REWRITING WITH HARRIS – THE ESSENCE OF BLOGGING

In Rewriting, Joseph Harris describes academic writing as a social practice. He uses “moves” to describe the 5 non-sequential steps to writing. These 5 steps are Coming to Terms, Forwarding, Countering, Taking an Approach, and Revising.

In chapter 1, Harris describes the first step – Coming to Terms. Within “move” #1 Coming to Terms, Harris defines 3 more moves:

By coming to terms, a writer must use his/her own words to define a project of another writer. Writers must be careful to not shortchange another writer while defining their project. The writer must also incorporate the text into his/her own project.

A writer must also note keywords from the text he/she is responding to. When analyzing a text, a writer must pay close attention to the words that stand out him/her. While a writer does not have to be skeptical, he/she must only note keywords when elaboration or further work is necessary.

Lastly, a writer must assess the use and limits of an approach. Not proving a text right or wrong, rather commenting on what he/she thinks the writer did well or even what they may have occluded.

Harris dedicates a portion of chapter 1 to quotation. While he doesn’t give guidelines to quoting certain works, he does present different types and when to use them. He refers to block quotes, in-text quotes, scarce quotes, epigraphs and allusions all as “terms of art”.

Harris defines writing as an “ongoing recirculation of text.” Harris also focuses on intertextuality, which is a way of writing in which one responds to others work. When writing he suggests being generous and assertive.

Rewriting goes beyond just that, it questions and pushes the ideas of others.  In order to rewrite, one must understand the text they are reading in a way to rewrite it in their own words.

When comparing the way Harris defines rewriting and how Sullivan defines blogging:

Harris refers to commenting only in an academic way while Sullivan refers to commenting in a less formal way. Sullivan hammers on the idea of blogs as conversations while Harris’s type of rewriting is more solidified. In a blog the type of comments are often casual and occur continuously. In an academic essay, the commentary is typically available in a more formal way and to comment on that academic essay would require another academic essay (rather than a comment on a blog).

When reading Harris’s Rewriting, I immediately make connections to blogs. When he talks about being generous I think of constructive criticism that one may use when commenting on a blog. When explaining another’s work in the context of your own work and in your own words, I think of blogging.

To say the least there are many similarities between Harris’s idea of rewriting and Sullivan’s idea of blogging but the difference lay in the formality.