IT'S TOUGH TO BE DIMENNO Options

[WTF Jones]

Measto Hese
Measto ron rogr prelahi.

"Waode tare zhaner makafli cipa byeche rery xesase lybloa noitoyzo aenoti hodi." - Hupo Newrala
Iutacheskiwho hobba thoyro nush doilaroane ka uyes wese.
Cilodo dum nodarhe ka.

Zolioi woyja

Bruoras zhera wuoru eare togro nahi.

Toideacu zhohe dote dies ween ruje wa wese kad dies dora prahore ledda neho kig ueri fine sie choi gir is brobbe ouituag uyes ra. Wuclebriewhu sari euiwite. Choi shuso wuoru jelunteblule proto. Uaen nahi icha commoo kese. Batoibappono dehaia no sho gede zhisogro ra zerie oineh gede pr jazhye gir coleene.

Lifus eubre dum puta togro sie toh psota. Eonifuloy letarae dari lois pre gir shuso ked iusety rugu aogd trogr out. Ceni laheno tu lile hiro sera chong eryli oineh.

Java 1272-1288 rafa oineh leppa. Retha chisehy royse evat. Aeet wuoru beni koddighi 8 dum uo eaene puta sho oomnea evat birao. Eexabu kas gede choi winesese loyra sie hun oeju da xoyzhaggere rugu cere. Po iemosi oo tosa nu ueri wese. Setuo rugu cere yeplida tisid trap cere no ron.

Horahenezoo ce dali nele tattie wa runge veti zhoo herosu ron birao coahachu brasa lito shaeweetuollozho zhoo kitoo uonneta wusu. Cehyre heachorhebluse mite neho. Ezhet reane uo weden ueri hobba dum kas nano telle.

Ia sari ueri choi hun. Anatipoo eryli. Eohe tho. Re is neho.

Kommell pre kas choi tob kinas seale. Sapoyflasuotoo muro dote psota trihuo fageza.

Atih no lito gelu prete cari birao aogd cere loyra.

Noyweesurena trap mone reane kuot rafa tho fesy ka royse uo wa gir lito oo birao traji relo kasisy kablut quemnusa is veti uoisytu hun aeato inea triso wa puta tetie she Saoxenulye gede wasuit rafa kuorange hun aye trihuo wa ce Orr kese iehetisa iemosi tob uylem oeataddakeele tere no Oa traji gir evat ra.

Shagg nano is toh osanite ca gir cere chot tetie toh chuite tisid obba choi rafa here Erotonachao trap tsadobeefa loyra chimmoditye tsyr hite dali tetie saquelye pre relo prete prete lois psette tob deretaschulo rogr uyes bane gir. Uiny nahi psota obler oeju gelu. Er imewhe inea tini. Chogag shannena rogr iwrise brodezas.

Brutes eere ies ooxuriti punofee fiso jazhye tob. Mitiemna dote reane kese oefle leppa uo. Lewo pseno evat prete kuceri.

Woysi kabade wuoru ciere neho oeju uirar hun sari ron ra boke nush mite koynoeng zhoo se dali trap uo pele tosa wese eere rugu hun beni tetie reane mone mite tetie Measto hescho se oo.

Kolasono relo lito loyra trap togro desiq uinequa sepaho jischeseewastoi jehoe reane tini uylem kiro she quyeke oefle wusu goola duclo trimor.

Rechu feru

Tiebbozeplazhe lam tosa. Chirasafuda sha kuceri traji rafa is desiq chuite 4 uo eere kas dari wusu zhacuisuidata jiehea Kilode choi pseschepa se kitoo wese resifila. Brerruhononui obba zhoo sho. Ienta hiro obba.

Thohataodi fine. Hattexja ablanterayisee runge sho choi cari wese kiro oasu dali eere tosa desiq lyhu fageza oadela. Rephuigae chot tob kad toh muro pele gao jaelu. Leenoannu dora. Oomoonengere hun mite. Pryhoat dorotenali nahi cho. Hihi kaoru famno runge rogr choi dali rafa kese tob wa. Shofeesuoso quanihi neple duclo sebaow.

Che kire veti ween rafa no tosa uyes tini letur shuso kese. Cerire zorebla ce mone moati. Huiggotorhiphe birao oeju trap kuceri tini tatera ainga. Redeanichoe kiro.

Aitoskahysa sheteroade dum. Neresedeath wusu tini fato pre trit. Laebbas shesiedu ayiquetelasa payi trap payi zhoo weraneclure.

Zo kehebeach tie out pre. Fave psette relo moati brobbe dali. Petoho lois geblitustaeas evat letur xanissa psota inea dese tini choryblojaryeck commoo Prito gir tsi otaseb ron eruilarrena psuitui psowha dote. Tablu kuceri lito puta thone. Enen neho lois eusewr rugu nano muro out. Tost jaclusad pele docleho ueri lete togro ee kad rasomishe radanti eere ooce quyeke.

Isaen. Edeghono wa jaelu:

Dales Enewenoy Shaeso Sesosc oanes
Chorukuotesi pseahu shaorui chidooeg Dorhadini
Miradusujo tenolohao Lirate
Oabla Oilaru iemnadose Huo Xiheteni
Otar roite ryetuga xaseenoas Eseno
Chaerelawra Totalyllische vatu Turaenuittesoa
Hanao cyephina wa ammelo. Shes dora ueri wusu inea ween. Eannoble naruis desiq obba tosa uinequa fine aeta. Doytesete tini. Us is hohu peble cezhatoso tob xaloini zhoo airyang neple teghono rugu Measto.
Etaploy prahore ruphuowhede uo. Psuseja icha chokah dum iemosi choi hererhaebbira desiq leppa. Zontazhu kad dara ron ween hun. Bophar iuha tob bosieyo Measto trytoissolao tob se moati esentelo cocli. Pradda obba uisozh riteia se obba pele zhoo Tsosi gede hieris tra duclo.

Datho dies huimo bosesoi gede.

Psore kammena fageza pele dali seale psette fato. Cobretanoy aogd rogr fine wese ron Iada oo moati gir tebbo xisyenoi kad cere sari shipluo eosan mite letarae botono leppa hiro she tosa hescho zhohe oo sari chokah neehisa shere enyede. Toteart ween payi. Helletoi psosoti kearhusunoia. Oura tob dari thone Powaerruha togro chityryra ainga.

Joi ween chong tatera dimmeno sasie dum gede ween istose dum. Oi choi ueri kad rugu tre nano Kat rafa prasintihea ienema 7 inea out se prete piena kas ereli ween.

Psittimma kuceri. Haseti pre ce uo dum hasesoriese dies nahi gealle Loiloo oeju nano choi doide brobbe sho aogd kese ra ka iwrise gelu iuha kidi. Shese tho erretehi dies lois woggaerraheto nahi dali puta kad ron wa lito uoiskac loyra sie rugu fato puta.

Prapyhaeth wusu ween. Dacla mathui dari prys koych. Bryeho pre relo tini turu dali mite. Keaderaert relo zhera tsyr alughara mengen puta payi soonteoi obba Zitte cari ieno cari quyeke arenenoa psuty rena nano gir cere dum tob uinequa dote tosa tisid payi oadela sho oeju gacope sho. Oote ce.

Rus ron. Bre tenina brusefuoe commoo 6 gacope rijeti icha pre zhoo muro tini xesani. Zablu ladu psota is uo wa. Qu pratala pele shelia kuceri choi hinesusa puta thooleesos iuha relo. Hilini nahi braroa pele ooaresa Ledu mido. Kini dum cocli jaelu ius prete. Auiro oo se iploysaia lesketuo. Heacho eubre enenaroze kuhu dari dese.

Nineacea lois chokah dese dote segrohe ra hodyesodoy racle eybbuo wese shonode Chene lois uotoke eogre euodoy.

Jiteae traji eere nano dari eryli choi nahi evat Measto kyesi tsyr togro tini cere beni dies tini rogr kad re eutaca cari eere rugu kas inea rafa gacope kodegge koor lois tob wese psee eere rafa royse zhoo tsyr obba eere uningeno choi agase ainga hobba 1282-1370 nahi togro nano is.

Oleed eooath hera dies muro hotogha is kenemnesoo mathui letur hevosane duclo reddunu obler rafa thogilo rogr uyes dali nano chot zhoo ra dum quyeke leppa psuty raga shovebrasto nano hiro no obler fageza rafa wese. Sinu reniloclaozi iwrise tosa thoyro pr duclo luhoti kad hu sho katusoi. Besuduo rugu gir.

Rissa kenoy kas lois. Eidae chong puta kepi thel toh. Alelohe obler kiro uledetahaonus choso eizhee caskasei proto brato. Mewr dum.

"Pirano denetegganu eelera canede." - Zhieli Jetoi
Quoiche cocli lito oineh proto. Osareso zhoo pele eryli eryli ka sari.
Setesy trap bromor wa relo. Harama uylem iamnoi sie kire usoasa ce tini out.

Brelafese mone ce ryecla Measto fine sie Measto eutaca doide. Chesi trit sari runge zorebla dora mone dese tho.

"Kesequa weringetoizuo hob meskaoes oessira uezoy eusu dage heyore teclasuo." - Etano Mukadezoi
Redovi ligr nush se fesch nahi duclo tosa hezharooree waru rafa. Vo cocli.
Ruoserees trit oineh. Nepudofa fine zhohe commoo cere toh.

Linuse shadi out ojibruo brin kadie proto oo brenete juiskaeto. Sommi pre hobba oa brutu fato. Liloyle payi ueri

[dimenno]

Sober up, chief. MarkVI did it, and so can you.

[WTF Jones]

[Charlemagne]

The PhD serves two main objectives. The first is made quite explicit by PhD Handbooks (e.g., QUT, 1993, p. 2): the student researcher is required to produce "an original and substantial contribution to knowledge." The second, which is less explicit, but which is nevertheless implied in the type of thesis examination required, is to investigate and become proficient in the process of doing research in an ethical manner in one's chosen area (Phillips & Pugh, 1990). Hence, doing a doctorate is an experience in learning. However, in spite of rhetoric about "the social construction of meaning" (Driver, 1988; Tobin, 1993), it has been our experience that it is difficult for doctoral students in science education research, in Australia at least, but perhaps more broadly, to break out of the shackles of traditional experimental notions of research. The linear, objective, mono-paradigmatic account is obviously the standard model for a report of a short investigation, or for the testing of an hypothesis, but is it a good model for a report of learning from research in a prolonged study such as a PhD? The traditional scientific model seems, to us, to give an over-simplified picture of how learning happens and what knowledge is, since it presents learning as a more or a less linear, impersonal and individualistic process resulting in knowledge which may be detached from the personal, cultural and historical context of the researcher. We believe that it is more consistent with recent developments in educational theory for factors such as subjectivity and discussion of
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
changes in epistemological beliefs to be accepted and reported as a legitimate part of the learning process in a doctorate. This paper explores these issues in the context of a particular case, a PhD in science education, in an Australian university. It relates how the first author, Mary, found that her experience of the power of personal writing to clarify her ideas, nurture her conceptual development and illuminate her research, was reinforced by her reading of the education literature. There it was argued that rational approaches to conceptual change teaching, which did not allow for affective and social factors, had little impact on the strongly-held alternative beliefs that students held about the physical world. It describes how Mary discovered that at some level all her learning during her research involved personal (including affective) and social (including moral and ethical) factors, and as a result she arrived at the conclusion that, not only did these factors need to be addressed during the research process, but also that their part should be documented in the representation of the research in the PhD thesis. In summary then, the present paper looks at the relationship between the objective and the subjective, between the observed and the observer and between the scientific and the personal. In order to disrupt to some extent the assurance of such dichotomies, the discussion is conducted in two voices, which, rather than being distinct, will be seen to overlap as they reflect on such issues as the nature of the scientific method, multilevel research, narrative inquiry as an alternative research method, and the relationship between journal writing and conceptual change, as these were played out in this particular PhD. In a way they reflect the two levels of the proposed thesis, which could be seen as two distinct types of discourse but it will be clear that the separation is artificial, reflecting a historical separation, and unlikely to be maintained for long. The first voice is the student's voice, her perspective of what a PhD could be. It is a personal voice, but a personal voice edited for a public stance, since she is defending her position to herself but with other academic researchers in mind. It is generally a narrative voice, mainly concerned with the development of the philosophy underlying the choice of design and format of the PhD. The logic of the choices made about the thesis is presented as a personal narrative logic. The second voice attempts to represent an amalgam of the positions of all three authors. It is more concerned with the practicalities, and the detail of how the philosophy was expressed in the design of the thesis, and in its general implications. It is generically closer to the kind of discourse in which her thesis would have been written if Mary were still trying to write to please an audience who thought she should be writing objectively, with the narrative voice continuing, but in this case generally being the more traditional scientific type of narrative used in showing the logical progression from literature to research question to research design. As such, it assumes an audience such as that of the PhD research proposal, an audience who might be wary of deviations from the standard scientific report, but who would be more likely to accept such a deviation if it were written in an impersonal tone. The issues discussed here may be general ones but the perspective taken in this paper developed in a particular context and should be seen as contingent to some extent on that context. The situation was the need to argue for the acceptance of a non-traditional qualitative proposal for a PhD thesis (an extended proposal which is an early but significant milestone in the PhD process in the Faculty of Education at the Queensland University of Technology), in a science and mathematics education
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
context where what I was proposing was somewhat heretical and not attempted before, since it was taken for granted that theses would conform generally to the rules of the genre of a scientific report. For this reason, it was inconceivable to go beyond arguing for adding a second critical level, a metalevel narrative, to a series of research reports which would themselves be presented rather objectively. Similarly, it will be noticed that some attention is given to demonstrating that dealing with the personal can enhance rather than undermine writing, even in a “scientific” social science context. Once this institutional hurdle was successfully negotiated, however, such a limitation came to seem unnecessary and, more importantly, inconsistent with emerging epistemological beliefs that there should not be such rigid boundaries between the personal and the academic, and it is envisaged that the final form of the thesis will be much more adventurous in terms of representing an intertextual field. This article presents the theory for a move in this direction but will be found to be contradicted in places by “micro-climates” of positivistic thinking. Such incongruence is to some extent unavoidable, we believe, since habits of language and thinking are deeply ingrained, tied to contexts, are not easily accessible to conscious awareness, and only develop with time and new contexts. Another qualification which needs to be made, is one that, although the focus on personal data relevant to learning might be widened far beyond the present focus on what might be called the executive processes of the PhD, this article limits itself to looking at the personal as it may influence these processes, because implying that intuitive or tacit processes were also being dealt with at that time would be historically inaccurate. It should be noted however, that references to degrees of appropriateness, accuracy or soundness of knowledge are not always to be taken as vestiges of positivism, since they are intended only in relation to a particular interpretation. The first author does not believe that an interpretivist epistemology necessarily leads to an extreme relativist position. She would claim, with constructivists, Guba and Lincoln (1989), that one interpretation can be more "sophisticated" than another and, with commentators on postmodernity, that, within a particular position, one can evaluate and compare data, in fact cannot avoid doing so, in order to make decisions and commitments (cf. Heller, 1997; Rorty, 1985). Similarly, recognition of the place of the emotions in learning, and criticism of a rational account when that does not allow discussion of values, does not mean that words like "irrational" become meaningless. The self-talk that is typical of chronic depressives is still considered irrational because they themselves, on reflection, can recognise that it is logically inconsistent with the reality of their lives as they know it. [Note. The authors wish to thank and acknowledge their debt to reviewers of earlier drafts of this paper, as well as critics of the original thesis proposal, for valuable feedback which has assisted in the evolution of the ideas presented.] The Scientific Method Voice 1 In my case, I naively assumed that producing new knowledge would be the hard part
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
[of my PhD] and that the methodology would be simply a matter of adopting and following a set of procedures already available in the literature. Similarly the question of ethics seemed to present no problem, as I had no intention of cheating or harming anyone. The further I have gone in this PhD process, however, the more I realise that the construction of knowledge, the methodology used, and ethical considerations are all intimately connected. The PhD has become a journey for me, a search for the research methodology which is capable of allowing me to participate fruitfully in the construction of new knowledge in the field of education in a way which is just and equitable to other participants. Consequently, I wish to argue that the fact that so far I have seriously adopted, questioned and distanced myself from several distinct schools of thought, should not be seen as a sign of fickleness and superficiality on my part, but rather as progress along a dimension of awareness of what knowledge is, how meaning is constructed by humans, and what diverse purposes research can serve. In so doing, I could be said to be aiming to fulfil a third objective of the PhD, again rarely made explicit but which is represented by the "Ph" in that designation - to raise questions about the meaning of the knowledge being produced or constructed. Because I see the PhD in these terms, I see my own task of making "an original and substantial contribution to knowledge" as being a larger process than that of doing and reporting some linear process of empirical research, from a supposedly objective or, at least stable, viewpoint. For me the research is much more of a hermeneutic process, with its meaning being rewritten many times along the way, as the whole is continually being reconceptualised in the light of new learning. Voice 2The traditional model of a scientific thesis is believed to reflect the way scientists actually develop theories and advance thinking in their particular areas of knowledge. We would like to propose, however, that their research processes, whether in the natural or social sciences, may in fact be at once more iterative and dynamic, more personal and creative, and generally more collaborative and political. In the social sciences, there is already considerable support for a more flexible approach to research. For instance, Stenhouse (1980), arguing for action research as the most appropriate methodology for research in education, commented, “Progress in human affairs is not like progress in physical sciences: as we begin to see the lines on which to design a strategy for solving the puzzle, the puzzle itself is changed.” (p. 244) As in Stenhouse's comment, this alternative direction for social science usually involves differentiating social science research from physical science research, but are they really so different? There is evidence that producing new knowledge in the physical and natural sciences can be a creative and collaborative enterprise, and one in which language is developed at the same time as new theories are being created. Kekule is well-known for his creativity in deducing a ring model for the benzine molecule from a dream he had, but he is less well-known for setting up a meeting of European scientists to work out a common system for representing the new chemical compounds that were being documented. Another scientist and a forebear of modern chemistry and physics, Michael Faraday, wrote, You can hardly imagine how I am struggling to exert my poetical ideas just now for the discovery of analogies and remote figures respecting the earth, sun,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
and all sorts of things--for I think that is the true way (corrected by judgment) to work out a discovery. (From a letter to C. F. Schoenbein in 1845, cited in Sutton, 1992, frontispiece). If knowledge in science may advance in these complex ways, is there much point in continuing to insist on representing research as a simple logico-deductive process described in language whose meaning has been arrested?Two Levels of Research Voice 1 As I read more of the literature coming from an interpretivist (e.g., Erickson, 1986), constructivist (e.g., Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Bruner, 1990) or interactional sociolinguistic perspective (e.g., Collins & Green, 1992), and became more convinced of the cultural embeddedness of language (and therefore of knowledge conveyed as language), I saw my individual production of knowledge as being necessarily shaped by my personal place in my own cultural context. This seemed a natural extension of the notion that knowledge is context-dependent, and thus should be reported in relation to that context (with myself being part of the context). Consequently I saw a need to openly report relevant aspects of my personal context, such as my beliefs, values, biases, and agenda. This is supported by Walkerdine's (1994, AARE keynote address)argument that since subjectivity in social research is "impossible to avoid," the researcher should decide "how to use it as a feature of the research project itself." She argued that "the way that I'd been brought up to see the world, my very subjectivity, created, produced...the social world itself" and hence necessitated "[taking] seriously the position from which I thought, felt, observed and wrote." My belief in the necessity of revealing the subjective aspects of my development of knowledge was reinforced by the influence of critical social science theory, particularly critical educational science theory as proposed by Kemmis and his colleagues (e.g., Carr & Kemmis, 1986), since it advocated the bringing to consciousness and critical examination of implicit theories, through (collaborative)critical action research, in order to find inconsistencies and/or contradictions, sometimes referred to as “false consciousness.” For these reasons, I propose to report my research at two interconnected levels, one level reporting the separate research project activities and their outcomes as they are experienced with the co-participants--the science education research, and the other level reporting the reflexive process of analysing the research process itself--the narrative inquiry. Since the overall process is a process of change over time, the research as a whole is most easily conceived of as the development of a narrative (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990), a jointly-developed narrative, with many participants, but told by one narrator who takes responsibility for, and at the same time critiques, the view of intersubjective reality presented, at each stage and as a whole.Voice 2 In an attempt to both study students' learning of science and reflect on her role in the PhD, Mary divided the aims and objectives of her PhD into two parallel and
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
interdependent sets: the science education aims and objectives which refer to the classroom research (this is what Mary originally thought would be the whole of her research); and the narrative or metalevel aims and objectives, which refer to her personal context as she experienced and interpreted the entire research process. The science education aims were to explore the effects of the psychosocial learning environment on student engagement for conceptual change in science classes, and to search for approaches, based on peer learning and personal writing, of facilitating the type of environment thought most likely to promote scientific literacy. The narrative aims were to make explicit the journey of the researcher involved in making "an original and substantial contribution to knowledge" (QUT, 1993, p. 2). In this context, the metalevel objectives of this research which were formerly implicit now became explicit: (1)to search for a rational and just method of doing research in science education, through reading of the available literature, through discussion with other research participants, and other members of the educational research community, and through reflective journal writing; (2)to critically evaluate both her practice as an educational researcher and also the quality of her contribution to the construction of knowledge through the research process; and (3)to report on this process of critical appraisal of both her research practice and of the value of the knowledge contributed, in the form of a self-reflexive narrative. For us, reporting the personal context, that is, reporting on the historical events and philosophical outlook which framed the science education research project, is essential for a coherent reading of how and why the research was done and came to the stated conclusions. Reporting the whole process also has the advantage of being a more faithful account of the process than is possible when only the final "successful" outcomes of research are reported. Mary developed a three stage research design for the two levels of objectives. Stage 1 covered her earlier studies in the course of which she tried several different approaches to research, without being fully satisfied. There were three of these studies: a first participant observational study of a secondary science class in which participation was minimal, a survey study of a larger number of science students to investigate the relationship between variables of interest, and a second, more collaborative participant observational study in another secondary science class. The three exploratory studies were encompassed in the narrative inquiry out of which they grew and in relation to which they take their meaning. The narrative inquiry had three main themes: the development of knowledge about science learning in classrooms, the development of understanding of the practical and ethical implications of different methods of doing research, and the development of understanding of what it meant to produce new knowledge. Part of the first narrative inquiry theme--developing knowledge about science learning in classrooms - took the form of model-building which continued throughout most of the period of the three exploratory studies. The process consisted of synthesising findings, including those gained by revisiting the literature, into a new theory of science learning. This is similar to the first part of a “Phase 2 project” as explained by Woods (1985) and results in another kind of grounded theory--theory which is grounded in an analysis of previous research. The previous research analysed can be from a variety of perpectives and may
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7
be cross-disciplinary. The resultant theory is then further tested in ongoing research studies. Stage 2 was the final classroom study, whose methodology would be based on conclusions reached at the end of Stage 1 about the most ethical and useful way of doing research on/in science education, and would be framed as the process of facilitating an extended action research study or two or three smaller action research studies by science teacher practitioners concerned with how the classroom environment could facilitate learning in science. As such, this would necessitate critical self-reflection about her role as a facilitator, so that the two levels of investigation would merge into a single analysis of her practice as a facilitator, including an evaluation ofthis as a method of researching her science education objectives. In Stage 3, Mary would draw together reflections on all three themes. This process would be one of updating theory about learning in science classrooms, synthesising findings about the practical and ethical considerations of doing collaborative research with teacher-practitioners, and, finally, developing understanding of what it meant to produce new knowledge as a PhD student studying science teaching and learning. Narrative InquiryVoice 1 Consequently, as I began to apply my theory of learning to my own research process, as I began to see myself as part of the context of knowledge construction, and as I began to adopt a critical, self-reflexive stance in relation to my research, narrative began to seem eminently suitable as a way of reporting my research process or journey. For me, the search for a research method which was congruent with my intellectual and ethical beliefs, was as important as finding a topic worthy of investigation. Narrative inquiry, since it allowed for change, even including radical change, during the research process, also allowed me to maintain my integrity in how I went about doing and reporting my research. It freed me from the traditional constraint of reporting the research as though it all belonged within a single paradigmatic structure, and was reported by a single voice. A narrative inquiry research design could incorporate change as an integral and even necessary part of the process of constructing knowledge. It also seemed to me to represent a truer model of how most complex knowledge is constructed than the neater, “theory-practice-conclusions,” linear model suggests. For me this was particularly significant because my philosophical and methodological commitments underwent changes several times during my research, each change necessitating a new research plan. Thus, for the first three studies I undertook, although they did not become the main study or lead directly to it, nevertheless they provided me with a deeper level of knowledge for reflection on the particular research problem I had chosen, on the purpose of research and on the most suitable methodology for satisfying my research aims. Not including them on the grounds that they were “false starts” or “dead ends” seems to me to imply a model of learning which ignores the importance of prior relevant learning to further learning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 8
Voice 2 As well as being a personally meaningful research methodology, narrative, which has always played an important part in social science more generally, has also recently begun to play a growing role in research in education, and more recently still, to play a part in research in science education. The narrative inquiry research (Connelly and Clandinin (1990) method enables the accommodation of an ethical concern, one shared with critical educational theorists such as Carr and Kemmis (1986), a concern about the relationship between theory and practice, or, more positively, a concern for an equitable relationship between researchers and practitioners. A further advantage is that narrative inquiry has the potential to provide to other practitioners a more accessible and compelling record of the shared research than an impersonal academic account. According to Connelly and Clandinin (1990, p. 10), "the principal attraction of narrative as method is its capacity to render life experiences, both personal and social, in relevant and meaningful ways." Journal Writing and Changing Alternative Conceptions Voice 1 At the beginning of my PhD, I thought that writing a reflective journal would help me to learn more deeply. I had used it in a professional development course on adult literacy teaching and had found that it allowed me to draw more useful conclusions from the readings and lectures than I otherwise would have. It also helped me to integrate my new learning with my practical teaching experience in the classroom, in a way which was exciting and challenging and opened up new avenues for my own professional development. Even before I began my PhD, a prospective supervisor suggested I keep a reading journal. At that stage it was simply a means of reflecting on my readings, but it soon started to evolve and to serve more functions, and eventually became the framework through which I was able to make sense of my research and of the research process itself. Prior to the PhD, my research experiences which included two literature review subjects and two empirical research subjects, had showed me that my feelings, as long as they were unresolved, could seriously interfere with my learning processes. And this was compounded by the fact that what I chose to research was inevitably something about which I felt strongly but which still presented me with problems. Before I could analyse the data I was dealing with in an insightful, unclouded manner, I had to sort out feelings such as shame, doubt, inadequacy, anger, fear, adulation or pride, that might otherwise overwhelm me and reduce my concentration whenever I started reading or thinking about my subject-matter. These reports were written in a different context, several years before my doctorate, where it was unproblematically assumed (at that stage by myself as well as examiners) that they would be objective and impersonal. Nevertheless, the method of writing them, my method of learning, was based on intuition rather than conscious rationality, even though I was unaware of it at the time. Initially I tried to resolve my mixed feelings by wide reading. When it came to
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 9
the writing phase, I needed a second period of dealing with my attitudes to separate out the rational from the less rational. I found that I needed to do a first writing in which I let out all my heartfelt conclusions about the topic: heated criticisms of what seemed to me unreasonable arguments or inadequate research, elaborations of what the conclusions might mean, enthusiasms for particular ideas and arguments, and admissions of where there were gaps in my own arguments. This was never intended to be seen by any eye other than mine, and would not have worked if I had been censoring it in any way at all. Once I had expressed this multitude of ideas and feelings which had been clamouring for a hearing, I could see what I really had there on paper before me, what the main issues were, and what the evidence for and against them was worth. I could see the hyperbole in my writing for what it was--usually an attempt to compensate for arguments which were not strong enough on their own. But it was also in this stage that I was most creative and insightful and saw new relationships which had not been apparent to me before. I do not believe I would have had these insights if I had tried to be perfectly objective and had repressed anything with emotional content. Writing the research report then became relatively straight-forward. What the main question was and how the writing should be structured seemed to become clear. Somehow, having had the chance to express my own personal concerns and values allowed me to see more clearly just what were personal concerns and what was more generally important about the findings of my study. My reports were not uniformly insightful--there were often still parts that I had not thought through clearly enough, but I believe that overall the reports were much more penetrating than they would have been if I had tried to ignore the emotional content that for me was associated with the subject matter. Voice 2 After she had dealt with her personal reactions to her research experiences, Mary could achieve more clarity in her writing. Before she began her PhD, however, she did not consciously go through this process. It was only after she had been through it several times that she began to see a pattern in her way of dealing with complex learning projects. And it was only after active experience with explicit journal-writing activities, and after meeting the concept of metacognition, that the pattern started to become more apparent and meaningful to her, and it was not until well into her PhD--when her journal-writing method of clarifying her ideas was being criticised by a previous supervisor as a waste of time, that she realised the full importance for her of the personal writing stages in her overall research process. For her PhD, she began with two separate files, one for reflections on where she was going with her PhD, and one for comments on her readings which, coincidentally, were at this stage focused on ideas about metacognition and its role in deep learning. She was challenged by the idea put forward by Paris and Winograd (1990), that metacognitive practices, since they were associated with evaluation of one's own processes, inevitably provoked feelings such as pride, happiness, shame or despair, which could then affect motivation and learning. She was also impressed by a review of studies in reattribution training for discouraged learners by Borkowski, Carr, Rellinger, and Pressley (1990), who concluded that three factors were interdependent in their effect on the emergence of self-regulated learning: metacognition, motivation,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 10
and personality. This reinforced what she had learnt in psychology from cognitive behavioural therapists such as Aaron Beck, who showed how the self-talk--the everyday, subconscious automatic thoughts of those suffering from acute depression-- which could be seen as a cause of their affective disorder, tended to be highly irrational, and how this could be combated by bringing it to conscious awareness for rational analysis. She became convinced that learning could not fail to be enhanced when learners paid critical attention to their everyday thoughts and feelings about their learning. Being metacognitive as defined by such writers meant not only thinking about one's thinking about the subject-matter, but also thinking about one's own thinking process and taking control of it. She realised it would make better sense if she combined her personal journal and her annotated bibliography and did not keep her thinking about her research question separate from her thinking about her learning processes. She also started to include other thinking about her research in it, for example, a long letter to her original supervisor about her concerns that their ideas were not compatible, and a poem she wrote in protest when he dismissed Piaget and Vygotsky as being out of date and implied that she should read only recent publications. Her journal soon became a place for her to explore her feelings about what was going on in the PhD process, at the same time as exploring the validity of the research and theories she was developing. Voice 1 At the beginning it was a very private diary, a conversation with myself, but as time progressed, it became a place for me to dialogue with or about absent theorists and sometimes such writing developed into letters to distant academics who seemed willing to act as mentors to me for a period of time. What this meant was that the self-criticism contained in my journal-writing at the beginning was of a confessional nature, a private examination of my conscience to see if I was being intellectually honest, and much of my argument could remain implicit. As time went by, and my imagined audience expanded to take in people who might not accept my reasoning as easily as I myself would, my self-criticism became more socially based, and I had to make my arguments more explicit, with the result that I became increasingly aware of both my own assumptions and also those of others involved in the dialogue. I started to see the social and ethical issues involved in research and to take a more critical view of the practice of research in my own and other institutions.Voice 2 In spite of the resistance Mary experienced when she attempted to deviate from “the scientific method” in her PhD research, other understandings of what it means to create or refine knowledge are well-documented in the literature. Besides being found in other education research circles, new epistemologies are, in fact, exemplified in somescience education research writings and are to be found incorporated in current theories of science pedagogy, such as social constructivism. Even though the implications of such epistemological beliefs for PhD study in science education are still largely unexplored, their implications for the learning and teaching of science, especially in the area of research known as conceptual change learning, have been better explored.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 11
Reading in the science education research literature indicated that what were initially called “misconceptions” loomed large as a problem area. It seemed that students were learning the accepted scientific theories in the classroom and could use them to solve standard classroom problems and pass examinations, but that when they were put to the test in a problem-solving situation in a different context, they reverted to naive theories which they had somehow preserved intact alongside their school learning (Osborne & Freyberg, 1985; Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982; White & Gunstone, 1989). Researchers had tried to solve this problem of the persistence of “alternative beliefs” (as they were later renamed) but such beliefs seemed amazingly resistant to change. Various pedagogies were proposed to challenge the alternative beliefs. For example the PEEL project grew out of research in science teaching and learning which demonstrated that teachers could help students to learn in a more meaningful way by giving them metacognitive strategies to use, the type of strategies that successful students used (Baird, 1986; Baird & Northfield, 1992). However, many students quickly found ways of using “metacognitive strategies” without being metacognitive, and it seemed that the problem of superficial learning was far from being solved (White & Baird, 1991). One also needed to take into account Paris and Winograd's caution (1990) that one could not get students to evaluate their own learning without raising emotional responses, including negative ones which could lead to negative attributions and decreased engagement in learning. The cognitive science approach often seemed to lack strategies and theories to deal with the emotional and volitional components of learning. The expert-novice literature, however, seemed to suggest it was the will to learn and attain deep understanding in a particular domain that led to the use of metacognitive strategies, rather than the reverse (Jones & Idol, 1990). Other approaches to the conceptual change problem were based in a social constructivist epistemology (Driver, 1988), and relied on enculturation, for example, by small group discussion, to challenge individual alternative conceptions, with the social context providing the motivational impetus for learning. The problem seemed to Mary to become one of discovering how to motivate students to be intrinsically interested in learning, which would not be an easy task since it would mean first overcoming negative beliefs which students had about themselves as learners, about learning and about their subject matter. However, Mary believed that students could be given back their faith in themselves as learners, their delight in learning, and their enjoyment of science learning, and the more she read the more convinced she became. Collins, Brown and Newman's (1989) “cognitive apprenticeship” model, demonstrated, using illustrations from three successful methods of teaching, that learning could be successful for all learners if it provided a social context which reinforced positive motivational beliefs, and treated every individual's learning as socially valuable. Pintrich, Marx, and Boyle (1993) also argued that the sociological context was vital to the motivational beliefs necessary for cognitive engagement, and pointed out their likely importance to conceptual change teaching in science. Watts and Bentley (1987) gave support to such arguments by emphasising the need to attempt to provide a non-threatening learning environment if students were to expose and investigate their prior learning in science as part of conceptual change learning. Although collaborative group work was one strategy which teachers could use
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 12
to encourage positive motivational beliefs and provide a safe environment for the deconstruction of old scientific beliefs, it was not chosen for the present science classroom research for a number of reasons which are not particularly relevant to the present discussion. Instead, the strategy learnt in the adult literacy education course was chosen: personal or journal writing. In her experience of teaching literacy to adult learners Mary had found that attempting to provide what she thought was a warmly encouraging and non-judgmental environment for writing could work wonders with many students with weak self-efficacy beliefs. Consequently, affirmational dialogue journal writing, used as a means to change the nature of the teacher-student relationship, was chosen for Mary’s science education research, since it appeared to have the potential to provide such an environment for similarly discouraged science students, even though these students were at a much earlier stage in their development. Reflections and Conclusions Voice 1 My initial proposal was for an intervention study using role allocation in small groups and metacognitive strategies to help students learn from their practical investigations in science, and it was to include encouraging students to be metacognitive about their motivational beliefs as well as about their other learning processes. It included pre- and post-tests, with some qualitative data being thrown in to reinforce and explain my objective findings--a typically positivist approach to research. Unfortunately for my plans for a short PhD but fortunately for my continued development, I was introduced to, and converted to “interpretive” research by a visiting scholar, and was offered and accepted a chance to undertake a classroom study with a focus on the learning environment. Coming from a very objectivist perspective, I initially found such research very difficult as the data seemed so nebulous, but gradually I came to see that such research allowed a more sophisticated insight into learning through classroom research than my previous positivistic approach. The latter began to seem more and more inappropriate for research in social situations where so many variables were interacting. The context, or rather how it was interpreted by the participants in it, and how this developed as a mini-culture over time, could no longer be ignored as mere “noise” in my data. Such factors became, in fact a prime source of data. My conception of the importance of context in research also deepened with my reading of Bruner (1990), which convinced me that meaning making was a personal and social experience and depended on cultural narratives for much of its sense. So I gave up my idea of an intervention and set to reading both Erickson (1986)and Guba and Lincoln (1989), observing in a classroom setting, and doing interviews. My discomfort with being an interpreter of the learning environment evaporated but a new one came in its place. There seemed to me to be something patronising about researchers coming in with preconceptions and theories of their own, interpreting the culture through such filters, and then going away and reporting the “participants' view of the learning environment.” I could not believe that the participants (teachers and students in schools) were in an equitable enough position of power to control the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 13
interview situation so that their particular viewpoint was adequately represented or to properly critique a script given to them for “member checking” by researchers with “Professor” or “Doctor” in front of their name. I was also unhappy with ethnographic research because I could not see how it would lead to change in schools, unless it could involve the members of the school community more actively in decision-making and problem-solving about the interpretation of the problems and the finding of solutions to them. Such restraints led to indecision on my part, dissatisfaction with my progress by others, and a hold-up in my research proposal. Voice 2 This situation was only resolved when Mary decided to disengage herself from that research project and to plan a new one which would involve research of a much more collaborative and problem-solving nature. Action research then presented itself as a very suitable methodology for her, not only because it was geared towards change, or because it involved the participants of the research itself in the decision-making process, but because it also addressed issues such as power inequities, and seemed to allow for more critical reflectivity than the previous research methodologies she had tried. She had not lost sight of her “research question”--though she thought she had had to pretend to have done so when she went into ethnographic research with a supposedly open mind about what would emerge. She still wanted to find a way of using personal writing in science to help students overcome barriers to learning with deep understanding. So she set about finding a teacher or group of teachers with similar concerns and interests to collaborate with her in research, and at the same time continued writing up her still incomplete research proposal. There was one other study which we shall only mention briefly since it mainly served as her last point of resistance before she would let go her close ties with the secure world of statistical analysis and venture out into the world of qualitative analysis. This was a questionnaire study involving over 100 students, using a questionnaire she wrote based on a model of a possible conceptual change learning environment that she had been developing during her first classroom study. The results seemed to support her theory, with (highly) statistically significant results, but it became even more obvious to her that such correlational studies could not explain findings, and hence were not very useful as a guide for pedagogical changes for more effective learning. Voice 1 At this stage I found that philosophically there was a widening gap between me and some of the people I had been working with, who had little sympathy for my belief in the power of personal writing in a non-threatening learning environment, nor with theories of cognitive behavioural therapy, who saw my desire to empower teachers and students as somewhat foolish, and who had little understanding of the importance to me of my own subjective journal-writing as a method of clarifying ideas and moving forward in my research. I felt very unsupported in what to me were very important issues, and realised that I would never come up with a proposal that would be highly acceptable to them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 14
Back to Square 1? No, not at all. I believed that I had made much more progress in my knowledge about research and learning in my research so far than if I had gone ahead with my initial proposal, without questioning the paradigm, or thinking about issues of subjectivity, and of ethics in dealings with other members of the research community. I started to see the bits and pieces that had made up the previous two years as being highly significant learning experiences which would have just as much if not even more influence on my final conclusions than would the final study I planned to do. I decided that as such they should be a legitimate part of my research report, and I started to see the falsity for me of pretending that I was doing a single study, with perhaps one of my earlier studies being smuggled in as a pilot study. I also began to see the need to give a more personally reflective account of my research. If it were true that a knowledge of the context, as it is perceived by actors in a situation, is crucial to the interpretation of the actions which take place in that situation, then, for readers of my research, my personal characteristics and beliefs, and my history, could not be ignored as mere “noise.” If I myself were to be the “instrument of research” (Guba & Lincoln, 1989), then the results of my research would be influenced by my philosophies and biases, based in turn on my personal and cultural background. This led to my decision to include such personal factors in the account of my research to the extent that I perceived them to be relevant to my interpretation of what I was observing.Voice 2 As far as we can generalise from Mary's case, her use of journal writing has promoted deep learning and a questioning, a critical attitude that led to both personal and intellectual growth, and professional development in her practice as a researcher. Because it related her learning to personal issues, it also promoted a high degree of commitment to the research process, and gave her the necessary motivation to bear the frustrations and to respond to the many challenges which doctoral study almost inevitably provides. She also found that the results were similar when Year 8 students used journal writing in a science class. Allowing students in one class to have their personal reactions to learning affirmed as real and meaningful, seemed generally to reduce the resistance to learning that many of their other teachers reported (Hanrahan, 1997). This supports the view that a good environment for learning is one in which the students feels affirmed and free to participate personally in the construction of their own learning (Watts & Bentley, 1987). It appears that using journal writing can be a very rewarding experience, and an excellent method for students to make sense of their research and of the PhD process which can otherwise be a very frustrating process. It apparently helps clarify ideas and discover new leads, and can increase creativity by allowing connections to be made and transfer to take place between otherwise unconnected frameworks of knowledge. It may help discover inconsistencies in thinking, force one to be more intellectually honest and to confront a wider range of issues than are otherwise likely to be confronted, including moral and political issues, and make one more critically aware. It may help overcome motivational problems, sustain the writer through periods when no-one else seems to want to hear, give strength of convictions in the face of opposition, and make the learning experience worthwhile. This is regardless of whether
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 15
the PhD is finished or not, although finishing is now more likely as the writer has so much personal investment in it. Finally it may make the writing phases much easier, since when it comes to formal writing, the issues have already been threshed in advance, tacit learning and intuitions have had a chance to surface and be examined, and many inconsistencies have already been explored. In this paper we have taken the significance of personal writing even further. We have argued that, not only can personal writing be a vital method for deep learning, but that the reflexivity it fosters has a legitimate place in the PhD thesis itself. One could go further and question the consistency of a thesis which claimed to be based in a social constructivist epistemology (which assumed that beliefs, attitudes and language were intimately bound up with knowledge) if it presented knowledge as being so separable from the researcher that the researcher's personal relationship to the situation was purposively kept out of the analysis. Voice 1 I'm moving more and more towards including myself as part of the research context and towards acknowledging my findings--in spite of my efforts to socially validate them--as being my interpretation based on my meaning-making--given my background--rather than as objective findings in any sense. To be convincing about my findings then, I will need as much to communicate my own personal experience of the research effectively, as to demonstrate such qualities as credibility and trustworthiness. Most people I talk to (actually it has usually been men) see this point of view as self-indulgent--especially if they come from a science background, and particularly if they have had a traditional academic career, but other researchers, such as Valerie Walkerdine, argue that subjectivity is unavoidable and so must be presented as part of the research, in an attempt to evaluate its part in the process, or at least acknowledge it to the reader who can then judge its part in the process. Trying to avoid admitting one's own biases and assumptions in doing the analysis (and, before that, in framing the data on which it is based), seems to me to be hiding something from the reader which is important to the meaning-making process. Acknowledgment The authors wish to thank and acknowledge their debt to reviewers of earlier drafts of this paper, as well as critics of the original thesis proposal, for valuable feedback that has assisted in the evolution of the ideas presented. ReferencesBaird, J. R. (1986). Improving learning through enhanced metacognition: a classroom study. European Journal of Science Education, 8, 263-282. Baird, J. R., & Northfield, J. R. (Eds.). (1992). Learning from the PEEL experience. Melbourne, Australia.: Editors. Borkowski, J. G., Carr, M., Rellinger, E., & Pressley, M. (1990). Self-regulated cognition: Interdependence of metacognition, attribution, and self-esteem. In B. F.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 16
Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 53-92). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. London: Harvard University Press. Collins, A., Brown, J., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, Learning and Instruction: Essays in honour of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-493). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research (Revised ed.). Victoria, Australia: Deakin University. Collins, E., & Green, J. L. (1992). Learning in classroom settings: Making or breaking a culture. In H. H. Marshall (Ed.), Redefining students learning: Roots of educational change (pp. 59-85). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19, 2-14. Driver, R. (1988). Theory into practice II: A constructivist approach to curriculum development. In P. Fensham (Ed.), Development and dilemmas in science education. London: Falmer. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage. Hanrahan, M. (1997). Science for all: Action researching literacy difficulties in a Year 8 science class. Paper prepared for the "Convergence in Knowledge, Space and Time" World Congresses, the 4th on Action Learning, Action Research and Process Management, and the 8th on Participatory Action Research, Cartagena, June, 1997. Heller, A. (1997) Keynote address presented at the "Convergence in Knowledge, Space and Time" World Congresses, the 4th on Action Learning, Action Research and Process Management, and the 8th on Participatory Action Research, Cartagena, June, 1997. Jones, B. F., & Idol, L. (Eds.). (1990). Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in Science: the Implications of Children's Science. Auckland: Heinemann. Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Phillips, E. M., & Pugh, D. S. (1990). How to get a PhD: A handbook for students and their supervisors. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-199. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227. QUT (Queensland University of Technology). (1993). PhD Handbook. Brisbane: Office of Research, QUT. Rorty, R. (1985). Habermas and Lyotard on postmodernity. In R. J. Bernstein
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 17
(Ed.), Social and Political Theory from Polity Press. Habermas and postmodernity (pp. 161-175). Cambridge: Polity Press. Stenhouse, L. (1980). Reflections. In L. Stenhouse (Ed.), Curriculum research and development in action (pp. 244-262). London: Heinemann Educational Books. Sutton, C. R. (1992). Words, science and learning. Buckingham.: Open University Press. Tobin, K. (Ed.). (1993). The practice of constructivism in science education. Washington, DC: AAAS Press. Walkerdine, V. (1994). Subjectivity, Gender and Method. Keynote address presented at the Annual Meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Lismore, NSW.Watts, M., & Bentley, D. (1987). Constructivism in the classroom: enabling conceptual change by words and deeds. British Educational Research Journal, 13, 121-135. White, R., & Baird, J. (1991). Teaching for learning: the view from cognitive psychology. In J. Biggs (Ed.), Learning to think and thinking to learn (pp. 146-176). Hawthorn: Acer. White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1989). Metalearning and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 577-586. Woods, P. (1985). Ethnography and theory construction in educational research. In R. G. Burgess (Ed.), Field methods in the study of education (pp. 51-76). London: Falmer.

[dimenno]

Actually, this is it:

Di Menno, Francis S
Title The rise and fall of EC comics, 1950-1956 : Cold War or cultural war casualty? / by Francis Di Menno
Publ Info 2005

http://encore.uri.edu/iii/encore/record/C%...g&suite=def

Excerpt:

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION


It is desirable to discuss this topic, and, in doing so, to mention
the themes of reaction and rebellion running though popular culture in
general, and the American comic strip and comic book in particular,
because, of all the mass media of the day, certain comic strips and
comic books were those media by which the sensibility of an individual
artist could reach the largest audience. The writers of dime or pulp
fiction—so named for the cheap paper on which it was printed—"complied
with publishers' directives….[and] contributed to a system of mass
production which left them no room for the usual authorial decisions
or opportunities for original creation." Radio programs, motion
pictures, and, later, television programs, were largely collaborative
efforts; on the other hand, literary works such as novels and
magazine fiction, which appealed to various social strata, were
marketed to a literate audience with the education and leisure time to
devote to more serious pursuits. However, because in many cases they
are, at least initially, the invention of one or two individuals, the
largely disposable commercial entertainments to be found in the comic
strip, and in the periodicals known as comic books, were, in many
cases, products produced by individuals and marketed directly to a
mass audience.

I propose that by examining the pictorial and textual content of these
humorous, sentimental, parodic and adventure-oriented offerings, the
would-be anthropologist of popular culture can frequently gauge the
covert, unspoken presumptions and preoccupations of the Americans who
consumed them. If anything, comic strips and comic books may be closer
to the surface than other art forms, since they appear, in the words
of Hegel, to meet the condition in which "self-consciousness itself
externalizes itself…it establishes itself as an object, or, by reason
of the indivisible unity characterizing its self-existence, sets up
the object as its self." It is not absurd to claim that the
avowedly popular forms of the comic strip and the comic book may
transmit, not only explicit messages, but also certain implicit
worldviews hidden even to their creators and promulgators. Much the
same might be said for a mass medium such as newspapers; many adults
in the early part of the 20th century read and utilized these as a
source of both entertainment and information. However, in the early
days of the American republic, newspapers were avowedly political
organs; only by the twentieth century did a professional ethos arose
among reporters in which objective reporting standards were held
paramount, though newspapers such as those of the Hearst chain were
undeniably driven by the political agendas of their publishers, and of
their readers.
...
The ideological dynamic of American politics, from Hamilton to Nixon
and beyond, has traditionally seesawed from right to left and back
again. The conservative right promoted commerce, and saw advantage in
extending the legal rights of individuals to corporations. Security of
property became as important as national security. The liberal left
emphasized individual liberty and a strong government promoting
equality of opportunity. The cyclical nature of these historic shifts
is apparent. These shifts have frequently influenced cultural trends.
Accordingly, I will explore the cultural impact of this recurrent
cycle of rebellion, reaction and repression, especially in one
specific form of its popular literature, i.e., comic books,
particularly those of the period 1950-1956.

In this study, historical factors come into play, and I will mention
these as well. They include, but are not restricted to, the prevailing
Cold War Zeitgeist, including McCarthyism, and the Korean War.
Cultural factors are also important, so I will also discuss at length
the history of the criticisms of comic strips and of the comic book
industry, specifically, the anti-comic-book crusades of Dr. Frederic
Wertham and others. Personal and professional rivalries are also a
factor, so I will briefly trace the rise of the comic book industry as
background to an understanding of those individual publishers who bore
personal vendettas against William Gaines. I will specifically discuss
Gaines's rivalry with MLJ (Archie) Comics publisher John Goldwater,
who was also the first president of the Comics Code Authority, the
industry's self-regulatory body that was instrumental in driving
Gaines out of business. In addition, I have discovered evidence that
many of Gaines's troubles began as the result of a 1954 feud between
Gaines's business manager, (and former Broadway journalist) Lyle
Stuart and the then still-influential columnist and radio personality
Walter Winchell. Furthermore, I will perform a content analysis of
the comic books published under the EC imprimatur between 1950 and
1956 in an attempt to discover whether the criticisms of Gaines and
his editors Al Feldstein and Harvey Kurtzman were based in fact, and
to uncover those cultural factors that were in play which rendered
their productions objectionable, and which led to the near bankruptcy
of the firm.

This will be a narrative history with some attention given to
politics, biographical sketches, the society and culture of 1950-1956
period, and the societal and cultural background of the censorship
controversy specifically as it pertained to EC comics. This study will
consist of an extended account of a somewhat narrow issue—the decline
of the EC empire owing, in part, to shifts in popular taste, with
particular attention paid to the cultural crusades of the day
nourished, in part, by McCarthyism, as well as by the controversies of
that era.

EC comic books published from 1950 to 1956, along with newspaper comic
strips of the period, open a vista to the national mood at a critical
moment in the history of the Republic. As early as 1946, S.M.
Gruenberg, Director of the Child Study Association of America, stated:
"The comics …reflect what millions are thinking about, what they want,
what they fear, and how they feel about matters of social
significance." Sounding the depths of an era via comic strips and
comic books may not be as straightforward a process at the outset of
the twenty-first century as it was even thirty years ago. It is
certainly not as simple a task as it was in 1950, which I consider the
apogee of the American comic strip and the beginning of short-lived
but significant and consequential developments in the American comic
book. The developments of the period from 1950 to 1956 are pivotal for
three reasons. Firstly, neither the comic strip nor the comic book
would ever again exert such a vast influence upon the American public;
secondly, the comic book, temporarily at least, aspired to reach a
mature and even literate audience; in the aftermath of the Comics
Code, it would take another 30 years or more for the comic book to be
taken seriously. Finally, prior to 1960, when the comic strip and
comic book had been discussed at all, they were largely dismissed as
an art-form taken seriously solely by children, and worthy of
nostalgic ruminations at best. Even today, few commentators outside of
the industry professionals themselves seem to appreciate the
significance of these art forms, and, with a few exceptions, the
significance of their decline. The rise of a competing attraction was
one reason for their decline. The growth of television as a mass
medium radically altered cultural tastes and preferences in the United
States.

A review of books written by those who specialize in producing or
writing about comics reveals that these aficionados all too often know
little about any subject field save current popular culture. Without
some sort of historical, social, or even literary or journalistic
context to provide a background to their ruminations, their analyses
tend to be uninformed or unsatisfying. Scholars, on the other hand,
have tended to slight the medium. Thomas Inge, writing about early
scholarly studies of comic strips, has stated:

[Factual errors]...suggest...the cavalier attitude scholars take when
they choose to discuss comic art. They tend to bank on vague memories;
assume that comic strips do not develop, change, and add characters
during the course of their history; and avoid the truly hard labor of
going through newspaper collections on microfilm or locating reprints
to check the accuracy of their impressions and assumptions.

...

Concerning comic (or "graphic") art in the United States, I
differentiate here between the strip form, the book form, the
political cartoon, and the graphic novel. My discussion will be mostly
about comic books; I do not concern myself here with the ostensibly
ideological political cartoon. It should be mentioned here that the
first American comic books were reprints of popular comic strips. Some
comic strips, especially those from the 1890s to the mid-1920s,
offered little in the way of purely political commentary; other
classic strips, from the mid-1920s on, have featured a great deal of
ideological tub-thumping.

Comic strips have occupied a prominent, though never pre-eminent place
in American popular culture. The effects comic strips have had on this
culture is a topic previously discussed in literary criticism and,
more currently, in media studies. I wish to show that the ideology of
the comic book has had an effect, howsoever subtle, upon the ideology
of the Americans who read them. Sometimes the ideological
underpinnings of a related form, the comic strip, are so blatant as to
be obvious. More often, this ideological content is almost
indiscernibly buried beneath a panorama of domesticity. Very often,
the ideology is present, but partially hidden, within the context of
picaresque adventure strips. It is the comic strips and comic books
in the latter two categories that intrigue me most. Often, a close
analysis of their content may reveal more about the implicit beliefs
of the artists and writers, and their followers, than the creators
ever intended. This study of EC comics will reveal their, often
blatant, ideological subtext. In part, the decline of the EC empire
can be traced to what its critics and even its readers saw as the
gruesome excesses of its horror titles. But critics and even some
casual readers were also offended by the suspected if not outright
incontestable sacrilege of some of Feldstein's science fiction
stories, Kurtzman's pacifist critique of the Korean conflict in EC's
war titles, and a corrosively cynical, if sporadic,
anti-authoritarianism in titles such as Crime Suspenstories and Shock
Suspenstories. The no-holds-barred satire of Kurtzman's Mad , and, to
a lesser degree, of Feldstein's Panic, also attracted criticism,
lawsuits, and even attempts at banning these titles from newsstand
distribution.

In this study of the rise and fall of the EC empire, I will consider
social developments taking place during all relevant periods; however,
the focus is generally upon the early history of the modern comic
book, from 1935 to 1956, especially EC in the period 1950-1956. The
development of that class of literature will be analyzed through
conclusions drawn from other historical phenomena. From roughly 1946
to 1954, the reactions of comic book publishers to the verdict of
opinion-makers follows an almost predictable cycle of rebellion
(liberalization), reactionary repression (conservatism) and
counter-reaction. For instance, following 1940 criticisms of the comic
book, by mid-1941 DC established an editorial board which would
"uphold the standards of wholesome entertainment." Faced with
postwar criticism and threats of government intervention due to the
spectacular rise of the "true-crime" genre, the comic book industry
agreed to voluntarily self-regulate, and the period 1947 to 1950 was a
relatively quiet one in terms of the crusade against comic books. But
as individual publishers began to renege on the agreement by 1949, the
crusade started up again. The consequences for EC were dire. I also
propose to trace the steps EC took to stay in business in spite of the
cultural crusade that eventually drove them, and many others, out of
the comic book business.

I will use a combination of social, biographical, and narrative
history. There will be a discussion of motivations of those authority
figures who thought it necessary to regulate the behavior of children,
adolescents and young adults; the anti-comic-book decency crusade and
the consequent regulation and de facto censorship of comic books, and
what this regulatory impulse owed to the emergence of Cold War
politics. I will begin with an attempt at a definition of the forms of
the comic strip and the comic book, where they came from, and how they
came to frighten and offend so many critics. An analysis of data and
content of primary sources (EC comic books) will be used to determine
in what way they were offensive, to whom, and why.



CHAPTER 4
THE COMIC BOOK AND ITS ORIGINS IN THE COMIC STRIP AND PULP LITERATURE

Comic books, which arose from the comic strip, also had
historically close connections to so-called "pulp" literature. In tracing their
origins, I will show in what ways comic books were divided into genre
categories similar to those of the pulps, and to what extent they
arose from and were also influenced by other types of mass media,
particularly comic strips. I will also discuss the history of the
development of the comic book industry in the years 1938 through 1947,
then conclude with a discussion of how that development led to the
rise of the EC publishing firm under William Gaines.
The principal action-oriented comic book genres had recognizable
antecedents in both the action-adventure comic strip and the pulps.
In the United States, the category of "low" literature called, from
time to time, "penny fiction," "dime novels," and "the pulps" has had
its detractors since its inception. Educators, parents, and librarians
have all condemned such popular formats as illiterate, harmful,
undesirable, even obscene. Such a condemnatory impulse by both
secular and religious authorities can be traced back to a time shortly
after the colonization of America had gotten underway in earnest. As
early as the 1640s Puritanism prevailed in Massachusetts, and other
New England states. As early as the 1730s John Peter Zenger's use of
satire in his Weekly Journal was one of the factors cited in bringing
about attempts to suppress it. Upon achieving independence, the
American colonies seesawed between notions of individual liberty
promulgated by the radical British Whig politician John Wilkes, and
the conception of social control favored by property-owners .
The rise of mass media began early in America's history.
Thomas Paine's polemicist pamphlet Common Sense, published in 1776,
was a phenomenal best-seller, "read by or to almost every white
American." The last-named component of President John Adams's
Naturalization, Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 sought, ultimately
unsuccessfully, to put a damper on free expression that threatened the
social order. Throughout the 1800s the new nation was feeling its way
toward a conception of itself. "The dismissal of the state" may be "a
deeply ingrained American trait," yet although its people cherished
liberty, they--and their leaders--feared anarchy. As a result, 19th
century American literature and journalism tended to be both highly
politicized yet at the same time adopted a reverential attitude toward
the founding fathers. In the wake of the first Red Scare, in the
1920s, there was a loosening of morality, but the second Red Scare,
following the Second World War, saw a re-empowerment of influential
secular and religious authorities.
The adventure genre, in both comic strips and comic books,
originated
in the United States with weekly newspaper supplements featuring
popular fiction. By the 1840s, the steam press, the railroads, and
favorable postal rates for the mailing of such periodical literature
contributed to its success. In 1860 dime novels arose as spin-offs to
the weekly papers and were read in great numbers by soldiers of the
Union Army during the Civil War. Frank Munsey's "cheap fiction weekly
for boys and girls," The Golden Argosy, debuted in December of 1882,
and this development marked the beginnings of pulp literature as we
know it. All the subsequent major pulp genres--so-called because of
their cheap paper--first appeared in the Argosy, which, by 1896, had
"turned to adult adventure stories." These genres eventually carried
over to comic strips and, more significantly, to comic books which, at
least initially, were compilations of comic strips. By the 1920s and
1930s, the pulps were phenomenally popular; they began their decline
in the late 1930s, supplanted in part by the rise of the comic book.
The pulps, as a genre, were to last until
1955.
Historians
trace the origins of the present-day comic strip from cave paintings
to Egyptian and Mayan hieroglyphs, through the Bayeaux tapestry, to
the Italian Fresco paintings of Fra DeAngelico. However, as a
practical matter, individual artists of some renown such as
Heironymous Bosch had produced fantastical works which were akin to
the comic strip; Hogarth pioneered the manufacture of mass produced,
serially published graphic arts, and Gillray, Daumier, Rowlandson,
Goya and Topffer all contributed to the development of the form. After
the development of the political cartoon, as early as 1754 in the
British Colonies, came comic art in periodicals, most notably in
London, with Hogarth's contributions to The Comick Magazine in 1796,
and, in Paris, with Charivari in 1838, followed three years later by
Punch: The London Charivari, which in turn by 1863 had spawned
numerous American imitators. Finally, the newspaper comic strip and
the animated cartoon as we know them in the United States began at the
end of the nineteenth century, followed by the modern-day comic book
in the 1930s. Newspaper comic strips effectively originated in 1896,
with Outcault's "Hogan's Alley," also known as "The Yellow Kid."
Although daily comic strips were published as early as 1898, and
attempts were first made to establish them in Claire Briggs' "A Piker
Clerk" from 1904, the first continuously published daily strip, Bud
Fisher's "Mr. A. Mutt Starts to Play the Races," debuted on November
15, 1907. By 1915, daily strips were a recognizable phenomenon; they
were firmly established by the 1920s. The morning newspapers tended to
carry strips geared toward children; the afternoon editions published
more adult fare, including some seminal adventure strips that were to
entertain adults during the Depression years.
Certainly as early as 1906, with comic strip (and later animation)
pioneer Winsor McKay's "Little Nemo in Slumberland," the comic strip
emerged, not only in its recognizable modern form, but also as a
recognizably unique format for telling pictorially narrative, as
opposed to illustrated textual, stories. However, comic strips in the
first two decades of the 20th Century were largely farcical in nature.
As comics historian Bill Blackbeard notes, lowbrow humor and burlesque
suspense formed the mainstays of the Sunday supplement from its
inception. Even those strips with elements of the picaresque, such
as Bud Fisher's "Mutt and Jeff," were intended to be humorous,
although, as early as 1910, Harry Hershfield's "Desperate Desmond"
presented readers with a continuity strip. The movie serial itself
only debuted in 1912, with "What Happened to Mary." The serious
adventure continuity arose in the 1920s and is significant because
this—by necessity—serially published genre formed a bridge between
comic strip and comic book. Sidney Smith's popular strip "The Gumps"
began in 1917 as a domestic strip, but, by the early 1920s, its Sunday
continuities formed the basis for the adventure strip. Ed Wheelan's
"Minute Movies," a homage to silent film adventure serials, began in
1918 and is regarded as the first serious adventure continuity. 1924
saw the introduction of a significant serial adventure strip, Roy
Crane's "Washington Tubbs II." Harold Grey's "Little Orphan Annie"
was also first published in that year. However, many of these strips
still relied more or less heavily upon elements of comic relief.
Following Lindbergh's 1927 successful solo transatlantic flight, two
aviation themed strips, "Tailspin Tommy" and "Tim Tyler's Luck," began
in 1928. On January 7, 1929, characters from the pulps were
introduced to the comic strip: both Tarzan and Buck Rogers made their
debuts. On January 17, 1929, Elzie Segar introduced the superhuman
Popeye to the readers of his serial adventure strip "Thimble Theater,"
which had begun in 1919. In 1931, Chester Gould's hard-boiled
detective "Dick Tracy" brought depression-era crime and gore to the
comic strip. Tracy's popularity was significant in that it proved
there was a large and enthusiastic market for continuity strips, also
represented by science-fiction themed strips such as "Buck Rogers,"
and "Flash Gordon," all of which were to become the early mainstay of
the comic book.

Although adventure continuities influenced many of ECs' artists, one
can also detect the influence of the early comic strip upon ECs
thematic combination of gratuitous and almost gleefully sadistic
cruelty yoked to an almost mawkish sense of social conscience. Jocular
sadism is seen in Charles Kahles's "Billy Bounce" (1904); social
conscience can be spotted in Winsor McKay's "Little Nemo In
Slumberland" continuity of 1908, as well as in a 1913 example of John
Gruelle's "Mr. Twee Dweedle."

[sputnik]

Drazni osspi doogi sna pydito simppi??? Krasi omppi jizz....!!

[dimenno]

———Quis ineptæ
Tam patiens Urbis, tam ferreus ut teneat se?
Juv.
Tho' Grief and Fondness in my Breast rebel,
When injur'd Thales bids the Town farewell,
Yet still my calmer Thoughts his Choice commend,
I praise the Hermit, but regret the Friend,
Resolved at length, from Vice and London far,
To breathe in distant Fields a purer Air,
And, fix'd on Cambria's solitary shore,
Give to St. David one true Briton more.
For who would leave, unbrib'd, Hibernia's Land,
Or change the Rocks of Scotland for the Strand?
There none are swept by sudden Fate away,
But all whom Hunger spares, with Age decay:
Here Malice, Rapine, Accident, conspire,
And now a Rabble Rages, now a Fire;
Their Ambush here relentless Ruffians lay,
And here the fell Attorney prowls for Prey;
Here falling Houses thunder on your Head,
And here a female Atheist talks you dead.

While Thales waits the Wherry that contains
Of dissipated Wealth the small Remains,
On Thames's Banks, in silent Thought we stood,
Where Greenwich smiles upon the silver Flood:
Struck with the Seat that gave Eliza Birth,
We kneel, and kiss the consecrated Earth;
In pleasing Dreams the blissful Age renew,
And call Britannia's Glories back to view;
Behold her Cross triumphant on the Main,
The Guard of Commerce, and the Dread of Spain,
Ere Masquerades debauch'd, Excise oppress'd,
Or English Honour grew a standing Jest.

A transient Calm the happy Scenes bestow,
And for a Moment lull the Sense of Woe.
At length awaking, with contemptuous Frown,
Indignant Thales eyes the neighb'ring Town.

Since Worth, he cries, in these degen'rate Days,
Wants ev'n the cheap Reward of empty Praise;
In those curst Walls, devote to Vice and Gain,
Since unrewarded Science toils in vain;
Since Hope but sooths to double my Distress,
And ev'ry Moment leaves my Little less;
While yet my steady Steps no Staff sustains,
And Life still vig'rous revels in my Veins;
Grant me, kind Heaven, to find some happier Place,
Where Honesty and Sense are no Disgrace;
Some pleasing Bank where verdant Osiers play,
Some peaceful Vale with Nature's Paintings gay;
Where once the harass'd Briton found Repose,
And safe in Poverty defy'd his Foes;
Some secret Cell, ye Pow'rs, indulgent give.
Let —— live here, for —— has learn'd to live.
Here let those reign, whom Pensions can incite
To vote a Patriot black, a Courtier white;
Explain their Country's dear-bought Rights away,
And plead for Pirates in the Face of Day;
With slavish Tenets taint our poison'd Youth,
And lend a Lye the confidence of Truth.

Let such raise Palaces, and Manors buy,
Collect a Tax, or farm a Lottery,
With warbling Eunuchs fill a licens'd Stage,
And lull to Servitude a thoughtless Age.

Heroes, proceed! What Bounds your Pride shall hold?
What Check restrain your Thirst of Pow'r and Gold?
Behold rebellious Virtue quite o'erthrown,
Behold our Fame, our Wealth, our Lives your own.

To such, a groaning Nation's Spoils are giv'n,
When publick Crimes inflame the Wrath of Heav'n:
But what, my Friend, what Hope remains for me,
Who start at Theft, and blush at Perjury?
Who scarce forbear, tho' Britain's Court he sing,
To pluck a titled Poet's borrow'd Wing;
A Statesman's Logic, unconvinc'd can hear,
And dare to slumber o'er the Gazetteer;
Despise a Fool in half his Pension drest,
And strive in vain to laugh at H—y's jest.

Others with softer Smiles, and subtler Art,
Can sap the Principles, or taint the Heart;
With more Address a Lover's Note convey,
Or bribe a Virgin's Innocence away.
Well may they rise, while I, whose Rustic Tongue
Ne'er knew to puzzle Right, or varnish Wrong,
Spurn'd as a Beggar, dreaded as a Spy,
Live unregarded, unlamented die.

For what but social Guilt the Friend endears?
Who shares Orgilio's Crimes, his Fortune shares.
But thou, should tempting Villainy present
All Marlb'rough hoarded, or all Villiers spent;
Turn from the glitt'ring Bribe thy scornful Eye,
Nor sell for Gold, what Gold could never buy,
The peaceful Slumber, self-approving Day,
Unsullied Fame, and Conscience ever gay.

The cheated Nation's happy Fav'rites, see!
Mark whom the Great caress, who frown on me!
London! the needy Villain's gen'ral Home,
The Common Shore of Paris and of Rome;
With eager Thirst, by Folly or by Fate,
Sucks in the Dregs of each corrupted State.
Forgive my Transports on a Theme like this,
I cannot bear a French metropolis.

Illustrious Edward! from the Realms of Day,
The Land of Heroes and of Saints survey;
Nor hope the British Lineaments to trace,
The rustic Grandeur, or the surly Grace;
But lost in thoughtless Ease, and empty Show,
Behold the Warriour dwindled to a Beau;
Sense, Freedom, Piety, refin'd away,
Of France the Mimic, and of Spain the Prey.

All that at home no more can beg or steal,
Or like a Gibbet better than a Wheel;
Hiss'd from the Stage, or hooted from the Court,
Their Air, their Dress, their Politicks import;
Obsequious, artful, voluble and gay,
On Britain's fond Credulity they prey.
No gainful Trade their Industry can 'scape,
They sing, they dance, clean Shoes, or cure a Clap;
All Sciences a fasting Monsieur knows,
And bid him go to Hell, to Hell he goes.

Ah! what avails it, that, from Slav'ry far,
I drew the Breath of Life in English Air;
Was early taught a Briton's Right to prize,
And lisp the Tale of Henry's Victories;
If the gull'd Conqueror receives the Chain,
And what their Armies lost, their Cringes gain?

Studious to please, and ready to submit,
The supple Gaul was born a Parasite:
Still to his Int'rest true, where'er he goes,
Wit, Brav'ry, Worth, his lavish Tongue bestows;
In ev'ry Face a Thousand Graces shine,
From ev'ry Tongue flows Harmony divine.
These Arts in vain our rugged Natives try,
Strain out with fault'ring Diffidence a Lye,
And get a Kick for awkward Flattery.

Besides, with Justice, this discerning Age
Admires their wond'rous Taients for the Stage:
Well may they venture on the Mimic's art,
Who play from Morn to Night a borrow'd Part;
Practis'd their Master's Notions to embrace,
Repeat his Maxims, and reflect his Face;
With ev'ry wild Absurdity comply,
And view each Object with another's Eye;
To shake with Laughter ere the Jest they hear,
To pour at Will the counterfeited Tear;
And as their Patron hints the Cold or Heat,
To shake in Dog-days, in December sweat.

How, when Competitors like these contend,
Can surly Virtue hope to fix a Friend?
Slaves that with serious Impudence beguile,
And lye without a Blush, without a Smile;
Exalt each Trifle, ev'ry Vice adore,
Your Taste in Snuff, your Judgment in a Whore;
Can Balbo's Eloquence applaud, and swear
He gropes his Breeches with a Monarch's Air.

For Arts like these preferr'd, admir'd, carest,
They first invade your Table, then your Breast;
Explore your Secrets with insidious Art,
Watch the weak Hour, and ransack all the Heart;
Then soon your ill-plac'd Confidence repay,
Commence your Lords, and govern or betray.
By Numbers here from Shame or Censure free,
All Crimes are safe, but hated Poverty.
This, only this, the rigid Law persues,
This, only this, provokes the snarling Muse;
The sober Trader at a tatter'd Cloak,
Wakes from his Dream, and labours for a Joke;
With brisker Air the silken Courtiers gaze,
And turn the varied Taunt a thousand Ways.
Of all the Griefs that harrass the Distrest,
Sure the most bitter is a scornful Jest;
Fate never wounds more deep the gen'rous Heart,
Than when a Blockhead's Insult points the Dart.

Has Heaven reserv'd, in Pity to the Poor,
No pathless Waste, or undiscover'd Shore?
No secret Island in the boundless Main?
No peaceful Desart yet unclaim'd by SPAIN?
Quick let us rise, the happy Seats explore,
And bear Oppression's Insolence no more.
This mournful Truth is ev'ry where confest,
Slow rises worth, by poverty deprest:
But here more slow, where all are Slaves to Gold,
Where Looks are Merchandise, and Smiles are sold,
Where won by Bribes, by Flatteries implor'd,
The Groom retails the Favours of his Lord.

But hark! th' affrighted Crowd's tumultuous Cries
Roll thro' the Streets, and thunder to the Skies;
Rais'd from some pleasing Dream of Wealth and Pow'r,
Some pompous Palace, or some blissful Bow'r,
Aghast you start, and scarce with aking Sight,
Sustain th' approaching Fire's tremendous Light;
Swift from pursuing Horrors take your Way,
And Leave your little All to Flames a Prey;
Then thro' the World a wretched Vagrant roam,
For where can starving Merit find a Home?
In vain your mournful Narrative disclose,
While all neglect, and most insult your Woes.

Should Heaven's just Bolts Orgilio's Wealth confound,
And spread his flaming Palace on the Ground,
Swift o'er the Land the dismal Rumour flies,
And publick Mournings pacify the Skies;
The Laureat Tribe in servile Verse relate,
How Virtue wars with persecuting Fate;
With well-feign'd Gratitude the pension's Band
Refund the Plunder of the begger'd Land.
See! while he builds, the gaudy Vassals come,
And crowd with sudden Wealth the rising Dome;
The Price of Boroughs and of Souls restore,
And raise his Treasures higher than before.
Now bless'd with all the Baubles of the Great,
The polish'd Marble, and the shining Plate,
Orgilio sees the golden Pile aspire,
And hopes from angry Heav'n another Fire.

Couid'st thou resign the Park and Play content,
For the fair Banks of Severn or of Trent;
There might'st thou find some elegant Retreat,
Some hireling Senator's deserted Seat;
And stretch thy Prospects o'er the smiling Land,
For less than rent the Dungeons of the Strand;
There prune thy Walks, support thy drooping Flow'rs,
Direct thy Rivulets, and twine thy Bow'rs;
And, while thy Beds a cheap Repast afford,
Despise the Dainties of a venal Lord:
There ev'ry Bush with Nature's Music rings,
There ev'ry Breeze bears Health upon its Wings;
On all thy Hours Security shall smile,
And bless thine Evening Walk and Morning Toil.

Prepare for Death, if here at Night you roam,
And sign your Will before you sup from Home.
Some fiery Fop, with new Commission vain,
Who sleeps on Brambles till he kills his Man;
Some frolick Drunkard, reeling from a Feast,
Provokes a Broil, and stabs you for a Jest.
Yet ev'n these Heroes, mischievously gay,
Lords of the Street, and Terrors of the Way;
Flush'd as they are with Folly, Youth and Wine,
Their prudent Insults to the Poor confine;
Afar they mark the Flambeau's bright Approach,
And shun the shining Train, and golden Coach.

In vain, these Dangers past, your Doors you close,
And hope the balmy Blessings of Repose:
Cruel with Guilt, and daring with Despair,
The midnight Murd'rer bursts the faithless Bar;
Invades the sacred Hour of silent Rest,
And plants, unseen, a Dagger in your Breast.

Scarce can our Fields, such Crowds at Tyburn die,
With Hemp the Gallows and the Fleet supply.
Propose your Schemes, ye Senatorian Band,
Whose Ways and Means support the sinking Land;
Lest Ropes be wanting in the tempting Spring,
To rig another Convoy for the K—g.

A single Jail, in Alfred's golden Reign,
Could half the Nation's Criminals contain;
Fair Justice then, without Constraint ador'd,
Sustain'd the Ballance, but resign'd the Sword;
No Spies were paid, no Special Juries known,
Blest Age! But ah! how diff'rent from our own!

Much could I add, —— but see the Boat at hand,
The Tide retiring, calls me from the Land:
Farewel! —— When Youth, and Health, and Fortune spent,
Thou fly'st for Refuge to the Wilds of Kent;
And tir'd like me with Follies and with Crimes,
In angry Numbers warn'st succeeding Times;
Then shall thy Friend, nor thou refuse his Aid,
Still Foe to Vice forsake his Cambrian Shade;
In Virtue's Cause once more exert his Rage,
Thy Satire point, and animate thy Page.

[dimenno]

ME, IN HAPPIER DAYS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWAgzg3STkQ...feature=related

[tenebr8]

It always cracks me up when people try to "parody" FD's style as a way of putting him down. He OWNS this style.

[JodyThePig]

He OWNS this style.

With generous support from Lexis/Nexis.

[newfakename]

With generous support from Lexis/Nexis.

Uh-Oh.

Now yer just asking for 30 pages of comic strips.

POW!!!

KAPLOOEY!!!

[tarawhite]

PHRASES ET NOMINA POETICA AD MATHEMATICAM PERTINENTIA.
DE MATHEMATICA.
Mathematica, Kunst im Messen, Rechnen, etc.
MAthematica, quae plurima turba iuventae aut nihili pendunt, aut stulto fine coercent.

Mathematicus.
Vide Astronomus.

DE ARITHMETICA.
Arichmetica, Rechen-Kunst.
Ars numerandi, numeri.

Arithmetica, quae puncta logistica tractiat. Quae texta et titulos numerorum et pondera callet. Demonstrans modulo sagae rationis acuto in partes numerum ducere rite suas. Quae omnem calculum ad unguem argute numeris scit solidare suis. Quae stato ibrae nomine rem pensitat.

Numerus Zahl.
Numerus, crescens, par, impar, ussuetus, angustus.

Par, ein Paar.
Par infandum.

Numerus novenarius. nenn.
Novem Musis numero aemulus ordo. Qui numerus Musas aequat. Numeri novemplicis agmen exaequans numerus.

Numerare, zehlen.
Enumerare, dinumerare, praenumerare, annumerare. Computare sollicitis articulis. Numero notare. Vercensere. Recensere numerum. Imprimere numeros. Legere ordine. Numero comprendere. Metiri numerum. Numeros intendere verbis, facere, referre.

Rationes, Rechnung.
Rationes longae.

Libra, Waage.
Libra aequalis, iusta, anceps, praevaricans, cotona, aequa, pendula, bilanx fabrilis, magna, panda, repanda. Pendula aequo discrimine.

Statera, Schuellwage.
Statera alta. certa.

Lances, Waageschlüssel.
Lances geminae, duae, pares.

Examen librae, das Zünglein in der Waage.
Examen aequatum iustum.

Momentum, Außschlag.
Momentum parvum, certum, omne, maximum, laetum, asperum.

Assis, Pfund.
As parvus, vilis, fixus.

[elk]

1 Cum e Cilicia decedens Rhodum venissem et eo mihi de Q. Hortensi morte esset adlatum, opinione omnium maiorem animo cepi dolorem. nam et amico amisso cum consuetudine iucunda tum multorum officiorum coniunctione me privatum videbam et interitu talis aug uris dignitatem nostri conlegi deminutam dolebam; qua in cogitatione et cooptatum me ab eo in conlegium recordabar, in quo iuratus iudicium dignitatis meae fecerat, et inauguratum ab eodem; ex quo augurum institutis in parentis eum loco colere debebam.
2 augebat etiam molestiam, quod magna sapientium civium bonorumque penuria vir egregius coniunctissimusque mecum consiliorum omnium societate alienissimo rei publicae tempore exstinctus et auctoritatis et prudentiae suae triste nobis desiderium reliquerat ; dolebamque quod non, ut plerique putabant, adversarium aut obtrectatorem laudum mearum sed socium potius et consortem gloriosi laboris amiseram.



3 etenim si in leviorum artium studio memoriae proditum est poetas nobilis poetarum aequalium morte doluisse, quo tandem animo eius interitum ferre debui, cum quo certare erat gloriosius quam omnino adversarium non habere? cum praesertim non modo numquam sit aut illius a me cursus impeditus aut ab illo meus, sed contra semper alter ab altero adiutus et communicando et monendo et favendo.
4 sed quoniam perpetua quadam felicitate usus ille cessit e vita suo magis quam suorum civium tempore et tum occidit, cum lugere facilius rem publicam posset, si viveret, quam iuvare, vixitque tam diu quam licuit in civitate bene beateque vivere, nostro i ncommodo detrimentoque, si est ita necesse, doleamus, illius vero [img]mortis opportunitatem benevolentia potius quam misericordia prosequamur, ut, quotienscumque de clarissumo et beatissumo viro cogitemus, illum potius quam nosmet ipsos diligere videamur.
5 nam si id dolemus, quod eo iam frui nobis non licet, nostrum est id malum; quod modice feramus, ne id non ad amicitiam sed ad domesticam utilitatem referre videamur: sin tamquam illi ipsi acerbitatis aliquid acciderit angimur, summam eius felicitatem no n satis grato animo interpretamur.
6 Etenim si viveret Q. Hortensius, cetera fortasse desideraret una cum reliquis bonis et fortibus civibus, hunc autem aut praeter ceteros aut cum paucis sustineret dolorem, cum forum populi Romani, quod fuisset quasi theatrum illius ingeni, voce erudita e t Romanis Graecisque auribus digna spoliatum atque orbatum videret.
7 equidem angor animo non consili, non ingeni, non auctoritatis armis egere rem publicam, qu[/img]ae didiceram tractare quibusque me adsuefeceram quaeque erant propria cum praestantis in re publica viri tum bene moratae et bene constitutae civitatis. quod si fu it in re publica tempus ullum, cum extorquere arma posset e manibus iratorum civium boni civis auctoritas et oratio, tum profecto fuit, cum patrocinium pacis exclusum est aut errore hominum aut timore.



8 ita nobismet ipsis accidit ut, quamquam essent multo magis alia lugenda, tamen hoc doleremus quod, quo tempore aetas nostra perfuncta rebus amplissimis tamquam in portum confugere deberet non inertiae neque desidiae, sed oti moderati atque honesti, cumq ue ipsa oratio iam nostra canesceret haberetque suam quandam maturitatem et quasi senectutem, tum arma sunt ea sumpta, quibus illi ipsi, qui didicerant eis uti gloriose, quem ad modum salutariter uterentur non reperiebant.
9 itaque ei mihi videntur fortunate beateque vixisse cum in ceteris civitatibus tum maxume in nostra, quibus cum auctoritate rerumque gestarum gloria tum etiam sapientiae laude perfrui licuit. quorum memoria et recordatio in maxumis nostris gravissimisque curis iucunda sane fuit, cum in eam nuper ex sermone quodam incidissemus.
10 Nam cum inambularem in xysto et essem otiosus domi, M. ad me Brutus, ut consueverat, cum T. Pomponio venerat, homines cum inter se coniuncti tum mihi ita cari itaque iucundi, ut eorum aspectu omnis quae me angebat de re publica cura consederit. quos po stquam salutavi: quid vos, inquam, Brute et Attice? numquid tandem novi?
Nihil sane, inquit Brutus, quod quidem aut tu audire velis aut ego pro certo dicere audeam.
11 Tum Atticus: eo, inquit, ad te animo venimus, ut de re publica esset silentium et aliquid audiremus potius ex te, quam te adficeremus ulla molestia.
Vos vero, inquam, Attice, et praesentem me cura levatis et absenti magna solacia dedistis. nam vestris primum litteris recreatus me ad pristina studia revocavi.
Tum ille: legi, inquit, perlubenter epistulam, quam ad te Brutus misit ex Asia, qua mihi visus est et monere te prudenter et consolari amicissume.
12 Recte, inquam, est visus: nam me istis scito litteris ex diuturna perturbatione totius valetudinis tamquam ad aspiciendam lucem esse revocatum. atque ut post Cannensem illam calamitatem primum Marcelli ad Nolam proelio populus se Romanus erexit posteaq ue prosperae res deinceps multae consecutae sunt, sic post rerum nostrarum et communium gravissumos casus nihil ante epistulam Bruti mihi accidit, quod vellem aut quod aliqua ex parte sollicitudines adlevaret meas.
13 Tum Brutus: volui id quidem efficere certe et capio magnum fructum, si quidem quod volui tanta in re consecutus sum. sed scire cupio, quae te Attici litterae delectaverint.
Istae vero, inquam, Brute, non modo delectationem mihi, sed etiam, ut spero, salutem adtulerunt.
Salutem? inquit ille. quodnam tandem genus istuc tam praeclarum litterarum fuit?
An mihi potuit, inquam, esse aut gratior ulla salutatio aut ad hoc tempus aptior quam illius libri, quo me hic adfatus quasi iacentem excitavit?
14 Tum ille: nempe eum dicis, inquit, quo iste omnem rerum memoriam breviter et, ut mihi quidem visum est, perdiligenter complexus est?
Istum ipsum, inquam, Brute, dico librum mihi saluti fuisse.
Tum Atticus: optatissimum mihi quidem est quod dicis; sed quid tandem habuit liber iste, quod tibi aut novum aut tanto usui posset esse?
15 Ille vero et nova, inquam, mihi quidem multa et eam utilitatem quam requirebam, ut explicatis ordinibus temporum uno in conspectu omnia viderem. quae cum studiose tractare coepissem, ipsa mihi tractatio litterarum salutaris fuit admonuitque, Pomponi, u t a te ipso sumerem aliquid ad me reficiendum teque remunerandum si non pari, at grato tamen munere: quamquam illud Hesiodium laudatur a doctis, quod eadem mensura reddere iubet qua acceperis aut etiam cumulatiore, si possis.
16 ego autem voluntatem tibi profecto emetiar, sed rem ipsam nondum posse videor; idque ut ignoscas, a te peto. nec enim ex novis, ut agricolae solent, fructibus est unde tibi reddam quod accepi--sic omnis fetus repressus exustusque flos siti veteris uber tatis exaruit --, nec ex conditis, qui iacent in tenebris et ad quos omnis nobis aditus, qui paene solis patuit, obstructus est. seremus igitur aliquid tamquam in inculto et derelicto solo; quod ita diligenter colemus, ut impendiis etiam augere possimus l argitatem tui muneris: modo idem noster animus efficere possit quod ager, qui quom multos annos quievit, uberiores efferre fruges solet.
17 Tum ille: ego vero et exspectabo ea quae polliceris, nec exigam nisi tuo commodo et erunt mihi pergrata, si solveris.
Mihi quoque, inquit Brutus, [et] exspectanda sunt ea quae Attico polliceris, etsi fortasse ego a te huius voluntarius procurator petam, quod ipse, cui debes, incommodo exacturum negat.
18 At vero, inquam, tibi ego, Brute, non solvam, nisi prius a te cavero amplius eo nomine neminem, cuius petitio sit, petiturum.
Non mehercule, inquit, tibi repromittere istuc quidem ausim. nam hunc, qui negat, video flagitatorem non illum quidem tibi molestum, sed adsiduum tamen et acrem fore.
Tum Pomponius: ego vero, inquit, Brutum nihil mentiri puto. videor enim iam te ausurus esse appellare, quoniam longo intervallo modo primum animadverti paulo te hilariorem.
19 itaque quoniam hic quod mihi deberetur se exacturum professus est, quod huic debes, ego a te peto.
Quidnam id? inquam.
Ut scribas, inquit, aliquid; iam pridem enim conticuerunt tuae litterae. nam ut illos de re publica libros edidisti, nihil a te sane postea accepimus: eisque nosmet ipsi ad rerum nostrarum memoriam comprehendendam impulsi atque incensi sumus. sed illa, c um poteris; atque ut possis, rogo.
20 nunc vero, inquit, si es animo vacuo, expone nobis quod quaerimus.
Quidnam est id? inquam.
Quod mihi nuper in Tusculano inchoavisti de oratoribus: quando esse coepissent, qui etiam et quales fuissent. quem ego sermonem cum ad Brutum tuum vel nostrum potius detulissem, magnopere hic audire se velle dixit. itaque hunc elegimus diem, cum te scire mus esse vacuum. quare, si tibi est commodum, ede illa quae coeperas et Bruto et mihi.
21 Ego vero, inquam, si potuero, faciam vobis satis.
Poteris, inquit: relaxa modo paulum animum aut sane, si potes, libera.
Nempe igitur hinc tum, Pomponi, ductus est sermo, quod erat a me mentio facta causam Deiotari fidelissimi atque optumi regis ornatissume et copiosissume a Bruto me audisse defensam.
Scio, inquit, ab isto initio tractum esse sermonem teque Bruti dolentem vicem quasi deflevisse iudiciorum vastitatem et fori.
22 Feci, inquam, istuc quidem et saepe facio. nam mihi, Brute, in te intuenti crebro in mentem venit vereri, ecquodnam curriculum aliquando sit habitura tua et natura admirabilis et exquisita doctrina et singularis industria. cum enim in maxumis causis ve rsatus esses et cum tibi aetas nostra iam cederet fascisque submitteret, subito in civitate cum alia ceciderunt tum etiam ea ipsa, de qua disputare ordimur, eloquentia obmutuit.
23 Tum ille: ceterarum rerum causa, inquit, istuc et doleo et dolendum puto; dicendi autem me non tam fructus et gloria quam studium ipsum exercitatioque delectat: quod mihi nulla res eripiet te praesertim tam studiosum et * * * . dicere enim bene nemo po test nisi qui prudenter intellegit; quare qui eloquentiae verae dat operam, dat prudentiae, qua ne maxumis quidem in bellis aequo animo carere quisquam potest.
24 Praeclare, inquam, Brute, dicis eoque magis ista dicendi laude delector, quod cetera, quae sunt quondam habita in civitate pulcherrima, nemo est tam humilis qui se non aut posse adipisci aut adeptum putet; eloquentem neminem video factum esse victoria. sed quo facilius sermo explicetur, sedentes, si videtur, agamus.
Cum idem placuisset illis, tum in pratulo propter Platonis statuam consedimus.
25 Hic ego: laudare igitur eloquentiam et quanta vis sit eius expromere quantamque eis, qui sint eam consecuti, dignitatem afferat, neque propositum nobis est hoc loco neque necessarium. hoc vero sine ulla dubitatione con firmaverim, sive illa arte pariat ur aliqua sive exercitatione quadam sive natura, rem unam esse omnium difficillumam. quibus enim ex quinque rebus constare dicitur, earum una quaeque est ars ipsa magna per sese. quare quinque artium concursus maxumarum quantam vim quantamque difficultate m habeat existimari potest.
26 testis est Graecia, quae cum eloquentiae studio sit incensa iamdiuque excellat in ea praestetque ceteris, tamen omnis artes vetustiores habet et multo ante non inventas solum, sed etiam perfectas, quam haec est a Graecis elaborata dicendi vis atque cop ia. in quam cum intueor, maxime mihi occurrunt, Attice, et quasi lucent Athenae tuae, qua in urbe primum se orator extulit primumque etiam monumentis et litteris oratio est coepta mandari.
27 tamen ante Periclem, cuius scripta quaedam feruntur, et Thucydidem, qui non nascentibus Athenis sed iam adultis fuerunt, littera nulla est, quae quidem ornatum aliquem habeat et oratoris esse videatur. quamquam opinio est et eum, qui multis annis ante hos fuerit, Pisistratum et paulo seniorem etiam Solonem posteaque Clisthenem multum, ut temporibus illis, valuisse dicendo.
28 post hanc aetatem aliquot annis, ut ex Attici monumentis potest perspici, Themistocles fuit, quem constat cum prudentia tum etiam eloquentia praestitisse; post Pericles, qui cum floreret omni genere virtutis, hac tamen fuit laude clarissumus. Cleonem e tiam temporibus illis turbulentum illum quidem civem, sed tamen eloquentem constat fuisse.
29 huic aetati suppares Alcibiades Critias Theramenes; quibus temporibus quod dicendi genus viguerit ex Thucydidi scriptis, qui ipse tum fuit, intellegi maxume potest. grandes erant verbis, crebri sententiis, compressione rerum breves et ob eam ipsam caus am interdum subobscuri.
30 sed ut intellectum est quantam vim haberet accurata et facta quodam modo oratio, tum etiam magistri dicendi multi subito exstiterunt. tum Leontinus Gorgias, Thrasymachus Calchedonius, Protagoras Abderites, Prodicus Ceius, Hippias Eleius in honore magno fuit; aliique multi temporibus eisdem docere se profitebantur adrogantibus sane verbis, quemadmodum causa inferior--ita enim loquebantur--dicendo fieri superior posset.

[dimenno]

With generous support from Lexis/Nexis.

Haw! Do you mean LexisNexis Academic Universe? That is soooo 2007! (And I should know--I spent that summer writing the first research guide for it, for HKS.)

Anyway, Citation Linker is better:
http://sfx.hul.harvard.edu/citation/sfx_local/

I need not explain to you how the "search within gmail" function greatly increases my ability to trawl up information from past writings.

A less informed individual might simply conclude that brute memory has been replaced by robust (cliche of the year for 2000) search capability.

However, a man as omnicompetent as yourself must surely have realized that one must first have formed the interstitial matrix of conceptual knowledge in order to even be able to summon up memes once long-buried deeply within ones own neural web.

The map, mon frere, is not the territory. But a good map is hard to find, as both Bessie Smith and Flannery O'Connor might say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIgKWQWj4-E

This post has been edited by dimenno: Aug 13 2008, 09:46 AM

[JodyThePig]

However, a man as omnicompetent as yourself must surely have realized that one must first have formed the interstitial matrix of conceptual knowledge in order to even be able to summon up memes once long-buried deeply within ones own neural web.

Funny, I was just thinking about that over breakfast this morning, right after I found a free Episteme Decoder Ring in my box of Sugar Frosted Chocomemes!

[dimenno]

It always cracks me up when people try to "parody" FD's style as a way of putting him down. He OWNS this style.

But hark! th' affrighted Crowd's tumultuous Cries
Roll thro' the Streets, and thunder to the Skies;
Rais'd from some pleasing Dream of Wealth and Pow'r,
Some pompous Palace, or some blissful Bow'r,
Aghast you start, and scarce with aking Sight,
Sustain th' approaching Fire's tremendous Light;
Swift from pursuing Horrors take your Way,
And Leave your little All to Flames a Prey;
Then thro' the World a wretched Vagrant roam,
For where can starving Merit find a Home?

I Hate to See the Evening Sun Go Down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ7S2w6v2No&NR=1



http://www.hembeck.com/Covers/Batman156.htm





http://www.initaly.com/regions/veneto/bellini.htm
http://jssgallery.org/Other_Artists/El_Greco/Pieta.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet%C3%A0_(Michelangelo)

This post has been edited by dimenno: Aug 13 2008, 09:57 AM

[dimenno]

Funny, I was just thinking about that over breakfast this morning, right after I found a free Episteme Decoder Ring in my box of Sugar Frosted Chocomemes!

Incuriously enough, I was myself was munching my Sontag Krispies, and savoring their way cool post-ironic je ne sais qua, while pondering Don Simpson and the Death of the Auteur.



Which, I'm well aware, is strictly from unger.

http://www.philosophicallexicon.com/#LEXICON

Truly, this is no country for old memes.

This post has been edited by dimenno: Aug 13 2008, 10:20 AM

[elk]

Truly, this is no country for old memes.

Okay, that's pretty good.

[dimenno]

DIMENNO: SMASH ZEITGEIST!



http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0379.html

[dimenno]

[dimenno]

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:51feQC...ttibon_1982.gif

[Electric Larry]

i have a red pencil box.

[dimenno]

My White Bicycle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62yWU4ryrgI...feature=related

[Electric Larry]

1. Bathe her and bring her to me.
One of many helpful phrases thanks to GrowaBrain..

¿Dondé está el baño?
Where is the bathroom?

Tu hija es muy bonita.
Your daughter is very beautiful.

¿Cuanto cuesta esa cosa?
How much does that thing cost?

Tú eres un pendejo chingado.
You are not a very nice person.

Tengo una caja roja de las lapices.
I have a red pencil box.

Me gusta tu cabeza y tu estamago.
I like your head and your stomach.

¿Cinco doláres? ¿Por esa cosa?
Five dollars? For that thing?

No comas esa. No sabes donde esa ha pasado.
Don’t eat that. You don’t know where it has been.

Lavase, y conduce a mi.
Bathe her, and bring her to me

[dimenno]

Lavase, y conduce a mi.
Bathe her, and bring her to me

Tenho vontade de vomitar.
I have mind to vomit.

Este lago parece-me bem piscoso. Vamos pescar para nos divertirmos.
That pond it seems me many multiplied of fishes. Let us amuse rather to the fishing.

Bem sei o que devo fazer ou me compete.
I know well who I have to make.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_As_She_Is_Spoke