Computers and Composition Reading Response

After reading through various articles in the Computers and Composition journal, I am going to focus on the writings of Charles Moran in his article “What We Had Hoped For.” The title alone offers the reader an understanding of the technological world that Moran is trying to illustrate. I have noticed over the course of my first semester of graduate school that there seems to be quite a bit of ambivalent sentiments that surround the computers and writing field. Moran describes scholars in the field, especially those writing and working for the Computers and Composition journal, as being “upbeat, optimistic, enthusiastic, and forward-looking.” I would completely agree with this assessment, but it is painfully obvious that there are still many critics in the world who generate pessimistic outlooks toward the technological landscape.

I was intrigued with Moran’s ideas of eliminating the “drudgery” that comes along with the tasks of writing. Let us get something straight. The advents of word processing and computer-related features are highly advantageous for anyone who writes, but this so-called “drudgery” seems to be a byproduct of recent times. Would we even be having a discussion of eliminating “drudgery” thirty years ago? My fascination with writing spawned when I was very little, and has grown as I have matured and gone through various levels of the education hierarchy. I have never viewed writing as being troublesome or tedious. Otherwise, I better start to seriously consider my educational and career choices. When I look back and put things in perspective, I realize that for the longest time, I always used to write everything out by hand. I am only twenty-six years old, but I grew up in a house that didn’t have a computer. The truth is that even if my childhood home did have a computer, I am not completely certain that I would have utilized it back then. It was only in my first year of undergraduate studies that I started using computers for writing purposes. Sometimes I feel as though we are spoiled this day and age. I have so much respect for the writers who had to painstakingly write out everything by hand in the most meticulous of fashions. I view the ideas of eliminating “drudgery” with much apprehension, because in the end, there must always be a need for the writer to have control.


Writing students and teachers of writing, as Moran describes, are being faced with new technological advancements that in effect would replace the teacher with computer review software. Is technology taking too big of a hand in the world of pedagogy? My apprehension is only further solidified when I imagine a world where a computer grades and reviews my writing. No thank you. I do not care how advanced computer logic has become, I still and always will want a human mind to delve into and judge my writing. There are tasks that computers can assist with, but as far as rhetorical analysis, the human mind must be present. Technology, for all its advantages, has also created elements that threaten the very thing that writers hold so dear.

The idea that technology (i.e. word processing) makes better writers out of bad writers does not carry much validity with me. Moran quotes the work of Richard Collier and Clifford Werier, who both write, “Good writers are good writers, no matter how they write – their processes and their products are only minimally tied to the mode of text production, no matter what they say or feel about computers or writing by hand.” This statement resonated with me because I feel that it illustrates the notion of why technology is practical for writing purposes, but at the same time, I feel that it explains the reasoning behind why technology does not improve one’s writing. The “mode of text production” should not benefit the quality of writing because quality is something that is not achieved through technology. Aesthetic quality and convenience is achieved with technology, but rhetorical and analytical quality must reside in the human mind.

Moran’s article goes into detail about the history that surrounds the field and community of computers and writing. The advances that have been made through technology and the effects that they have had on pedagogy have been enormous. In fact, after a three year hiatus from higher education, I made the decision to return to college and further my education. The fact that I am in a technical communication master’s program has helped me to realize a great many things about how pedagogy has transformed over the years. I would have never envisioned myself working in a computer lab when I first started college, but now, I cannot really picture it any other way. The world, along with writers must learn to embrace technology, but it is the responsibility of the writers and teachers of writing to control the landscape of how technology is used for writing purposes.

Kairos Reading Response

The years that I spent pursuing my undergraduate degree, in English, were mainly consumed with reading novels and essays. After looking back in retrospect, I am surprised that I was not exposed more to the world of academic journals. In fact, I cannot remember having been assigned any sort of reading that was directly from an academic journal. I don’t have the best memory in the world, but I am pretty sure that I would have remembered a personal interaction with an academic journal. Is this the norm for most academics? I think not. I would venture to guess that a lot of professors rely heavily on works from academic journals in their teaching practices. This semester is my first semester of graduate school, and during this time, I have become acquainted with many new forms of pedagogy, including the peer-reviewed online journal Kairos. I enjoyed this assignment thoroughly because it differed in comparison from past reading assignments. While I enjoyed reading the past four books, some more than others, I was glad to be able to interact more with Kairos as compared to just reading out of a book. I am also glad that the 10th Anniversary issue was the issue we were assigned to read because it seems to offer more of a broad overview of the history that brought life to this journal. I’ll admit that I was a bit skeptical at first when I found out that the idea and concept of this journal was conceived on the way to a Hootie and the Blowfish concert. Even though I am not a fan of their music, I will give Becky Rickly credit for the fact that she definitely came up with this idea of Kairos at a very unique time and place. Who would have thought that an idea for an online journal that explores the intersections of rhetoric, technology, and pedagogy would have been conceived on the way to such an event? In all seriousness, I have found that some of the best ideas are spawned at the most random of times when one is not expecting it.



I took the advice of the Logging On column and I read Douglas Eyman’s “The Arrow and the Loom” webtext first and foremost. The history that Eyman illustrates for the reader gives a sense of how an idea, with the help of a few dedicated individuals, can turn into a reality. Eyman describes the name Kairos, a Greek word, as having the meaning of “the right moment” or “the opportune”. After gaining an understanding of the context of the name choice for the journal, I feel as though the name encompasses the nature of the journal in a very successful manner. With technological advances, our world is changing at such a rapid pace this day and age, and I feel that there is always a need to evolve with the times. Kairos, not being the first online journal of its kind, offers a communication medium for individual scholars who wish to engage the Computers and Writing field in a new and interactive manner. Eyman also touches on the issues of overall design for the journal in his webtext. While I love the interactivity that webtext has to offer, I must admit that I found some of the navigation in Kairos to be somewhat troubling. While navigating through the journal, I almost felt as if I was missing certain pieces in the webtexts. The utilization of hyperlinks in the writing, combined with the design of the journal itself, made for a disjointed and somewhat frustrating read. I am not saying that I didn’t enjoy the content of the reading, but I am saying that I was not completely satisfied with the navigation. Of course, the authors of the various webtexts have constructed their own mediums for conveying their ideas, and each webtext is unique in its own way. The fact that Kairos allows the author to choose their own environment for writing purposes opens up the possibility of varying navigation methods and features. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is what makes Kairos unique. With all this said, Eyman emphasizes the fact that as far as design goes, the Kairos staff will be working on the journal to promote new and improved methods of “higher readability” and “more reliable navigation.”

Tracy Bridgeford’s webtext “Kairotically Speaking: Kairos and the Power of Identity” brought about some very interesting thoughts when dealing with the world of tenure. My knowledge of the Computers and Writing field is growing as this semester goes by, but I am constantly becoming a witness to the uphill battle that scholars in the field are constantly dealing with. Kairos is a prime example of a scholarly publication that is seemingly questioned as such by those “entitled” to pass such judgment. I cannot imagine how frustrating it must be for those ambitious technorhetoricians that must deal with the faults of bureaucracy. The rigorous editorial process, outlined in this issue, that submissions made to Kairos go through should be clear cut evidence that this field is rightfully scholarly in all aspects. The standards of tenure have been in place for many years, but how can those seated in the upper echelon of academia not have a willingness to be more open-minded and optimistic when it comes to passing judgment. Technology is here to stay, period! Once people realize this, I believe that there will be some dramatic changes that will take place in academia. Kairos, and all related rhetoric, writing, and pedagogy will become more recognized as a valid foundation for tenure. Bridgeford states, “Technorhetoricians often spend a good portion of their time educating and convincing their colleagues about the value of digital scholarship.” However, with the work of online journals such as Kairos, I feel as though attitudes will begin to change, because forgive me for saying so, but people cannot be blind forever!

The Praxis section of the journal outlines some very intriguing implementations that the editorial staff is planning to put into place. I love the idea of having an open-access section of the journal, a wiki of sorts, which would help and give suggestions to those interested in using certain digital tools and settings for their scholarly writing. This section would serve as a great reference for anyone in need of guidance when dealing with foreign facets of technology. I am anxious to see how this all shapes out.

In conclusion, with the work Kairos is doing, I hope to see an increase in the number of people citing credible and scholarly electronic sources, especially peer-reviewed online journals like Kairos. The editors and contributors seem to be doing something right because, as Eyman points out, the reader numbers have increased over the years and branched out to include an international audience. The variety of contributors, whether they are graduate students or tenured professionals, offers a friendly world where outsiders are embraced. Jim Kalmbach writes about this friendly world in his webtext “Reading the Archives: Ten Years on Nonlinear (Kairos) History.” Kalmbach states, “Community has enabled Kairos to survive.” This 10th Anniversary issue gave me a better understanding of the practices and ideals that this journal lives by, and for that, I am grateful.

Computers and Writing: The Cyborg Era Reading Response

As someone who has been recently introduced to the field of computers and writing, what have been some of your initial reactions and sentiments toward this new and unfamiliar field?

For the past few months, I have learned many new things about the field of computers and writing. I have always been someone who has embraced new ideas and concepts with an open mind, but there are instances in which I have felt a certain sense of emotional apprehension when it comes to trying something new. Currently, I am twenty-six years old, so if someone had to guess, he or she would probably figure that I have been exposed to the ever-changing world of computers for a long time. Of course, the cultural society in which we live definitely has something to do with this overall assumption. For instance, if I lived in a very poor third world country where technological resources were few and far between, this assumption would obviously not apply. However, since I am a graduate student at Texas State University, and a graduate of the University of Texas, it is safe to assume that my peers picture me as someone who is technically proficient. I mean, let's be honest, I am pursuing a master's degree in technical communication. I am in fact at a point in my life where I rely on computers and technology very heavily. I currently work as a technical writer at a clinical laboratory in Austin. I spend hours upon hours at my computer writing and editing technical documentation including: standard operating procedures, software validations, and assay validations. The rest of my time, when I am not at work, is spent going to graduate school. The little personal time that I have on the weekends is spent amongst friends and my significant other, but Sundays are also spent on the computer, because in fact, I am constantly in need of checking my fantasy football teams. Yes, I did use the plural form of team, and yes, I am a big dork. My reliance on computers for writing and other professional and personal duties has not always been this prominent. In fact, when I started college in 1999, my computer skills were definitely lacking as compared to my fellow peers. It has taken a significant amount of time for me catch up in the rat race that we all take part in, and I am still not where I want to be as far as my technical knowledge is concerned. Anyways, I digress. James Inman's Computers and Writing: The Cyborg Era is a work that differs from the other books we have read thus far. His historical approach to analyzing the field, along with the shared community voices he uses to accentuate the many viewpoints of those involved in the field, offers the reader a unique perspective on a field that is growing with an evolving technological landscape. Inman's concepts that explore the "Cyborg Era" constantly revert back to the idea of "community" when describing those people who work in the computers and writing field. The fact that our class has recently been exposed to all the upcoming call for papers, and the looming conferences that are part of the computers and writing world, make our reading of Inman's book that much more poignant. It's funny to think about how I am barely realizing that there is an academic field that focuses specifically on computers and writing. It is interesting that it took a specific class entitled "Computers and Writing" to make me come to this realization. However, in my academic career I have been directly and indirectly involved in the field. This seems to be the case for many people in today's society. Computers and technolgy are such a dominant force, and people just seem to take these entities for granted. My realization about the existence of the computers and writing field and community has made me come to appreciate this world and all the advantages that it offers.

In chapter 2 of Computers and Writing: The Cyborg Era, Inman focuses on many of the historical aspects that have influenced the computers and writing community. Based on the reading, what are some of your thoughts on the history that surrounds the computers and writing community?

The "Cyborg History" in chapter two offers the reader a brief background that surrrounds the world we are studying. I found the references to the Space Race and the Cold War to be very intriguing. The Space Race was a time when the country and the world listened to a certain rhetoric from world leaders that emphasized the need to win the technological race into the cosmos. The Cold War saw a time in American history when people were genuinely frightful of the new technologies that were being utilized by the dominant military powers of the world, namely Russia and the United States. The term that comes to mind for me is "push-button warfare." I constantly picture Stanley Kubrick's satirical masterpiece Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. This film embodies many aspects about how computers have shaped a paraniod society and a society that at times has been quite apprehensive when considering the uses of computers and technology. Computers and surrounding technologies were growing exponentially during the Cold War, and Inman has made it very clear that our lives have been shaped by the events that took place during this time. I love the fact that Inman references the film Wargames. I found this reference to apply perfectly to the paranoia I described above. This film literally paints a picture of a world where computers have decided the fate of society. For those who haven't seen this film, I won't ruin the details, but it is definitely worth a viewing.





Inman's descriptions of certain philosophies offer the reader an in-depth and thoughful look into the resistance that has overshadowed technology. I have always wondered why certain people exude such a strong resistance to the ideas of technology. During WWII, technology became more prominent than ever. The rise of the Nazi Party and the fact that it embraced and employed technology to wreak genocide over everything in its grasp, gives readers a sense of why the resistance to technology has resonated over time. The Allies were able to use technology in their favor to combat the Axis powers and subsequently win the war. Of course, the Cold War started up shortly thereafter, so people must have had a sense that technological ideas were mostly spawned from elements of warfare and global domination. Can you really blame people for their ambivalent resistance toward technology? I don't think you can blame anyone, but in the end Inman makes a very poignant statement, "Sadly, either direction- whether to adopt and use the technologies available or to resist them-involved making substantial sacrifices, and these are the same problematic options many people face in light of similar influences today."(66) The historical perspective that Inman offers is extremely important because it sheds light on the path that technology has taken to mold the world in which we live. I have always been a history buff, so this chapter touched home on a lot of historical events that I am familiar with. However, Inman was able to articulate how these historical events have shaped the field and community of computers and writing. For that, I am grateful.

In conclusion, I chose to write a blog about Inman's work in the same fashion that he chose to utilize his so-called "community voices". I presented, to myself, one broad question about this new community I have discovered, and then I chose to elaborate on a more specific question of interest in the work, namely the historical examination. Inman might have lost some authorial power with his decision to use such a vast plethora of voices from the computers and writing community, but I still think that he accomplishes his overall goal of having a broad/community voice. In time, I hope to study and better understand the computers and writing field. I think I am on my way.