued my curiousity, and the conversation we had this morning brought up some interesting points about not only censorship, but responsibility to one's readers.

P.S. Personally, I think that if you say something about masturbating to a particular person, and you name names, that CAN be construed as an attack, or at least crossing the line. You could have at least made up a name.

Like I said, I was not attacking Sarah (Jesi). And the Simpson’s dog is exactly what I was thinking.

I gave you two valid email addresses just click the name AND the site administrator should be able to see the IP number. Who posted this shouldn’t be hard to find out (or you could just ask me),the reason I didn’t post with my name was I just assumed a few people who have read me before would recognize it as mine. Second, I was not entirely screwing around, I love violent fiction. Things like Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange or Dante or Poe, I could go on. Pull the post if you want, it makes no real difference to me.

Oh yeah and before I go, this wasn't ment to offend anyone, irk a little, but not offend. If
it actully did offend then I apologize. if it just irked someone... oh well.

Ok, I have to admit that I'm a little computer illiterate, so I don't know how to deduce your identity from an IP number (and I really don't know about that address).

Frankly, I am not sure I want to know your identity - maybe a little mystery now and then won't kill us ;)

I think we ought to consider that this blog is on the OSU Mansfield website. We have set up no formal ground rules for censorship. Personally, I feel that anyone who posts under a pseudonym ought to do so with the notion that the post is fair game for censorship. In addition, I believe that each of us should consider some measure of responsibility toward the representation of our institution. It is a slippery slope.
While I am not an advocate for censorship in any sort of ovearching public form, I do believe that each of us should reserve the right of criticism within the context of a dialogue of English education. In that regard, kudos to Trish for this particular strand. However, I firmly hold to the idea that,in doing so, we should keep things outside the level of personality and focus on the writings rather than the writers.
Many of us would find our positions indefensible in terms of what we posted in the story line, and not every entrant was easily identifiable. Some of the sillier entries were clearly posted as a means for a few people to amuse a few people. I think at some point, some of us had felt that the story was no longer (if it ever was) a thing to be taken at all seriously.
Yet, some of the folks in here were clearly agitated by that one post, even though it was likely posted in the same sort of not-to-be taken-seriously vein. That it led to this discussion is a positive thing.
Should Trish have pulled the post or should we have done what we had done in the past, which was to quickly try to take the story in a different direction? I don't know the answer, however, some ground rules might be helpful for the future.

You're right Jim, and you got to something I was trying to say last night but got too tired to do. This thread was not meant as a means to attack or 'call out' anyone. That's why I think our mystery writer should remain a mystery.
The motivation for this thread came after some of us talked about it in the writing center (and it was Aaron B's idea, so kudos to him), we discovered that there were a wide range of views on the subject and thought a thread devoted to its discussion fitting for this particular venue.

As for my previous post, in all honesty, I felt the need to defend our fun on the Story Lines post after SLH brought that into question, so I didn't mean to sound like anything I wrote was a personal attack. If it came across that way, I do apologise (like I said, it's hard to get tone of voice across). I think anyone that really knows me understands that I am EXTREMELY hard to offend, so when I read this post I wasn't angry or disgusted by its content, I just thought it was an attempt to undermine something I was a part of, and frankly, proud of.
But, on to the discussion of censorship! I know in the past, some have tried to censor artists or writers for challenging the boundaries of good taste (i.e. Rudy Guiliani). But on the other hand, poeple tried to censor James Joyce' Ulysses, which, as I keep hearing, is a groundbreaking book. But we are in a different position when it comes to something like this blog. Traditionally, the anonymity of the internet has allowed an outlet for all sorts of bad behavior (again, I don't necessarily mean the SLH post). Free speech doesn't just mean one can say whatever they want and everyone has to listen; writers must also take responsibility for that which they put out into a public forum. That is hard to do on sites that allow anonymous posts- so, I think you are right to a certain extent, Jim, it can be considered fair game as far as censorship- if the author does not claim responsibilty for the text, then s/he is not engaging anyone in a dialogue about it. In other words, just because one says it, doesn't mean everyone else has to listen.

Perhaps we can run a concurrent strand concerning authorial intention and/or the importance of the reader(s) in divining out any meaning, etc. in a piece of literature. Perhaps we should study what we have posted in the story line.

Well, this is a fun game of Clue we are playing. Sadly, Satan's Little Helper has apparently achieved his/her desired effect--the simulation of our curiosity, as well as eliciting from us an intense response. But--I am with Trish--who cares? This person is obviously not very persuasive considering his/her justification of the senseless and offending blog, "...we were encouraged to look at and consider some of the gay romances." What SLH described was not an insightful, understanding example of gay romance--it was actually a gross representation of homophobia (remember the snuff film reference). SLH then went on to further justify his storyline, by saying, "I would dare say I was less graphic with “alternative sexual images” than some of these authors have been." Considering that I am one of the "others" implemented with this so implied perversity, I would just like to reiterate Trish's comment that I was not anonymous--I took full responsibility for my posts. Also, my posts had actual relevance to the unfolding plot of the story. Not that I think SLH should be punished for his lack of skill as a writer, but until that skill is developed and honed he/she should really consider refraining from uninformed commentary.

I think this is an excellent discussion, well worth having. Censorship is a complex subject, more complex than is sometimes acknowledged in public debates. For instance, how many people really are against ALL censorship? Is hate mongering acceptable (arguing, say, that Jews are evil and the Holocaust a myth)? What about child porn? If you take pictures of real kids, that's of course abusive, but what about literary descriptions of pedophilic relationships? Nabokov's Lolita, I would argue, is a brilliant novel, all the more powerful because it's conscious of these very problems; stories in "Pedophile Weekly" are, I think, a different matter. But where and how to draw the line? We generally resort to a distinction between artistic merit and titillation. But what if someone masturbates to a classic novel? What if someone writes an essay on rhetorical techniques in porn films? Shifting from writing to speech, there's the classic case of yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. Is such an utterance protected (given that deaths could result from it)? Turning to literature, we all recount the stories of schools and libraries banning books, or of customs officers confiscating Lady Chatterly or Ulysses, but what really consitutes censorship? It seems to me the government has to be involved. If a publisher decides not to publish a certain book, that's not censorship, since they have no obligation to publish everything that's submitted to them. Even with the Giuliani story, it's tricky. I was actually living around the corner from the Brookyln museum when that was going on (for those of you who don't know -- Giuliani threatened to withdraw public funds for an art exhibition at the museum that included a painting of the Virgin Mary with dried elephant dung on it). If a museum accepts public funds, does it not have an obligation to the public? If the public finds something offensive about a show (as at least part it did), doesn't it have the right to say, "we find this offensive and don't want to pay for it." Is Giuliani's move censorship or just the expression of taste. (He's not saying the art work can't exist, after all, just that the public is unwilling to pay for its exhibition.)

As for our local blog issue, I agree that the blog is public (anyone in etherland can read it after all). I also agree with those who found the post in question disturbing. I find the analogy to Clockwork Orange and such weak. Surely its not violence itself (especially combined with sexual aggression) that we admire in such novels, but what the novels have to say, or the way they are written, and so forth. And I have to say that, as a teacher, I get rather nervous when I read anything about someone shooting students (for obvious reasons). Ultimately, it's up to you all (or Trish, the Blog Queen) to decide whether to leave posts up or delete them. But if you do decide to delete them, I'm not sure that consitutes censorship. Of course, as Jim points out, and since SLH is participating in the discussion, those who are posting should really bear the responsibility for their posts, and consider the consequences and issues carefully before posting something that will be offensive.
I look forward to hearing how this discussion develops!

HH

I think that most people's issue with this post is that it's anonymous. We feel that we're unjustified in our response to this post because we're used to referring to the "source" when it comes to judging a piece of writing. Bad writing equals a bad person (Quintillion) -- thus we need to know the original person posting in order to make a moral judgement about the post. However, my question is "can any of us really control the affects of our writing?" You might answer yes if you think that meaning is stable and fixed, but it's not. And in order to judge a person based on their writing, meaning must be fixed, so that a piece of writing is a perfect transmission that perfectly represents the person's original intention and thoughts -- this is not possible. Writing is not a pipeline that transmits information -- the moment something becomes a word or text it is transformed/deformed/reformed into something else entirely. Our thoughts regarding the now imfamous post, are to call it irrisponsible, but that's assuming that the author had a certain intention and that his message is a snapshot of his brain that's been perfectly communicated to each of us.

Sorry to post so much, but I forgot one point I wanted to mention. I find SLH's yoking of his (why do I think "his"?) post to Norman Jones's suggestions of novels involving gay or lesbian (or non-heterosexual) romance highly offensive. Norman's point was hardly to advocate necrophilia or "perversion." I think his whole point (which surely we ought to agree with) is that the romances in these novels are NOT "perverse" but compelling and perhaps even beautiful (or at least we should apply the same adjectives to them as to heterosexual romances). The insinuation that Norman's page justifies SLH's post is not only wrongheaded, it's hateful. I suspect most of you felt similarly, but I thought the point needed to be made.

HH

All that we're able to do is judge the writing as writing and judge its affects in the world. To connect it back to the writer might help us feel better about the "vulgarity" as connected to some bad person. But we're only accurate when we judge the writing in and of itself.

I'm not writing to support the affects -- just to point out the problem with attempting to call the writer irresponsible -- we need to judge the writing not the intangible writer.

I'm not sure I agree with you, Aaron. There is a theoretical trend which announces the death of the author and asserts the impossibility of determining authorial intention, but this seems extreme to me. I admit that I read because I'm primarily interested in the literature, but this often also leads to an interest in the author. And isn't this natural? A mantra of E.M. Forster's was "only connect." This works in literature as in life. I think we read to connect -- with characters, with other readers, and with writers. We may be unable to know them perfectly, but this is no less true of anyone we work or live with (you may be married to SLH and not know it!!). As for judging a writer's intentions, if someone writes a pamphlet that says "Death to all Zoroastrians!" can't I reasonably assume a hostile intention? Wouldn't this in fact be the basis for a charge of hate-mongering? Of course, language is complex and may mean many things to many people, but we still bear the responsibility of interpretation, of sifting the better from the worse. And I think we can make some claims, however limited, about an author's intention -- if we assume that language is communication, how can we not? There is also a question of responsibility here. I think we are responsible for what we write, and it's not enough to say that we didn't intend to be offensive or that all intention is unknowable and irrelevant.

HH

(I would like to premise my response to HH by reinforcing the fact that I do not advocate the affects of the post in question. Sorry for the length, but I'm not sure that it could be avoided.)

But what do we mean by responsible? We say that someone should be responsible, but this is a slippery slope if we consider free speech important. Does responsible mean that there should be certain punishments for certain types of writing -- like hate propaganda? Does this mean that someone should have to defend their assertions before the community to which they are communicating? What do we mean by responsible? I think the heart of this assertion is the need to connect a piece of writing to a "source" because we feel that without a "source" writing cannot have meaning, and in the case of this discussion -- if it cannot have meaning then it cannot be judged. We say that it is "natural" to connect a piece of writing to a writer, and I would agree that the urge to do so is "natural." However, many things seem to feel or be "natural" but are neither real nor practical. Much literary theory has gone to show that when we discuss a "source" that is in "control" of their writing that we're on shaky ground. Is there a singular or plural self? Does an individual construct a message or is it a result of the many cultural and sociological forces at play within a person?

When we need the source in order to judge a piece of writing then we do not accurately judge the "message" but are concerned with moral disposition of the "messenger." If speech is really free then all messages are allowed to be spoken and the writer need not feel responsible. However, where the responsibility lies is in the hands of the community receiving the message. Each of us has a responsibility to judge a message, and then we have a responsibility to discuss that message with other people in the community. This requires everyone within the community to have an open mind and work together to decide whether a message is useful. I am glad that people are allowed to communicate messages of hate -- NOT because of the message's affects of spreading certain ways of perceiving the world or people within the world -- BUT because open minds require that those minds in turn not be restricted -- both in their open-minded judgments but also in their communications.

This post is a snapshot of the ways in which the responsibility lies in the hands of the receivers of the "message." However, we're failing every time we're concerned with the source. We should first decide the affects of the infamous post and then decide why we agree or disagree with those affects. The KKK has reduced quite a bit in recent years because people are deciding that their hate message is one that they don't want to hear and that they don't want to promote. We have the responsibility as a community to respond, ignore, or refuse certain messages -- but any restrictions on speech and thought only serve to promote closed-minded thinking -- not reinforce open-mindedness.

The more we learn about the behavioral aspects of the inventor of the blog post in question, the more some of us find reason enough to consider the relative merits of our own interpretations of authorial intent. Had SLH said nothing more than what was said in the story, this discussion might quickly and quietly withered away. Shocking! Irresponsible! Outrageous! Once we got past those initial responses, there may have been little more we might have been motivated to say.
However, we were allowed a glimpse of the defensiveness, the weak or faulty comparisons to other works, and the odd ambiguity surrounding the question of identity. The responses do little to help me dismiss what I find to be the disturbing nature of the language in the post. In many cases of seemingly random violence, people step back and say they should have seen the signs that this person was dangerous. I want to believe that this person is merely attention starved or has some sophomoric notion of what is humorous, yet, with every response, I find this option diminishing. So, what does this say about knowing the author? I'm not sure. Here be dragons.

Much attention has been given to the blog post and I’m going to it give a bit more directly, plus attention to a few other post. The disturbing part of the initial post that got this whole thing going was that the author refused to take personal ownership of it. Instead it was being masked by an ‘anonymous’ name source. Seeing as language belongs to all of us, nobody should think that they are allowed to have their voice heard without being questioned. When we make the choice to put something out in the public, then there is a responsibility that has to be taken. We must be willing to accept the consequences, good or bad. Choosing to participate in an open and equal community always requires everyone in the community to be held to the same standards. Apply this concept to the issue of censorship. By refusing to allow someone to respond to your personal choice of language is just as much censorship as it is for not allowing the comment.

Now, on to my second point(s). There has been discussion about this original post being a creative piece of writing. I would like you to take note of the word ‘creative’ as I will refer back to it shortly. There is also a debate about the meaning of interpretation by this piece (like all writing) and can be un-attached anytime by someone when writing. Just because someone writes something means that there isn’t any correlation between the writer and the writing seems to be coming across in a post or two. A writer and their writing are always attached. We are like a computer, we have an operating system driving everything we do and create. At the end of the day, no matter what comes out of that computer is a direct result and influenced by that operating system that has both its own positive and negative qualities. The whole concept of a writer that is un-attached from their writing is like the Arizona New Mexico boarder. They are two separate entities, however there is no exact boarder drawn to separate the two. If someone can march out to the middle of the desert and show me that line, please do. Then explain to me why the land on the west of that boarder is different than the east, other than an a name. Our writing is a direct result from our perspective. Remember the word ‘creative’ (you didn’t I forget about it did you?)? While the post is supposed to be designed for creative writing, the entire process of writing is always creative. Once more again like that damn Arizona/New Mexico boarder, it overlaps into one area with out any clear boundary. We all have access to limited information in our brains that ultimately drives anything we do. It’s much like a fingerprint. If we were all had access to same information in everyone’s brain, then we wouldn’t be here debating this post to begin with. That is because we would know exactly what words to use and what exact emotions they will draw for everyone. I don’t think that’s being done, do you?

For one last comment (will it ever end it!), up top I used a phrase “We must be willing to accept the consequences, good or bad.” Do you think when I wrote that, the words good or bad are merely placed there to just talk about consequences as being equal for this situation? My emphasis is placed on bad. See how easy it is to cross that boarder while not meaning to.

This is great! I'm not sure I want to thank SLH exactly (and I don't think this justifies the post one way or another), but I am glad that so spirited and fruitful a discussion has resulted. I read Jay's post with much interest, but like a dog with a bone, I'm going to respond to Aaron again (briefly). I'm still unconvinced that freedom of speech should be absolute. What about slander? If you insult or degrade me in print in certain ways, I can sue you. Should I not be able to? No one loves Milton more than me, and I always get excited by Areopagitica, but it's important to remember that Milton's argument was against government pre-publication censorship. This is not the same thing as saying that everything should be published. Publishers can decide whatever they like, and I would argue, if I were a publisher, that there are plenty of good reasons for not publishing certain books (everything from lousy quality to gratuitously offensive subject matter). I don't want to run on too much, but I also still disagree about the relationship between author, text, and reader. These are none of them mutually exclusive relationships. To say that I am interested in the author's intention (however misty, and however much my (re)construction) is not to say that I feel this is the final authority, just that it is important and interesting. I also feel that the text on the page has a certain authority, but this doesn't mean that I deny the power of a reader to shape or construct meaning. All three interconnect and interplay. That's all for now, but keep it going!!

Again...what do we mean by consequences and responsibility? Do we punish this person? Do we restrict his abiity to continue to communicate as part of the group because of the negative affects of his language use? We keep referring to responsibility but we're unable to define what it means beyond the basic conception of connecting language to a source. If it is more than this please then please define what it means to hold a speak/writer responsible, because the ideal of consequences is not tied to the person but to the affects of the language. The "message" has affects, and those affects elicit responses, and those responses are forms of punishment, refusal, or accceptance. Any sort of restriction on the writer/speaker keeps speech from being truly free -- how can we make a person/writer/speaker responsible without restricting free speech in some way? We can't -- so if you're arguing for consequences and responsibility on behalf of the person/writer/speaker then you are advocating limits on speech. So advocating responsibility means deciding the ways in which you feel speech should be restricted -- but be careful, you're treading on thin ice -- as soon as we begin infringing on free speech then we're on a slippery slope -- who says which kinds of speech and what kinds of speech should be limited?

Who said anything about limits? I fail to see how someone being responsible for their language choices has anything to do with limits. You asked about responsibility and what it is. It’s actually very simple, it’s whatever you want it to be. This whole issue is very messing with no right decision. Once again I see nothing wrong with a person taking the responsibility of admitting that they chose to link a certain group of words together in a certain fashion. Also if people cannot form opinions based language used by another, then why waste the time with them? What becomes an effective writer from and ineffective writer? What becomes great literature and what becomes bad literature? After all, we are having opinions form based on the language directly.

I'm not sure the ice really is so thin or the slope so slippery, Aaron, though I agree that pinning down the limits of free speech precisely is difficult. But that's what the courts are for (at least in cases of slander, libel, or hate-mongering). Obviously, we're not dealing with a legal issue here, and I'm not saying SLH should be carted off to Guantanamo or some camp in the Ukraine. Others talked about responsibility and consequences, but what I was thinking about was nothing extreme or corporal. Really, the main responsibility I had in mind was personal -- something like thinking beforehand of how what you write might affect others, and owning up for it. The consequences are similar -- a writer might find that people are angry or offended or something like. Furthermore, I do think that there is nothing wrong with Trish deleting truly offensive posts. Do we feel that spammers have the right to be heard? I certainly don't. And nobody is being "silenced" after all. They just have to find another forum where that sort of utterance is welcomed or tolerated. They can even start their own blog. Of course, the other option is for SLH to persuade Trish and you all (barring any intervention from powers higher than me, it's your decision) that posts like this have merit and should be allowed. But I don't really see that this has happened or that indeed there has been much of an argument that way.

Actually, it seems to me that this group is rather liberal (which I see as good). Many posts have played around with sexual suggestiveness or potentially scandalous blasphemies -- but this seemed generally in good fun, the participants seemed to enjoy it, and it actually suited the genre (read some nineteenth-century gothic novels if you really want bodice rippers and lustful priests!!). My sense of the objection to SLH's post was that (a) it went over the edge, in ways that I suspect we don't really have trouble identifying, and (b) it seemed designed to offend rather than to contribute in some constructive way to the writing project (which, again, was defined pretty loosely). It's the combination of these that seems most offensive, I think. For instance, if the blog monster had developed necrophilic urges within the parameters of the story, we might have been slightly grossed out, but I suspect we wouldn't have thought it should be deleted. It was the sense many of us had (we DID feel we could detect an intention) that the post was meant to shock and offend, for its own sake. Even shock and offense have their place, but if that's ALL a piece of writing does, how interesting or valuable is that?

HH

HH

But how can we tell someone to be responsible for their language if responsibility is "whatever we want it to be?" What does that mean? Whether we like it or not, someone is able to post something and leave its source ambiguous. If we concern ourselves with the person who originally posted the message then we fail to actually hold the message itself responsible by agreeing, disagreeing, refusing, or ignoring it. In our society, people are able to say whatever they want without having to be responsible for it. Even cases of slander are judged based on whether the *message* caused damage to another person's public reputation -- these cases are not judged based on whether or not the source is faulty or bad (by the way, slander cases are extremely rare and even harder to prove -- in fact many have argued that slander laws don't belong in a society that priviledges free speech). We might feel better when someone attaches a name to their messages, but if this name is absent we are still able to judge a message and hold it responsible. Like I said before, in our society, which priviledges free speech, the responsibility lies in the hands of the audience.

What should we do with the ambiguous poster's message? Should it be ignored? Does it fit into the story? Does it accomplish certain things other than adding to the narrative? Are those accomplishments negative or positive?

...sorry for my poor spelling. ;)

I think I posted my previous post at the same time as HH. Sorry that it seems out of place with the linear progression of the discussion.

That’s interesting notion of holding words the actual words or message responsible. So we should hold abstract ideas responsible, not the person who uses them? You mentioned about the slippery slope, I wonder how steep and slick the slope is with this idea? If our message of words is at fault, then why do we feel so personally compelled to defend it when someone misunderstands?

We "defend" a message to help clarify its meaning for a listener/reader -- not to defend the moral standing of the individual behind the message.

You're still missing the point -- this person is ambiguous, and we cannot do anything about it. Lets judge his message, because that's what we *actually* can do.

Why are you assuming that we want to do something to the person? Should we never ask who constructed it? So if it doesn’t matter who constructed the message, at all, then why would we want credit for something published in a book, magazine, newspaper, etc?

Many people don't want or care about credit when they publish -- thus pen names (amiguous authors), and not mention the many people who advocate public domain (although intillectual property is another argument altogether).

Many doesn’t mean all. Have you ever attached your name to a message you’ve constructed that has had the sole purpose for publication? It goes back to the issue of consequences, bad or good.

Fun, fun, fun...I love to argue.

and that makes me wonder.... haha

Turkey soon, so I'll be brief. I don't think there is any sense in the idea of holding "words" or "texts" responsible. Responsibility, it seems to me, requires consciousness and agency. An inanimate object has neither. What if we think of a piece of writing (or any utterance) as a form of speech act? Then we ought to be held accountable for our words just as for our deeds. (J.L. Austin is the theorist behind speech act theory, but the concept is pretty clear on it own.) And I still have problems with the idea that (a) all language is infinitely fluid and therefore finally ambiguous, and (b) authorial intention is completely unknowable and therefore best ignored.

Anyone up for a face to face discussion of these issues later in the year?

HH

Yes...I would love a face to face discussion/debate of these issues.

I agree that people should strive to be "conscious" when deciding what to write/speak in the world, but the reality of things is that people don't have to and many times aren't willing to when and if their writing/speech is controversial. We may not like this, but there is little that we can do about it. Like this conversation -- we're struggling over whether or not we should care who the author is and whether or not he should be held "accountable," but this is ignoring the fact that he's chosen to remain ambiguous. Thus, until we judge his writing -- the only thing we are able to do in this situation -- his writing remains untouched and as a writer/speaker he remains successful. Now, if we were to stop talking about the intangible ambiguous source of this message and begin talking about the message in and of itself and whether or not we should delete it, ignore it, respond to it, or ect; then we are able to affect the source indirectly by judging his writing and deciding what we as a community should do with it. WE are being irresponsible by not having the discussion of what we think about the message and what we should do with it -- the ghost writer remains successful until this discussion begins. It's been said that my views are abstract and disconnected because I don't care who the author is, and because I want to judge the writing. But what's more abstract and disconnected than attempting to figure out an ambiguous and intangible source rather than practically doing what is right here in front of us to do -- judge the writing. Why are we afraid to judge the writing without an author? Are we not able to do this? The author remains a success as long as his message remains without a response from this community.

Please correct me if I'm wrong...but I think that we're arguing two different points. It would seem that you're concerned with people being responsible to write/create aware and conscious messages -- I couldn't agree more. I think that people should be responsible in that sense of pre-writing/speaking or during-writing/speaking responsibility. All writers should try and be aware enough to construct texts or messages that are effective and useful. However, I am arguing about what we do when an unwanted or negative message has been communicated, regardless of a desire that the writer have a pre/during-writing responsibility. It is obvious that this writer has been irresponsible based on the affects of what he's written -- I'm arguing for what we do now -- i.e. judge the message.

This is all so much to digest, and it's making me sleepy.

Yep...I'm full.

I forget what it is we are to judge or why we are to judge it. Is there a message or is there just inanity? Was there some misguided intent or was there just some rambling random discourse? Is there an element of irresponsibility or is there really just thoughtless expression? Would an absence of malice matter? Does innosence override responsibility? While we might consider responsibility, what if we don't imagine the possible consequences of our actions? What if we can't argue our points very well or are overmatched in this sort of dialogue? Will we carry torches like angry peasants to hunt down a perceived villain?
So many questions.

Post if you will, write if you might...oh the issues that a few words can incite. Bring back SLH...oh a most fruitful rhetorician of sorts.
Talent and skill with words he doth retain
twisted message, how it pains the brain.
Only if we knew, only if we thought...
He had an answer

Don't blame SLH for what I bid him do! I take full responsibility for all the mayhem and buzz buzz buzz in the writing center! Next time, I am going to choose someone else! Watch your hands...it may be you!
Har Har Har Har Har!!!!!

I don't remember Satan laughing like that. Monica, maybe, but not Satan. And there was no mayhem, nor any other month hem.

how come whenever we start something...we stray away so far from the original intent. It is like all English Majors/and Or profs are inherintly ADD... and we ...oh look something shiny....

We're English majors, not crows.
Although, shiny things are pretty...