blog 1

Like Jackie, I too was expecting dull readings, but I have to say I was also pleasantly surprised. I really enjoyed the articles and learned more than I had ever expected to when I began the assignment. I was fascinated to learn that most professors and English teachers had little or no instruction in 'how to write' themselves. When I first began reading Hairston's article I thought the lack of writing expertise couldn't matter that much since English graduates do an awful lot of writing and reading anyhow. As I continued through the article I realized how specialized the art of writing itself is, and how it is a distinct aspect of the English language (and degree). I think Hairston did an excellent job using the paradigm shift theory and applying it to rhetorical theory, and I think she is absolutely correct. I had never previously compared the traditional paradigm with the more modern paradigm (probably because I didn't know they existed until I read the article), but I was very surprised to see such a contrast from one theory to the next. The two theories completely contradict each other and make the opposite theory null and void. The one question addressed in the chapter that Hairston briefly mentioned but failed to supply an adequate answer for (in my opinion) was the question of why this original paradigm worked for so long. I know she talked about open admissions, and students who did not pass graduating exams, but obviously this method worked for a number of people for quite some time. Is it that these "successful" writers were really using the modern paradigm and not questioning the traditional paradigm because they did not know of an alternative? Still thinking that one over.

I like Murphy's article in the WTL book too. I think stories carry great importance, whether written or passed on orally. I'm not 100% clear on the stories vs. case studies distinction the author was trying to make. Maybe rereading this in the morning will help to clarify.

While reading the WW chapter, I was glad to see that many of Smith's answers to the 'why write?' question were responses we came up with in class. I also found the chart on page 14 to be enlightening, and I guess I never realized all the alternative ways of communication that we have available to us instead of writing and speaking. I forgot the importance of non-verbal and non-language communication and I'm glad this chapter helped remind me of its importance. I was also glad Smith mentioned that writing is not always a positive thing, like when it is used to attack or discriminate someone else. That's what struck me while I was finishing the readings. From reading everyone else's posts it seems as if these writings prompted a lot of thought from the entire class.