What a relief!

Oh, how I wish someone had explained this to me earlier!
I'm beginning to think that it may indeed be possible to "teach" writing. It just can't be as pedantic as it was when I was "being taught" how to write.
The idea of a writing process comprised of semi-tangible, measurable phases is nothing new to me, but I was never permitted to personalize the process as Spandel suggests all writers have the right to do. In all of the English classes I can remember, everyone had to be on the same phase at the same time. Peer review was limited to one or two half-period sessions, and that was all the audience a student ever got for his piece before it was handed in to be scrutinized by the instructor. For me, the process has also been a little more fluid as Smith suggests it is in Chapter 8. I struggle with Smith's notion that the composition and transcription of a piece are separate and that composition must take precedent over transcription, which must always come last, because for me transcription (more specifically the process of word choice and grammar) is a major facet of composition. While I can see that treating these as two separate entities would be helpful for some writers, especially beginning writers, it is not conducive to the way in which I write. Smith seems to be arguing against the right of a writer to personalize the writing process.
While reading this weeks assignments, I was relieved to learn that just because I don't write as my teachers taught me, doesn't mean I'm doing it wrong. I can imagine how these principles and ideas have the potential to make it less burdensome for students who feel that they can not write. These reading were also the catalyst of a whirlwind of ideas for my future classrooms.