We began class with an invitation for syllabus and schedule questions. Jess asked whether the expectation would be that the texts we read during the semester are cited in final projects. Dr. Geller said this is an option but is in no way required. No other questions or revisions, so the English 170 syllabus and schedule no longer include “draft.”

Dr. Geller introduced the idea of positionality statements — both for understanding where writers/researchers position themselves intellectually and where we position ourselves as readers of those works. She read this quote (and some questions to think about) from a piece by Homan now in the Google Drive: “My positionality conveys ‘where I’m coming from’ and is made up of our various, intersecting social identities (gender, race, class, ethnicity, sexuality, dis/ability, geographical location, etc.). These identities combined (and their intersections) go on to shape how we understand and engage with the world around us, including what we know, our attitudes and perspectives and our work practices.” Dr. Geller gave some examples of what she would include in reflecting on and writing about her own positionality and asked that the class individually draft their own writing about positionality. She also noted two other resources she had added to the Google Drive folder: A description of an in-class exercise developed by Eugenia Zuroski to consider “where we know from” as a way of thinking about how “Academic intellectual authority—what we think it looks, sounds, and feels like; where we think it comes from—is precisely the problem, the structure that perpetuates imperialism in our spaces of learning and intellectual engagement.” And an article titled “Researcher Positionality – A Consideration of Its Influence and Place in Qualitative Research – A New Researcher Guide.” [Note from Dr. Geller: I loved hearing the seminar room full of keys clicking and pens scratching as we explored composing these for ourselves.]

To move to talking about and thinking about the week’s readings, Dr. Geller asked everyone to use large index cards to contribute two quotes — one from Roland Barthes’ 1968/1977 “The Death of the Author” (here’s Barthes’ text in Aspen, where it was originally published) and the other from Michel Foucault’s 1969 “What is an Author.” I’ve added an entry from The Cambridge Foucault Lexicon (“Author”) to the folder of the week’s readings for a bit more context on “What is an Author.” And I’ve also added an entry from The Dictionary of Critical Theory on “Death of the Author.”

Here are the quotes chosen from Barthes, and here are the quotes chosen from Foucault.

Everyone took one Foucault card and one Barthes card that wasn’t their own and talked in pairs (the room was hot (temperature-wise) so we spread out).

When we came back to the room we talked as a large group. We talked about whether the reader/critic can separate how we feel about/don’t value a writer from how we feel about/value the writer’s writing (the example was separating JKRowling from the Harry Potter texts (from Cynthia and more than one pair talked about this) and I would offer this new book’s central ideas as similar). We talked about these perspectives of authors and authorship and texts — and how they are written about criticism and a critic’s approach to texts. There were questions about theory jargon and the ways these types of texts can unnecessarily obscure ideas. And we thought about how these are the genres of theoretical texts written by certain positionalities often read in courses offered by US English Departments (many had previously been assigned one or the other of these texts but some had never read these texts). We wondered what (and who) these texts made possible in geneology after/at the time of their publication (Pete raised this) and what these texts erase (Leah raised this) or create violence toward (Dr. Geller). We talked about whether Dr. Geller should have placed these where she did in the semester’s readings. We thought about who else (authors, theorists, artists) — or what other types of texts — beyond these highly cited texts we might turn to for theories of authorship, and Dr. Geller pointed out that the mid-semester writing we will do carries this same question forward as you develop your own thinking about and theorizing of authorship. We ended with fifteen minutes during which we began to consider these ideas in relation to AI and texts “authored” by AI, though Alex offered thinking about how a human author still authors an AI text.

In a final round of reflection, Will and Andrew both expressed in different ways and from teaching in different contexts that they are thinking about how and where student writers using AI to author find ways to write themselves into texts and how they could support more of that. Liz read this line, which got snaps (and I asked her if I could include it here in the recap because if you get snaps …): “Are we conditioned by education to take what is assigned to us as truth, and because of that is authorship and the quality of it tainted by the authority of the person/entity giving it to us?”

If you have anything you’d like to add or archive, please add in the comments (or via our shared Google Drive).

Looking forward to what will hopefully be a cooler and more comfortable air temperature (literal, not metaphorical) in B-43 this Thursday and this week’s discussion of Alexander and Weems, Collaborative Spirit-Writing and Performance in Everyday Black Lives.