Blog Post #3

That was certainly a very eye-opening article, one that made me think quite a bit.

In comparison to the remixes that we have been learning about in lecture, Johnson-Eilola and Selber's concept of assemblage seems synonymous to me. Just as a remix is essentially a mixture of different pieces of text combined to make a new piece, an assemblage, as mentioned in the article, is "text built primarily and explicitly from existing texts in order to solve a writing or communication problem in a new context". I liked how the author's pointed out that an assemblage is not made to take over the value of an 'original' text, or rather the pieces of text it has combined from other sources. An assemblage in their opinions is more of a second approach just as highly valued as the first.

As a student, I was intrigued by  Johnson-Eilola and Selber's questions of what would happen if the "final product a student produced-a text- was not concerned with the original words or images on a page or screen but concerned primarily with assemblages of parts"? The author's pointed out that there should be more focus on the culmination and organization of different forms of texts in a student's work, and how they got their point across and solved the initial problem, rather than focusing on the final outcome of where  their work came from and if it was 100% their work or not.

The most valuable piece of information I got from this article is that there should not be a hierarchy between original or borrowed/quotes texts. Again, as a student, it is simple for me to relate to the feeling of having to essentially hide where certain information comes from. I too feel as though professors certainly hold "original" work at a higher value than work or quotes from other authors that a student may integrate into their own writing. It is extremely intimidating coming into class and hearing the first thing out of a professor's mouth be, "if you plagiarize at this university you will face potential expulsion". Just as  Johnson-Eilola and Selber noted, "plagiarism is frequently the result of this hierarchy". I agree that the student is fully aware that professors hold higher value on the student's original work, which makes students hide their citations for work that they borrowed to strengthen their own pieces. I fully support the idea that teachers should begin valuing students' assemblages, which show that they understand other works that relate to their own, and that students know how to incorporate other author's ideas into theirs in order to express their own work to have a greater effect.

I think that the line between plagiarisms and originality can be drawn when one uses word-for-word references from outside texts and fails to intertwine his/her personal ideas and research. I still feel like I don't know nearly enough about all of the rules and regulations surrounding plagiarism, but I certainly don't think there is a such thing as pure originality. I think it is in my best interest to ALWAYS cite my sources, in order to give credit to the author's that gave me ideas toward how to strengthen my own. I agree with  Johnson-Eilola and Selber that "previous discourse always shapes and constrains the activities of writers, that there is no neutral, non-regulated space from which to begin a writing activity". We all have thoughts for a reason, mostly because we have heard something or read something about an idea we happen to come across. At least in my opinion our ideas usually come from somewhere so how could something be 100% original? The line between plagiarism and originality remains blurry to me sometimes, but as I mentioned before, I think it is in my own best interest to cite my sources of information, after all someone or something along the road perked my interest and influenced an idea that may have come to mind.