from Anne

And then -- CCCC 09, San Francisco? :

Different issues:

1) My sense is that, to be safe, we should come up with two proposals. One is for the "we will do something incredible about writing and technology in a room if you give us an hour set-up time and maybe some technology support" (this proposal would go directly to Marilyn Valentino, the chair for next year) and the other a mix of the first version with the usual proposal format, which we would submit by the deadline of May 9. The issue is that Marilyn probably won't be able to make decisions right away about the first proposal, because she won't be able to, given how much stuff is going to come at her from this "rethink the presentation" initiative -- and so, if we have the "regular" proposal in place, we can fall back on that if Marilyn can't support us; we can also "cancel" the regular proposal if Marilyn accepts the first. (I hope that makes sense.) But I think the second proposal should be a variation of the first, that we should try to come up with something cool and alternative and interactive and installation-ish, within the limitations of the 90 minutes in a room with little set-up time. So we can come up with some brainstorming time.... (but, overall, I would hope that -- whatever we come up with for proposal #1 -- we manage to come as close to recreating with the actual presentation of proposal #2, even if the proposal itself fits the expected framework; there's nothing that says that we can't do an installation even if the proposal implies 3 or 4 20-minute paper presentation...)

2) I think we should have a 3rd or 4th person involved (but no more), so that proposal #1 (the most "innovative/alternative") seems to incorporate as many people as a regular session, so that Marilyn doesn't feel she is losing the number of people who can be on the program. (It's a big deal, to have as many people on the program as possible, so that more people come to the conference....) Having a third/fourth person on the program also would enable us to do a second, more "regular" proposal easily. I'm wondering if Jody Shipka would be cool to include. (Check out her blog http://remediatethis.blogspot.com, especially the category of "composing new media"; also check out http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=758750) I also think about including a grad student from here, Shereen Inyatulla, who has been doing some cool arts-type projects connected with identity. I could tell you more about her, if she sounds interesting to you after you read what follows below.... But are there other people you think should be involved?

3) We need some theme/argument to describe the installation for proposal #1. I had been thinking about something to do with feminism-gender studies / technology / reading (or writing). I think it would be great (for all kinds of reasons) if people could print something, as you suggest. I also very much like the idea of coming up with some uses for TAPoR. I would also like to have writing or video projected on the wall, but very close up and on the floor, as though you were looking into cartoon mouse-holes, to shift how people interact with the space and with the writing. But this is something we could brainstorm. It's got to be something all of us want to make happen....

4) Do we want to include student work in any way? Part of me says no, but another part says that teachers love to see student work. The number of computers we could get would obviously shape how we could do this. So I dunno.

So this is all loose, late at night (for me) rambling. I hope most of it makes sense. Want to talk on the phone in the next few days?

In the meantime, how about you have a revelation about a perfect theme/argument the installation could make, one that would completely enthrall visitors?