This is fascinating, because it seems that in the U.S., we still subscribe to this idea that true genius exists and walks among us. The idea that the super rich became that way by being smarter and more innovative than the average person (rather than exploiting the working class) is an ideology that serves to uphold capitalism. This is why understanding invention as a social practice is so subversive, as it points out that no kind of invention exists in a vacuum and that intertextuality and collaboration are both common and crucial to the process of inventing anew.

I have always been told that this is crucial to the writing process!

This is interesting, I would like to know more.

In my film studies course, Dawn Dietrich assigned some film theory that argued that the body has typically been excluded from the process of watching film. Instead, viewers and critics valued mental stimulation and films that 'really make you think.' This is why horror and romance have been regarded as less elite genres. However, it seems that these new bodies of research and criticism (electracy, queer studies, postmoderism, etc.) have brought the body back into conversation. Indeed, our bodies are always involved in whatever processes we engage in. During the course of Dawn's class, we paid close attention to the ways our bodies interacted and reacted to various films, and it was certainly interesting to note.

It seems that the copyright laws in the U.S. have been outmoded in our electrate world. If the invention process nowadays typically consists of a sampling of various kinds of media, then it would be helpful if laws about plagiarism and copyright were adapted to fit these new needs.

This reminds me of the Oulipo writers that put various constraints on their work (i.e. to not use the letter 'e' in a novel, or rolling a die and leaving to chance the words that are used in a poem). I believe these kinds of texts would qualify as hypertexts.

I feel very comfortable with this skill being an English major...

Intertextuality