Harris and Sullivan similarities

After finishing the reading of the two chapters of Harris’s Rewriting I see that Harris describes writing as an ongoing process.  He argues that most writing is about something that has happened or something that is in reference to another piece of written work.  He describes the process as a constant move.  He also argues that it is exciting to reference and cite other people’s sources because that is how different points of view are established and can further be argued by others who choose.  He also argues that most of the argument can come out of interpretation of what other people have written.  It is one thing to but a quote into a paper that you are writing and cite it properly but without an interpretation of how the quote is relevant to the subject that is being written then the quote is in fact irrelevant. The writer need to be able to paraphrase what his source has stated and be able to build off of what he has said. 

After thinking about how this relates to Sullivan’s work, I have found that they are very similar.  Both authors talk about how writing is always a constant process even if blogging occurs faster than traditional writing.  Both forms are constantly being criticized.  With blogs it is through comments and with traditional writing it is through other papers or works referencing something that has been previously written.  Sullivan argues that blogging is a legitimate source of writing and I believe that after starting to read Harris that I would have to agree with him.  Both are too similar to each other even though both forms are presented in two very different ways.  I think that blogging gets a bad rep because it isn’t a reviewed source and it doesn’t go through a rigorous review process.