Oh, and the other great thing? (Sorry, I'm full of great things this morning, apparently.) It's not exactly 25 pages any more! (It's supposed to be between 25 and 40 pages.) It's 30 pages! So it doesn't look like I padded it to get to 25 pages!

Completely unrelated, BABY TOES! Mostly just for JZ: [link]

applauds vw

You go, girl!

YAY vw!!! And your Dad rocks! (borrowing some of his exclamation points).

Congrats, bug! We knew you'd do it.

For we are omniscient and wise. The only reason we're not running the world right now is because TV is shiny.

Crap. I have one problematic section. Maybe you guys can help.

When I first started this project, I was told by more than one person that "shared authority" would keep me from proving my thesis. I'm addressing that in my discussion section. Here's what I've got:

Another implication not yet addressed in this study is that of shared authority. Michael Frisch coined the term “shared authority” for his 1990 book of the same name. Shared authority is a form of collaboration between oral historian and narrator in “research, interpretation, and presentation” (Thomson 23). Frisch explains how he arrived at the term: “the notion that what is most compelling about oral and public history is a capacity to redefine and redistribute intellectual authority, so that this might be shared more broadly in historical research and communication rather than continuing to serve as an instrument of power and hierarchy” (xx). When I first began my research, I was told by more than one person that I could never prove that oral history could be a form of literature, due to the issue of shared authority. If oral history was literature, who could be the author? After all, even a recording is a form of translation of the original interview. A transcript is even more of a form of translation of the original interview. Transcripts are often deeply edited, hopefully collaborating with the original narrator, but still heavily edited.

When I sat down with Michael Frisch at the Oral History Association’s Annual Conference in 2007, I asked him about the issue of shared authority. He did not directly answer the question during his discussion of his research and research of his colleagues and students. At the end of the conversation, I asked him again, “What about shared authority? Will it be the one thing that keeps me from proving that oral history could be literature?” He responded, “Don’t let my research keep you from proving your thesis. If it’s there, you prove it.”

With that in mind, this study makes several assumptions. First, “The Potter and the Clay” is the intellectual property of Marian Hunt. I make no claim to her story; it is hers and hers alone. It has been my distinct pleasure to work with her gifted interviews and learn much, not only about oral history and literature, but also about life. Second, as shared authority implies, collaboration is vital to a successful final version of a transcript. People misspeak every day, in every conversation. If a researcher does not give the narrator the opportunity to correct mistakes or misunderstandings, shared authority does become a problematic issue. Third, shared authority did not hinder any of the analysis completed for this project. The analysis is complete, even though the researcher understands that the narrator will read the final version and may not agree with all of the analysis. There is a deep understanding and respect between the researcher and the narrator, which has allowed for this kind of collaboration. Therefore, shared authority has been addressed and did not prevent the thesis from being proven or become a problematic issue.

What do you all think that is saying?

What do you all think that is saying?

I think this is saying: Joe needs more coffee.

You ever see a dog shake its head in that convulsive way that suggests it has a fly in its ear that it is desperately trying to dislodge? I just did that.

Which does NOT, I have to stress, mean your writing is incomprehensible or incoherent, vw. It means...I need more coffee.

ALSO, unrelated to vw's thesis: I was trying to think yesterday what was bugging me about Laga's sister's ex-asshat. What was I missing? What was I forgetting?

And it came to me in a flash, this morning.

Now, where is it? I used to carry it right here...ah!

*STABBITYSTABSTAB!* *SPLORCH! *squeeky!*

There. I feel much better.

I think this is saying: Joe needs more coffee.

You know, you have a point. It's awfully cruel of me to introduce such meaty and thinking-necessary words before 9am. What was I thinking?!

What was I thinking?!

Yeah, seriously. Just 'cause you're a mad Brainiac with sparkling insights first thing in the morning, doesn't mean the rest of the world is! Give us grunting Morlocks a chance to get our neurons up to speed fer God's sake!

Okay, have re-read vw's thing.

This is what I took away from it (keep in mind that I have not read any of the rest of the thesis and am gleaning concepts from the text presented):

"Shared authority", being intrinsic to the nature of oral history, automatically disqualifies oral history from being "literature" since there can be no single "author" to whom the story can be attributed. You think this is bullshit. You did not find the issue of "shared authority" affected the quality of the final work of literature as the process of collaboration between researcher and narrator allows for a "redundancy" or sorts, a kind of "quality control" wherein the researcher, if they're good enough, will allow the narrator to check their facts or whatever and correct any mistakes either in the initial relation of the story or in the transcription or translation.

In short: Neener neener neener.

...

Did I get it? I must add the caveat that I may be stupid.