I didn't have much of a chance to blog from RSA, in part because hi-speed internet access from the room was rather expensive, and in part because I was too busy at the conference. But my conference closed on a terrific note with Jenny Edbauer Rice and Dennis Lynch's panel on "The New Pathos." They played against and with each other quite nicely. So smart and thoughtful, both of them. And the audience was full of people whose work I adore. I continue to admire how Jenny pushes boundaries of what a conference panel can do, first with our amateuring gallery/panel on opening day, and then with her paper on pathos, a set of reflective meditations on rhetoric, emotion, affect, teaching, and the impossibility of affectlessness. And to my delight we got to talk just a little bit about why the heck animals keep coming up in theoretical discussions of pathos.
I enjoyed the roundtables I was on--the one on Burke was quite lively I thought. The five of us committed to presenting short statements in order to leave plenty of time for discussion, which meant we amped up our claims, tamped down our evidence, and had at it. I am really starting to like the roundtables, with their luxuriously ample discussion time that really draws in the audience. From an audience member's point of view, it's so hard to sit through three or four 15-20 minute papers, and then there's rarely enough time to really hash through people's responses, or the issues the papers raise for them. But at the Burke roundtable, and at the Pathos panel, since its members were reduced by a last-minute cancellation, we really got to explore the corners of the room, the joints of audience members' connections. When on a roundtable or panel like that I find that I think so much more during the give-and-take, after the papers are laid down, and it's those moments of exchange that linger with me long after I unpack my suitcase.
I've heard a few people say that they don't really go to panels besides the one they present, and I just don't think that's particularly cool. It's far more important, I think, to attend panels and pose questions, to push the discussion to new places. Otherwise, how will growth or transformation happen?
I kept hearing repeatedly that RSA is unique because most all the panels had good-sized audiences. As an example, I chaired a great panel with all graduate student presenters that had about 30 people in the audience. This is rather rare for the bigger conferences (CCCC, NCA), where the audience can get diluted to the point of nearly vanishing. So thanks to those who came to the conference, who attended a number and range of meetings. We travel so far not to perform our own little shows, but to actively engage each other's work.
I enjoyed the roundtables I was on--the one on Burke was quite lively I thought. The five of us committed to presenting short statements in order to leave plenty of time for discussion, which meant we amped up our claims, tamped down our evidence, and had at it. I am really starting to like the roundtables, with their luxuriously ample discussion time that really draws in the audience. From an audience member's point of view, it's so hard to sit through three or four 15-20 minute papers, and then there's rarely enough time to really hash through people's responses, or the issues the papers raise for them. But at the Burke roundtable, and at the Pathos panel, since its members were reduced by a last-minute cancellation, we really got to explore the corners of the room, the joints of audience members' connections. When on a roundtable or panel like that I find that I think so much more during the give-and-take, after the papers are laid down, and it's those moments of exchange that linger with me long after I unpack my suitcase.
I've heard a few people say that they don't really go to panels besides the one they present, and I just don't think that's particularly cool. It's far more important, I think, to attend panels and pose questions, to push the discussion to new places. Otherwise, how will growth or transformation happen?
I kept hearing repeatedly that RSA is unique because most all the panels had good-sized audiences. As an example, I chaired a great panel with all graduate student presenters that had about 30 people in the audience. This is rather rare for the bigger conferences (CCCC, NCA), where the audience can get diluted to the point of nearly vanishing. So thanks to those who came to the conference, who attended a number and range of meetings. We travel so far not to perform our own little shows, but to actively engage each other's work.
