Porter Reading Response

Summary

In his article, “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community,” James Porter attempts to debunk the idea of the “autonomous writer” for his fellow educators and academics. He contends that the notion of the autonomous writer is detrimental when taught in freshman composition courses, and strives to bring to our attention the notion of intertextuality and discourse communities in order to prove that good writers shape the scholarship that has preceded them to contribute to and even change their discourse community.

 

Synthesis

The most obvious connection is between Porter’s notion of intertextuality and Greene’s model of academic scholarship as an ongoing conversation. Greene, in his practical advice on how to become engaged with and write a research paper, says that “if you see inquiry as a means of entering conversations, then you will understand research as a social process” (19). Greene acknowledges the fact that the academic conversation is a social beast, one that is ongoing. Porter’s claim that being a good writer means knowing the scholarship that has come before you and using it to your advantage in making a reasoned argument definitely correlates with what Greene is saying.

 

Another correlation exists between Porter’s idea of the “autonomous writer” and Allen’s idea of the “inspired writer”. Although Allen’s idea is a little more fantastical than Porter’s autonomous writer, which he says is actually frequently taught in composition classrooms, both strive to question their respective constructs of the writer.

 

Questions for Discussion and Journaling

 

4) While I think Porter’s key criterion makes sense, given his argument, I do agree that it is not the first criterion many people would think of when considering the evaluation of writing. I think the norm is to judge writing by how well it holds up to the vision of the “autonomous writer,” that is, how ground-breaking and original the text seems. I think in the past my writing has been judged by the latter as well as the former criteria, depending on the teacher.

 

5) Porter reflects his own arguments splendidly because he uses the scholarship that has come before him to successfully navigate the waters of his discourse community. He reiterates useful scholarship within his discourse community and presupposes our familiarity with examples like the Declaration of Independence, popular commercials, and popular novels.

 

Applying and Exploring Ideas

 

2) I would revise our plagiarism policy to include what Porter says about discourse communities and the necessity to use what others have said before you in order to continue the conversation. However, I would need to make clear that we must introduce these ideas under their rightful authors, and not appropriate them as our own. This would really just expand our current plagiarism policy, which says that “plagiarism involves the presentation of some other person’s work as if it were the work of the presenter” (Ohio University Student Handbook, Coda A, offense 10).

 

Meta Moment

Porter changes for us the idea that the writer works totally alone and replaces it with the notion that writing is a very social process; we achieve nothing alone. I now imagine writing to be more collaborative. Adopting this notion will change the way I write in that I will be more aware of the discourse community that surrounds me and be more willing to use its scholarship without fear of plagiarism.

 

Pre-reading Exercise

I get help from peers in my classes, fellow students, teachers, writing center tutors, and even people who aren’t involved in academia. Everyone helps in different ways, though I primarily get help from these people with ideas for my paper.

 

Personal Thoughts

I really liked this article. Porter livens his article with rich examples to demonstrate intertextuality and discourse communities. I also really liked his organizational style; I could clearly plot out the standard academic moves he was making in his article.