User talk:Sev2109/sandbox

Dividing up the work
Hey User:Akkakkak. Let's use this space to divide up the sources. Which ones do you want to read and summarize / find good points from?
 * User:Sev2109, Sure. I'm saving some links in my zotero, as soon as I find a way to export that list I'll post them here.. --Akkakkak (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. User:Akkakkak I'll also use Zotero so we have the citations formatted nicely, otherwise, they are just random links floating about. Don't worry about formatting the links that are in the Sandbox right now. I can format those in Zotero. --Sev2109 (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also User:Akkakkak we should take a look back on the Gane interview with Haraway about what she said about Hayles. Would you like to do that one? --Sev2109 (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Sev2109 I'm on it --Akkakkak (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Akkakkak Sounds good. I also just put in a possible format to help us keep track of quotes that regard her work positively, and quotes for critique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sev2109 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey User:Sev2109, I tidied up the list a bit so that there are no duplicate links. I also added the Gane-Haraway interview as a list item. --Akkakkak (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Akkakkak hope you're having a nice week. I added a few more sources and then selected some I'd like to read. You are welcome to claim some of the ones I chose if they look more interesting to you -- just change my name to your name and let me know. One thing though: I am going to start with Reid and Jones, so maybe don't pick those two? :) thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sev2109 (talk • --Sev2109 (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)contribs) 19:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Sev2109 I'm happy with the division now :) I guess we can stop adding new items and come back to it if after summarizing/citing the current items we decide we need more material? --Akkakkak (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Akkakkak Sounds great... guess I'll start reading now. --Sev2109 (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Akkakkak I added some quotes for my sources and saw you did the same. To get us started thinking about how we should collaborate to write this, I was doing some thinking about structure. Perhaps we could start with one paragraph to frame the broader conversation that scholars believe her work is entering into (there's a lot in the Weiss article about that, I don't mind doing that part). I could see the next part happening in one of two ways:
 * 1. One paragraph about positive reception, one about negative, each of us write one of those. Seems straightforward and easy, but potentially not the most logical for the reader.
 * 2. We could also write paragraphs split up thematically. For example, some people LIKE her use of Sci-fi texts, others don't. The drawback of that approach is it will take longer and be more work. We'd first need to go through all of the quotes looking for these common themes and then finding those who think positive and those who think negative on each theme. The benefit of that strategy is that then we'd be able to put the positive and negative critiques on the same subject next to each other -- maybe more logical for the reader.
 * Would love to get your thoughts. If you like the first way, let me know which one you'd rather do (pos or neg). If you like the second way, we can start another section on the page for "general themes" and start identifying them. If you have ideas for another structure, please do share and we can take it from there! --Sev2109 (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Akkakkak Hello! I went into the page and started pulling out themes from the quotes we pulled out. If I missed any, please feel free to add them to the table on the page. I also wrote an intro paragraph to get us started, though I didn't cite that paragraph yet. You'll also see there are some topic sentences we can use as a way in to each theme. I claimed 2 of the topic sentences to flesh out, and put your name next to a couple. That is of course not set in stone, please change the themes you're writing about, the structure of the topic sentences, if you'd like to approach this in a different way!Sev2109 (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft of writing
User:Sev2109- Wow, good job so far! It made the work so easier for me. Also, sorry for the delay. (btw, so many indentations- I felt the need for a new section.) Anyway I added some parts as you suggested. Now to see how the paragraphs fit together. One thing I would like to ask you about is Keating's claim that Hayles' idea is "a post-structuralist approach that sees discourse as constitutive of subjectivity." This seems to me contradictory to, say, Muller's claim that "Hayles rightly critiques the contemporary belief that the body is primarily a discursive and linguistic construction. She blames post-modern theory for concentrating on discourse rather than on embodiment." I am not sure if I will cite Muller, of whom I only know that she is "a writer based in Belgium." But I also feel that 'discourse as decisive factor' is one of the things Hayles is opposed to. Should we say that Keating misread Hayles' approach? Or maybe his point about the references being too obscure to be considered conduits of ideas is still valid, regardless? --Akkakkak (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Akkakkak So interesting how the two have such different readings of her point! Other scholars seemed to also think she swung too far towards a universalist approach, and that even as she tries to bring the body back into the conversation, she leans on that idea of "physical reality" (see my section about the posthuman subject). This makes me think that maybe Keating misread... OR perhaps, since Hayles' argument is so complex, out of the nuance, the different scholars are pulling out the strand of her argument that they most want to. I believe her idea of the posthuman is meant to strike some middle ground between humans as purely conduits for information and humans as beings with some kind of physical reality outside of discourse. All of that to say, I think the conversation itself between the two is interesting! You could say that scholars seem to be interpreting her work in contradictory ways, illustrating how complex her argument is, and then provide those two quotes as examples? Hope that helps!
 * In terms of finishing this up:
 * 1) Do you think it is too long? Is there anything we can condense?
 * 2) Should we make subheadings within the section, ie: one for feminism, one for posthuman etc etc, to break it up a little, or just post as is?
 * 3) When do you think we should have this posted up on the Hayles page by? You might have seen that I introduced us on her page. Sev2109 (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey User:Sev2109 thanks for the input. I agree that it is interesting that different people are interpreting her book in different ways, but in this case I say we call for Keating's misreading. Even assuming that his claim can be justified due to Hayles' confusing writing, I think the other viewpoints make it sufficiently clear that "discourse as constitutive of subjectivity" is not the main point here—including Hayles' own interview with Arthur Piper where she states that "It was those kinds of conflicts [between anthropology vs cultural studies point of views, of which in the latter she "was constantly encountering the assumption in cultural and literary studies that a change in a discourse formation could instantly change the body"] and I was thinking about particularly when I wrote about the sedimented history of the body. I still stand by that position, that embodied materialities are resistance to our ideas about them, including the ways in which we construct them in discursive systems."
 * On that note I shortened the science fiction paragraph and merged it with the writing style paragraph. I also updated the citations and some links.
 * Yeah, I think subheadings are a good idea.
 * Do you think our chunk of text should go under "Key Concepts" in the Hayles page? or maybe be another heading on its own?
 * I feel we're good to go as soon as we decide on the details above. But feel free to edit what's written or give me your thoughts on it too!
 * --Akkakkak (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Akkakkak Good call on your resolution of the scholarly debate there. I moved your paragraph about general scope to the beginning and added some subheads. I think it came out great! Why don't you take one last look at it, and whenever you're ready (before Tuesday), post it to the Hayles page? I know I said on the Talk page for her that we would put it under "Key Concepts" but reading your question makes me think we should make it its own section. I just formatted the headers so that it would be its own section once you copy-paste.
 * Once you post it, think you might then shout out the profs by posting a comment to their talk pages? I was thinking that in that comment, we could also link to this space so they might see all of the hard work we put in, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sev2109/sandbox) as well as the sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sev2109/sandbox) and the Hayles page itself.
 * Prof M is User:Theredproject. Not sure about Prof B though. I'll send them a quick email. yay for being almost done! Sev2109 (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Akkakkak Prof B's username for wiki: User:lisaabr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sev2109 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Sev2109 Oops, sorry I missed this yesterday! The source code of references were a bit messy so I tidied those up. Our contribution is up on N. Katherine Hayles page! Check it out :-) I also posted on MM and LB's talk pages. --Akkakkak (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)