Perhaps I'm slow. But today, for the first time that I can remember, I started playing around with the words "Writing Program."
For one thing, you can do the common play with the participle, so that instead of "writing" acting as an adjective for "program," it acts as a verb with "program" as its object. And that spins the concept a bit, to put the emphasis on the discursive nature of programs, as things which are written, in process.
But, then, a "program" isn't just a bureaucratic abstraction. It's a set of instructions for a computer. And can be hacked.
What if we think of a WPA as a programmer, a writer of code. And as a potential hacker.
Yes, what if?
Some things rattling around in my brain today. And now they're here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
At one point years ago, I started writing a piece called "Hacker/Hacker" which was placing Diane Hacker's Handbook in relationship to hackers. At the time, it seemed as if the model of the "hacker" was being romanticized a bit, or was being made as sterile and bland as the writing advice in Hacker's very successful handbook. In fact, I was writing, there are similar rhetorics at play.
But when she died, the whole thing seemed in bad taste. I still have my "Elbow room" idea (or maybe someone wants to start a collection: Figure/Theory, or something like that, where writers play off of well known academics' names to invent new concepts).
Which is not really saying anything about your post, I know....
Well, maybe not directly related to the post, but a good reminder to me that I have a wee bit of a tendency to romanticize, and that I need to keep that in check.
But I like that collection idea. Who else has a good name? Hmm. Selfe. Seems like you could do something with that one. Must be more. (I'll bet you have more??)
"Keep Your Hands to Your Self(e)"!
Sorry, Cindy.
Post a Comment