"Write" or Wrong

To back track a little bit and continue on with the discussion we previously had about why we write, I was very excited to see that the chapter in Smith's book that we were assigned to read was titled "Why Write?". My expectations for this chapter were very high as I expected it to solve all of our questions and help justify all the responses that we gave the other day in class. I must admit I was a bit disappointed though. Smith seems to have categorized writing into three basic categories: "The first reason for the persistence of writing is its evident utility as a tool for communication; it conveys information over time and space in a way not open to speech" (Smith 8). "The second general utility of writing is to provide a more or less permanent record, ranging from the accounts in a bookkeeper's ledger to histories and laws whose purpose is not so much to communicate as to institutionalize" (Smith 8). "And the third cultural value of writing is as art, the product of creativity: novels, poems, plays" (Smith 8). By minimizing the broad spectrum of writing into these three vague categories seems to almost belittle the process of writing. I prefer all the other explanations that we came up with in class. I believe someone said that we write because if we didn't, our heads would explode. This example gives the definition of writing life. It makes the definition very vivid almost giving it color and a three dimensional existence. Smith's definitions seem to be very traditional and very black and white. I'm not saying that I completely disagree with him because he does make sense, I think he should look at writing more as a feeling such as compassion more than such a text book answer. I feel that he attempts to achieve this goal or process by later on saying, "I think writing has a utility to all individuals, that anyone who does not write loses both power and potential, comparable to losing a limb or sight or hearing" (Smith 11). I think if he continued to explain writing more in this dramatic sense, that more of his audience would be able to grasp the seriousness of what writing is and how it affects our daily lives.

As far as the Hairston article, "The Winds of Change", I feel like I've been a little bit ripped off. When she refers to teachers teaching composition, I reflected back on all my high school teachers and wonder if they really knew what they were talking about. It makes me feel like my writing is lacking due to the insufficient training and development that secondary educators may have received. Hairston explains, "They are trained as literary critics first and as teachers of literature second, yet out of necessity most of them are doing half or more of their teaching in composition. And they teach it by the traditional paradigm, just as they did when they were untrained teaching assistants ten or twenty or forty years ago. Often they use a newer edition of the same book they used as teaching assistants" (Hairston 6). Here she is referring to college professors, but these exact same college professors are the ones who educated and enlightened our high school teachers. So, as I was saying, how do I know if I have been trained properly because of something my educators' educators were lacking. How do we really know what is considered to be "write" from wrong?

A very interesting point that Hairston brings up later in her article is that mistakes are necessary for the purpose of writing. Being a future educator, I find this very helpful in eliminating some future stress with my students. Mistakes are how writers grow and I can assist them in that process. She explains, "That basic writers write the way they do, not because they are slow or nonverbal, indifferent to or incapable of academic excellence, but because they are beginners and must, like all beginners, learn by making mistakes. . . And the keys to their development as writers often lie in the very features of their writing that English teachers have been trained to brush aside with a marginal code letter or a scribbled injunction to "Proofread!" Such strategies ram at the door of their incompetence while the keys that would open them lie in view. . . The work [of teaching these students to write] must be informed by an understanding not only of what is missing or awry, but of why this is so" (Hairston 10). I think this quote is very helpful in the process of becoming a teacher. We must understand that not all students are going to come "preprogrammed" with their writing skills perfected and with that understanding in mind we must be willing and able to help are students develop their skills rather than becoming frustrated and the only helpful information we give them is to proofread.

With this thought process in mind, we should also understand that sometimes writing just comes directly from a person's thought process. When most people think, there are thousands of possible thoughts going through their minds at one particular time. Students may simply need help to organize, after all according to Barbara Hardy, people are natural born story tellers. She says, "that human beings cannot keep from telling stories. Sleeping and waking we tell ourselves and each other the stories of our days: 'We mingle truths and falsehoods, not always quite knowing where one blends into the other. As we sleep we dream dreams from which we wake to remember, half-remember and almost remember, in forms that may be dislocated, dilapidated or deviant but are recognizably narrative. . . [Stories are the] autobiography we are all engaged in making and remaking, as long as we live, which we never complete, though we all know how it is going to end" (Tellers and Listeners, Athlone, 1975, 4). I absolutely fell in love with this quote. I think it makes a lot of sense and if we were to share this thought with are students, I think it would help them develop a creative writing piece. There are thousands of stories going through are head at one time, the difficult part is just writing them down.