Advertisement

Bringing Monsters to Life Through Encounters with Writing

Chapter

Abstract

As researchers, much of our time is spent in the act of ‘writing’. The production of research as writing is considered an essential part of our research outputs, which are measured and policed by citation metrics and ranked journal and publisher lists. For writing to be recognised and counted as research, it must appear in certain outlets, each of which makes its own certain demands of what is judged to be research. This, we fear, feeds a nonsensical academic apparatus, much like a Goldberg machine that has taken on a life of its own, existing only to perpetuate its own complicated systems of connections and cogs and wheels, arbitrary to the originary desire to write and to become-writer. And this academic publishing apparatus privileges its internal machinery, ossifying its peculiar set of connections, trapping our writing production rather than seeking out and augmenting new and different forms of connection between writer and text and reader. We fear that this arrangement of parts produces us as academic writers who are inert, dead, coded, ranked and listless numbers. And so we ask what if we were to put these nonsenses aside and instead undertake experiments and different encounters with writing, where the writing itself becomes our method of inquiry? Following in the pathway created by Laurel Richardson, we investigate what monstrous creations, full of vitality and fervour, might be made possible if we were to bypass the dead and dismembered assemblage and instead plug ourselves directly into the spark? Would such experiments with writing bring us to life or would our monsters simply offer us torment rather than succour?

Keywords

writingWriting Academic Subjects monsterMonster Experimental Undertaking Deleuze 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Badiou, A. (2000). Of life as a name of being, or, Deleuze’s vitalist ontology. Pli, 10, 191–199.Google Scholar
  2. Deleuze, G. (1994). Difference and repetition (P. Patton, Trans.). London: The Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  3. Deleuze, G. (1995). Negotiations: 1972-1990 (M. Joughin, Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Deleuze, G. (1997). Essays critical and clinical (D. Smith & M. A. Greco, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  5. Deleuze, G. (2004). Desert islands and other texts 1953-1974. Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e).Google Scholar
  6. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  7. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1991). What is philosophy? (H. Tomlinson & G. Burchell, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1986). Kafka: Toward a minor literature (D. Polan, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  9. Deleuze, G., & Parnet, C. (2002). Dialogues II (H. Tomlinson & B. Habberjam, Trans.). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  10. Henderson, L., Honan, E., & Loch, S. (2016). The production of the academicwritingmachine. Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology, 7(2), 4–18.  https://doi.org/10.7577/rerm.1838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Honan, E., & Bright, D. (2016). Writing a thesis differently. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(5), 731–743.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2016.1145280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Koro-Ljungberg, M., & Mazzei, L. A. (2012). Problematizing methodological simplicity in qualitative research: Editors’ introduction. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(9), 728–731.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800412453013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Lecercle, J.-J. (2002). Deleuze and language. New York, NY: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Richardson, L. (1994). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. Denzin (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 516–529). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Richardson, L. (1997). Fields of play constructing an academic life. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E.A. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 959–978). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  18. Roberts, C. M. (2010). The dissertation journey: A practical and comprehensive guide to planning, writing, and defending your dissertation (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  19. Shelley. M. W. (1869). Frankenstein, or, the modern Prometheus. Boston and Cambridge: Sever, Francis & Co.Google Scholar
  20. St. Pierre, E. A. (2016). Deleuze and Guattari’s language for new empirical inquiry. Educational Philosophy and Theory, Advanced online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1151761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fiji National UniversityLautokaFiji
  2. 2.Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.University of Southern QueenslandSpringfield CentralAustralia

Personalised recommendations