Blog 03

One paragraph into the Rex reading I realized what Jim meant on Monday when he said he used the WTL for his writing portfolio, and now I wish I would have known about this long before I wrote my paper. I am also very interested in seeing what Jim wrote now. Despite my belief in what Rex wrote I must admit that I am a hypocrite and have done everything in my power to stay away from such essays. Nothing is wrong with completely logical machine like pieces with no personal connection whatsoever. That kind of work is, for lack of a better word, is safe and someone writing that kind of paper can feel secure that what they are writing is well enough. From the teaching prospective I worry about what this method may teach a student when it comes to writing, do they always have to relate a personal experience to what they are trying to talk about? No, papers can be as cold and impersonal as any IRS agent. What I think I am trying to say is that while the idea of “writing from the gut” is a good thing I would revise that into “writing what you believe.” Or it could be as simple as I missed the entire point of Rex’s writing. It wouldn’t be the first time.

“The first lesson in teaching composition is that the writer must find his or her own subject” (Graves 115). This line out of the reading is probably one of my highest beliefs when it comes to writing in general. It is also something everyone in the class can say they know. When given the assignment, when told what to write about the student has no choice but to conform to that assignment and feeling, and true power of voice will be lost. The best papers are the ones where the student is allowed a broad area to dig and learn and discover and find a personal meaning that he or she can then share and elaborate on. This is different than Rex’s writing from the gut which too me screams of primal emotion, instead of personal taste, belief, or feeling. This is why the best critiques are the ones that go against the belief of the author of the critiqued work. The person conducting the critique feels strongly in opposition to what the original author had to say and that shows up on the page. However, the problem I noticed during my time observing high school students is that many in the current “crop” are so filled with apathy that I wonder if any strong emotion is left, and if there is any left how do I bring it out?

Murray’s piece was interesting, and I find myself agreeing with a lot of what he is saying, however, I did not find myself as intrigued with him as I was with Graves or Rex. I like the break down, or elements of writing as Murray called it, but it just seemed obvious, at least for the first three. Although I would replace the arrogance he speaks of in Faith with paranoia, nothing better than paranoia to destroy a person’s faith in his or her writing.

As for Suhor, all I can do is quote and nod in approval. “Student response to artistic and literary texts takes second place to coverage of ground in a force march trough representative works or snippets from such works. Fascinating newer connections among disciplines … seldom seem to enter the syllabus” (337 – 338)