Yes, but . . . do beginning writers need a formula before they are unleashed upon the unsuspecting readers? Now I suppose the writers for this week are addressing the older students and those older students would be allowed more of a freedom from the formula. I also understand that one must come up with their own ideas in order for the writings to be personal and to have the most value to them. So, do you allow the first graders to have the same amount of freedom as the 12th or do you even teach "writing" in first grade? I am not of the teaching curriculum so I really don't know.
I liked Ms. Spandel's line about teaching thinking not writing. It puts a whole different perspective upon what is "normal" in the classroom. The classes that were/are the most interesting and engaging to me are the ones that make me think. Not in the sense of thinking to memorize to regurgitate what I just read back to the teacher, but allows and expects exploration of the mind and my behaviours. This is what it appears is being allowed to slip away in OBE/NCLB type teaching. (Or so I hear. More info would be appreciated.) I took an Intro. to Music class as one of the first forays back into college. I did research on the disappearance of the arts from schools. It was not a wholesale loss, but as schools and districts concentrated on test scores the time spent on the arts diminished. Basically, if it was not math or science then it received less time in the classroom with art and music receiving the least. What happens to the student, or teacher for that matter, when you just teach for the test?
On the flip side of this discourse is the research paper. A standard writing class, I would think, would need to cover all the types of papers that a student might need to write. Are all these readings dealing with "creative" writing? Obviously no matter what you are writing the ideas have to be your own, it's just the matter of how you formulate. hah. Are we still following a formula when we endeavour to not follow a formula?
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Blog 4
My favorite quote that I came across in this weeks readings was in Smith's book on page 34 when he states "We cannot observe ourselves thinking, but we can observe the products of thought. And one of the most powerful tools for doing so is writing." I love this because we can't know what anyone is thinking even if we are sitting right beside them. People who write make an attempt to put themselves into a medium by which others can comprehend the whirlwind of sensations going on in their mind.
I also had to stop and think about distractions that were talked about in the other two books. In 9R, there is a quote on page 10 about real writers plunging right into their assignment and not staring at the ceiling. This is foolish because only about 10 percent of my writing process is putting words on a page. On monday when we had to write about the cow and the elephant it took me a few doodles, and day dreams to get started and I ended up pumping out three hand written pages which is a lot for me to push out by hand on a quick write. If I would have dove right in i know that i would have hit a wall within a page or two. Once i came up with a situation, the ideas just flowed. I think that the rate at which someone writes and the quantity of their writing do not reflect whether or not the writing is good.
Also writing with the tv or music on is great. It gets my mind going and also helps keep me in my chair for a longer period of time. I can't put on a movie or tv show i've never seen before and attempt to write because all my attention will go to that. but if i have a mood that i want to capture and i know a show or movie that expresses that mood or a similar mood extremely well i'll put it on to help me get in the zone. Sometimes i absolutely can't have a distraction and have to write in silence. There is all kinds of factors that go into my writing process and the process is never the same for anything that i write because i don't want any of my works to be copies of each other.
Also there is no one to blame for the deterioration of language other than those who do not communicate at all. It's not the media. they are simply a different style of communication.
I also had to stop and think about distractions that were talked about in the other two books. In 9R, there is a quote on page 10 about real writers plunging right into their assignment and not staring at the ceiling. This is foolish because only about 10 percent of my writing process is putting words on a page. On monday when we had to write about the cow and the elephant it took me a few doodles, and day dreams to get started and I ended up pumping out three hand written pages which is a lot for me to push out by hand on a quick write. If I would have dove right in i know that i would have hit a wall within a page or two. Once i came up with a situation, the ideas just flowed. I think that the rate at which someone writes and the quantity of their writing do not reflect whether or not the writing is good.
Also writing with the tv or music on is great. It gets my mind going and also helps keep me in my chair for a longer period of time. I can't put on a movie or tv show i've never seen before and attempt to write because all my attention will go to that. but if i have a mood that i want to capture and i know a show or movie that expresses that mood or a similar mood extremely well i'll put it on to help me get in the zone. Sometimes i absolutely can't have a distraction and have to write in silence. There is all kinds of factors that go into my writing process and the process is never the same for anything that i write because i don't want any of my works to be copies of each other.
Also there is no one to blame for the deterioration of language other than those who do not communicate at all. It's not the media. they are simply a different style of communication.
Blog 4
I agree with Sara, I wanted to throw my book out of the window and curse his name. I mean how much can he rant? As for TV being the decline in the English language, I disagree. I think the TV Popularizes common slang and other grammatical problems but the problem begins with ourselves. It seems like people are just to lazy to speak anymore. There are slang abbreviations for everything.
I think that we get much more of our language from our peers and teachers. The opinion about quiet space defiantly does not apply to me. Personally I can write anywhere, as long as I have Bob Dylan streaming through my Sennheiser headphones.
I think that we get much more of our language from our peers and teachers. The opinion about quiet space defiantly does not apply to me. Personally I can write anywhere, as long as I have Bob Dylan streaming through my Sennheiser headphones.
Insert witty title here
It seems that everyone is up in arms about the author's "blaming" television for the decline of the English language but I think we are missing the point. I believe that what Nelson was trying to say is that we are constantly bombarded with one way communication. Television and radio are a great means of communication and entertainment but they don't provide an outlet for our own voices. Nelson's message could have been clearer if he had simply said "Hey, turn off the t.v. and write something or talk to someone. Develop your voice."
The statement that Nelson makes that stood out the most in my mind has nothing to do with blaming the media for the decline of the English language but with the denial of teachers' part in the state of things. "But even though we English teachers are not the cause of the growing inarticulateness of America's youth, we could be a much greater part of the solution than we generally area" (321). What a cop out!! I know this is a cliche, and not necessarily one I agree with, but if your not part of the solution then you are a part of the problem. Education is the responsibility of the teachers, students, and oooooo even the parents. And if there are inadequacies in our education shouldn't we start by looking at these people and not start by blaming every outside influence first? Nelson seems to want to deny any personal responsibility teachers bare in the state of education while at the same time show us that he is one of the good teachers, that what he does in the classroom works. Don't get me wrong, I thought that activites mentioned in the article are great examples and maybe I am just bitter cause I am having a bad day but man-up and take some personal responsibility.
The statement that Nelson makes that stood out the most in my mind has nothing to do with blaming the media for the decline of the English language but with the denial of teachers' part in the state of things. "But even though we English teachers are not the cause of the growing inarticulateness of America's youth, we could be a much greater part of the solution than we generally area" (321). What a cop out!! I know this is a cliche, and not necessarily one I agree with, but if your not part of the solution then you are a part of the problem. Education is the responsibility of the teachers, students, and oooooo even the parents. And if there are inadequacies in our education shouldn't we start by looking at these people and not start by blaming every outside influence first? Nelson seems to want to deny any personal responsibility teachers bare in the state of education while at the same time show us that he is one of the good teachers, that what he does in the classroom works. Don't get me wrong, I thought that activites mentioned in the article are great examples and maybe I am just bitter cause I am having a bad day but man-up and take some personal responsibility.
Language Pollution
Nelson's chapter on "Bringing Language back to Life" was... well taxing. I wanted to scream in his face, "Yes, we get it."
Again, at least for me, Nelson was stating the obvious. We are surrounded with what Nelson called "Word Pollution." Its unavoidable. Media using this form of language as almost an attention getter for the population. The fact that we are so surrounded by it somewhat shows, well, it works. We are a fast paced society who doesn't have a lot of time for details. Having disk jockeys shout time, weather, and temperature is all we really have time for in our everyday lives. Sad, but true. As a society we have developed this type of vernacular out of convenience. I can not speak for everyone, but in the morning, I have time for the specifics, not a beautifully written, grammatically correct, oratory of the morning's happenings.
As for what Nelson said about "Deaden[ing] them to language" (322). That's a load of junk. There is just as much of a personal connection with the DJ on the radio as there is Deliah at night. Both have incredibly different ways in which they communicate; one that would be considered "pollution" and the other that could be considered "personal" but the effect remains the same. I do not agree tht students become blind and deaf to language. They just take a different level of it with them.
Again, at least for me, Nelson was stating the obvious. We are surrounded with what Nelson called "Word Pollution." Its unavoidable. Media using this form of language as almost an attention getter for the population. The fact that we are so surrounded by it somewhat shows, well, it works. We are a fast paced society who doesn't have a lot of time for details. Having disk jockeys shout time, weather, and temperature is all we really have time for in our everyday lives. Sad, but true. As a society we have developed this type of vernacular out of convenience. I can not speak for everyone, but in the morning, I have time for the specifics, not a beautifully written, grammatically correct, oratory of the morning's happenings.
As for what Nelson said about "Deaden[ing] them to language" (322). That's a load of junk. There is just as much of a personal connection with the DJ on the radio as there is Deliah at night. Both have incredibly different ways in which they communicate; one that would be considered "pollution" and the other that could be considered "personal" but the effect remains the same. I do not agree tht students become blind and deaf to language. They just take a different level of it with them.
Blog 4
I should start by saying that I have never been a huge fan of reading. And perhaps I'm going against the grain here, but the constant "noise" of my life is something that I take comfort in. Like Matt pointed out earlier, the difficult time spent looking inward can exposes "deep inner recesses", much the same as I felt writing our introductory paper. I would say it's more important to instill a comfort with reading in students, rather than a love. Some students, myself included, will never fully enjoy the task. For me, it took reading something that really hooked me in to catapult me into picking up a book on my own.
There has been a bit of technology bashing in these chapters we read for today. It seems as if the two cannot coexist. I think that rather than this view, the two can reinforce each other...if only in minor ways. While I do think that television has dumbed down some things, it also exposes the majority of watchers to ideas that may have otherwise never been stumbled upon.
While Jackie stresses a need for instilling a love of books, at least as I've taken here comments, to curb the persistent television watching, I think it's more a need for prioritizing...an idea that even I struggle with from time to time.
“It’s the twenty-first century for God’s sake. We don’t have time to focus" (9R, 5)
To that I'd say, yes we do...we invented TiVo didn't we?
There has been a bit of technology bashing in these chapters we read for today. It seems as if the two cannot coexist. I think that rather than this view, the two can reinforce each other...if only in minor ways. While I do think that television has dumbed down some things, it also exposes the majority of watchers to ideas that may have otherwise never been stumbled upon.
While Jackie stresses a need for instilling a love of books, at least as I've taken here comments, to curb the persistent television watching, I think it's more a need for prioritizing...an idea that even I struggle with from time to time.
“It’s the twenty-first century for God’s sake. We don’t have time to focus" (9R, 5)
To that I'd say, yes we do...we invented TiVo didn't we?
Headspace
Overloaded with language, eh? Sounds like the sort of thing we'd get out of Jean Baudrillard. Nelson makes an interesting point, yet I'm not quite sure that actual physical silence is the only (or even best) way to re-sensitize ourselves to our reflective capacity. Simply put "we must listen carefully to others' words (326, WTL)." That's all that's it. I think training ourselves to focus through the cacophony is an alternate method with merit. I personally find it difficult to sit in a quiet space and come up with anything. I study at the White Hill Cafe occasionally, and the overload works in my favor. With so many stimuli clamoring for my attention, I use the reflexive blocking out to push me into my book.
As for Smith, yes Erin, I loved it. He strikes at some of the irritating Semiology-worship I keep running into here at PSH. I get irritated by the proposal that we only think in language, and Smith's assertion that what we consider as 'thoughts in language' are actually thoughts translated INTO language is refreshing. Skating along the edge of Merleau-Ponty he gets very close to the non-reflective consciousness we are in most of our lives. Reflection is, after all, focussed on something already conceived or occurred. My only issue is with calling perception of phenomena thoughts. Why add the extra step? To say that the brainworld is isolated is just one way to describe things. I don't think it's any less reasonable to say that our senses are what pull us into the world we perceive, even if we don't all have the same point of view (in point of fact, none of us have THE SAME point of view).
As for Smith, yes Erin, I loved it. He strikes at some of the irritating Semiology-worship I keep running into here at PSH. I get irritated by the proposal that we only think in language, and Smith's assertion that what we consider as 'thoughts in language' are actually thoughts translated INTO language is refreshing. Skating along the edge of Merleau-Ponty he gets very close to the non-reflective consciousness we are in most of our lives. Reflection is, after all, focussed on something already conceived or occurred. My only issue is with calling perception of phenomena thoughts. Why add the extra step? To say that the brainworld is isolated is just one way to describe things. I don't think it's any less reasonable to say that our senses are what pull us into the world we perceive, even if we don't all have the same point of view (in point of fact, none of us have THE SAME point of view).
I................Blog ................Four
Smith and Graves, good cop bad cop, both are trying to get us to understand the same thing only using differing methods.
Smith has a lot to say but couched in a scholarly language that is often hard to decipher. I did like his image of the brain, floating in isolation, not sensing anything merely disseminating information to the rest of the body.
Nelson's essay is much more user friendly, easier to access. But I don't agree with her suggestion that we are losing our language skill through overexposure. I remember reading some research on TV and language in an ESL course this summer. The paper was trying to determine how much language skill kids pick up from television & other media. The research seems to indicate not much. What we get out of watching does not influence our language nearly as much as human voice--a teacher or parent. More exposure to artificial language does not equal more influence.
I think that TV, as several other of the class have said, is taking the place of reading and writing outside of school. I would think that for most kids text messaging is the only time they express themselves with writing out of the classroom. This has to have its consequences on their language. Reflective thought goes into writing a thank you letter but little reflection would go into a thank you e-mail I would think. Reflection is replaced by speed and conveinence.
9 Rights always a good read. "A mind freed is a powerful thing. A mind buffeted from all sides must spend most of its energy defending the fortress of inner tranquility that is essential to a writer's survival." Great stuff! How can I not be inspired,--I want to use this stuff in the classroom.
Smith has a lot to say but couched in a scholarly language that is often hard to decipher. I did like his image of the brain, floating in isolation, not sensing anything merely disseminating information to the rest of the body.
Nelson's essay is much more user friendly, easier to access. But I don't agree with her suggestion that we are losing our language skill through overexposure. I remember reading some research on TV and language in an ESL course this summer. The paper was trying to determine how much language skill kids pick up from television & other media. The research seems to indicate not much. What we get out of watching does not influence our language nearly as much as human voice--a teacher or parent. More exposure to artificial language does not equal more influence.
I think that TV, as several other of the class have said, is taking the place of reading and writing outside of school. I would think that for most kids text messaging is the only time they express themselves with writing out of the classroom. This has to have its consequences on their language. Reflective thought goes into writing a thank you letter but little reflection would go into a thank you e-mail I would think. Reflection is replaced by speed and conveinence.
9 Rights always a good read. "A mind freed is a powerful thing. A mind buffeted from all sides must spend most of its energy defending the fortress of inner tranquility that is essential to a writer's survival." Great stuff! How can I not be inspired,--I want to use this stuff in the classroom.
Blog 4 (Where is my mind?)
My alarm this morning was set to the tune of Where Is My Mind by the Pixies. There couldn't be a more perfect prelude to my day. On that note, here are my insights into the readings.
The Spandel was read first, and as usual, I found it to be a chore to get through. Her call to the wild was nothing new, not even in our readings (that estuary in WTL is looking much better), and sucked a good amount of the motivation I need so much right now out of me. It felt a bit like a rambling account of several personal experiences. BUT, to avoid being a complete naysayer, I went back and found some points that I liked. The foremost of which was "if we wish to encourage reflective thought, we must stop equating thinking with busy-ness." (10) I couldn't agree more, but to go beyond that, I also resent all forms of calculating intelligence. Grades do not make intelligence. Memorization is not worth testing. At the heart of all of this resentment is the way people try to force you to think in certain ways. Thinking is freedom, one we can keep or let out, and no person should tell you how to do it. (Unless you are a physicist or a mathematician... but I digress.)
I was happy to move on to the Smith. He went into philosophizing about the thinking behind the writing, a point which had to be salvaged from the Spandel chapter. (In my opinion) The statement that really wanted to make me raise my lighter was "writing does more than reflect underlying thought, it liberates and develops it." (35) Hell yes. That's going onto my Facebook as one of my new favorite quotes. He followed that up soon after with "No one can censure us for making a mental mistake. In the arena of imagination we have a freedom to hypothesize, to test and to explore consequences that is rarely available to us in the outside world." (36) I grew up as a somewhat solitary kid, largely spending my time imagining. One of my mother's favorite memories of this was that every time we go into a car when I was a child, I'd sit quietly staring out of the window, and If she'd try to talk to me I would say "Shh, I'm imagining." That intense need for imagining corresponded with an intense love of reading that developed into an appreciation of writing and a will to write. It took a lot of time to understand language better, to improve my prose, and I am still far from what I'd call "good". More than anything, I had to learn to accept, and even more so, appreciate the criticism of the work that came from my imagination. For me, it's my most valuable writing tool. Where am I going with this?- Don't know! In any case, I loved the Smith piece, it was full of interesting philosophizing.
The piece by Craig T., I mean, G. Lynn Nelson, didn't rile me as much as it did to some other classmates, but I was not in agreement with it. Firstly, blaming every problem with proving that you are a proficient writer on media is ridiculous. Many intelligent people watch lots of television and listen to tons of music. For some, it is a major distractor that keeps there interest that could be in language elsewhere, but that's their choice. Not everyone needs to be a linguist. Most insulting was her resolute statement "and so their sensitivity for language dies, and a part of them dies with it." (322) I don't quite feel people's skill with language should be put to death, but maybe put to sleep with the possibility that it might not wake up again. Her steps to encouraging writing were ridiculously basic, and I resented her interpretation of "publishing", because sharing your piece in a workshop and having it sent to the press is quite different.
So, after expressing my disorganized thoughts, here are my final words.
Your head will collapse
If there's nothing in it
And you'll ask yourself
Where is my mind.
Okay, they aren't my words, but I can relate.
The Spandel was read first, and as usual, I found it to be a chore to get through. Her call to the wild was nothing new, not even in our readings (that estuary in WTL is looking much better), and sucked a good amount of the motivation I need so much right now out of me. It felt a bit like a rambling account of several personal experiences. BUT, to avoid being a complete naysayer, I went back and found some points that I liked. The foremost of which was "if we wish to encourage reflective thought, we must stop equating thinking with busy-ness." (10) I couldn't agree more, but to go beyond that, I also resent all forms of calculating intelligence. Grades do not make intelligence. Memorization is not worth testing. At the heart of all of this resentment is the way people try to force you to think in certain ways. Thinking is freedom, one we can keep or let out, and no person should tell you how to do it. (Unless you are a physicist or a mathematician... but I digress.)
I was happy to move on to the Smith. He went into philosophizing about the thinking behind the writing, a point which had to be salvaged from the Spandel chapter. (In my opinion) The statement that really wanted to make me raise my lighter was "writing does more than reflect underlying thought, it liberates and develops it." (35) Hell yes. That's going onto my Facebook as one of my new favorite quotes. He followed that up soon after with "No one can censure us for making a mental mistake. In the arena of imagination we have a freedom to hypothesize, to test and to explore consequences that is rarely available to us in the outside world." (36) I grew up as a somewhat solitary kid, largely spending my time imagining. One of my mother's favorite memories of this was that every time we go into a car when I was a child, I'd sit quietly staring out of the window, and If she'd try to talk to me I would say "Shh, I'm imagining." That intense need for imagining corresponded with an intense love of reading that developed into an appreciation of writing and a will to write. It took a lot of time to understand language better, to improve my prose, and I am still far from what I'd call "good". More than anything, I had to learn to accept, and even more so, appreciate the criticism of the work that came from my imagination. For me, it's my most valuable writing tool. Where am I going with this?- Don't know! In any case, I loved the Smith piece, it was full of interesting philosophizing.
The piece by Craig T., I mean, G. Lynn Nelson, didn't rile me as much as it did to some other classmates, but I was not in agreement with it. Firstly, blaming every problem with proving that you are a proficient writer on media is ridiculous. Many intelligent people watch lots of television and listen to tons of music. For some, it is a major distractor that keeps there interest that could be in language elsewhere, but that's their choice. Not everyone needs to be a linguist. Most insulting was her resolute statement "and so their sensitivity for language dies, and a part of them dies with it." (322) I don't quite feel people's skill with language should be put to death, but maybe put to sleep with the possibility that it might not wake up again. Her steps to encouraging writing were ridiculously basic, and I resented her interpretation of "publishing", because sharing your piece in a workshop and having it sent to the press is quite different.
So, after expressing my disorganized thoughts, here are my final words.
Your head will collapse
If there's nothing in it
And you'll ask yourself
Where is my mind.
Okay, they aren't my words, but I can relate.
Blog 4
Chapter 1, 9R: "...we fear silence. In the quiet, we are left with ourselves. And in our culture, there is deep fear of being alone" (4). I can relate. Some nights, I think myself to sleep in no time. Other nights, I eventually have to turn the TV on in order to turn my mind off. I also agreed with the idea of teachers modeling their own need for quiet time to write. If students see their teacher participating in an activity along with them, it automatically becomes more important than an assignment that's good enough for the students but not for the teacher. I also think it's important for teachers to read aloud, not just to younger students and not just in English class. My eighth-grade algebra teacher read us Lois Lowry's "The Giver" whenever we had extra time at the end of class, and most days, we worked hard enough to make sure we'd have extra time. I think it does allow students "to mentally stretch out" (8).
Chapter 4, WW: Was it just me, or did Smith take eight pages to make a point, and not a very interesting one, at that? If I didn't have to read this for class, there's no way I would have made it that far.
Nelson, WTL: It's so true that the English teacher, or any teacher for that matter, always gets blamed. "...Jane and Johnny are not our offspring - they are the children of an entire culture in the process of change" (321). Can we just pass this out to parents? I thought the image of words as pollution was a strong one. The idea of the personal journal (324) goes along with the idea that students must care about what they write first before it becomes a piece of public writing. I liked the idea of encouraging students to "write small" (325) to keep them from being too intimidated or overwhelmed by writing. I also liked the thank-you note suggestion (326). I think students would appreciate the feedback, and I think they would find themselves connected to their classmates on a more personal level, especially classmates they might not interact with outside of class.
Chapter 4, WW: Was it just me, or did Smith take eight pages to make a point, and not a very interesting one, at that? If I didn't have to read this for class, there's no way I would have made it that far.
Nelson, WTL: It's so true that the English teacher, or any teacher for that matter, always gets blamed. "...Jane and Johnny are not our offspring - they are the children of an entire culture in the process of change" (321). Can we just pass this out to parents? I thought the image of words as pollution was a strong one. The idea of the personal journal (324) goes along with the idea that students must care about what they write first before it becomes a piece of public writing. I liked the idea of encouraging students to "write small" (325) to keep them from being too intimidated or overwhelmed by writing. I also liked the thank-you note suggestion (326). I think students would appreciate the feedback, and I think they would find themselves connected to their classmates on a more personal level, especially classmates they might not interact with outside of class.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
To TV or Not TV
How can somehow not have an opinion on the current state of television, vast waste land or entertainment buffet? Clearly with the way things are going with cable and satellite TV we as the viewer are offered more and more options for consumption. I may be a pseudo-writer of sorts and should have a preference for the written word over visual stimulation but I cannot lie that I love my TV. In fact recently when our house was hit by lightning and fried two TVs and numerous other electronic devices (no surge protectors), I had the opportunity to get a new TV. I decided that this was time, the age of HDTV and LCDs is on my horizon; I wanted to enhance my viewing, not bury my face in books. TV has to be the easiest escape available and yes it does connect us to the outside world. It seems as if every possible channel is available to stimulate your every mood or hankering. This is far from the overriding theme of the chapter but I just want to say that I love my 42 inches of eye candy. After work and school who wants to be a long thinker? Is long thinking an acquired trait through keen conditioning or are individuals born with it? I hope I am not eroding my creativity away with each episode of Deadwood or Entourage that I watch.
I certainly understand from a teachers or parents perspective that television does not foster as much thinking than say through experience or reading. Visual evidence tends to be easier than allowing your mind to figure it through. TV is certainly useful for its convenience, but it has a lot to be desired in its ability to fertilizing a young mind into a plentiful crop. And you know as I write this I feel a little intellectually shameful of my love of TV, I promise to redeem my sins through my children. More books, less TV, I will try. F the Wiggles bring on Dahl and Silverstein.
I do agree that discovery will cultivate reflective thinking due to the opinion that the greater amount of “things” that can be experienced will be like bullets in the gun of creative writing. Reflective thinking is much more profound and deep than what our brains do when we watch Grey’s Anatomy or just told how to do something. Reflection is powerful, think of all the times we drift off in boredom from what is presented in the forefront only to visiting incredible places in our mind. Good writers can harness that place in their mind and translate it onto paper and express so many “things” with words that their mind has discovered.
I would say that reflective thinking and imaginative thinking is probably fairly comparable. Smith discusses the importance of imagination in writing and I believe in its effectiveness to sometimes trump the blocks that come along. Imagination allows you the writer to consider different methods that allow the idea floodgate to open or at least produce some water to get by on. And despite the interesting factor of Chandler’s study, most writers, academic or beginning are not alike in their approach; to succeed one must be equipped with a healthy, imaginative mind.
"They who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only by night." - Edgar Allan Poe
I certainly understand from a teachers or parents perspective that television does not foster as much thinking than say through experience or reading. Visual evidence tends to be easier than allowing your mind to figure it through. TV is certainly useful for its convenience, but it has a lot to be desired in its ability to fertilizing a young mind into a plentiful crop. And you know as I write this I feel a little intellectually shameful of my love of TV, I promise to redeem my sins through my children. More books, less TV, I will try. F the Wiggles bring on Dahl and Silverstein.
I do agree that discovery will cultivate reflective thinking due to the opinion that the greater amount of “things” that can be experienced will be like bullets in the gun of creative writing. Reflective thinking is much more profound and deep than what our brains do when we watch Grey’s Anatomy or just told how to do something. Reflection is powerful, think of all the times we drift off in boredom from what is presented in the forefront only to visiting incredible places in our mind. Good writers can harness that place in their mind and translate it onto paper and express so many “things” with words that their mind has discovered.
I would say that reflective thinking and imaginative thinking is probably fairly comparable. Smith discusses the importance of imagination in writing and I believe in its effectiveness to sometimes trump the blocks that come along. Imagination allows you the writer to consider different methods that allow the idea floodgate to open or at least produce some water to get by on. And despite the interesting factor of Chandler’s study, most writers, academic or beginning are not alike in their approach; to succeed one must be equipped with a healthy, imaginative mind.
"They who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only by night." - Edgar Allan Poe
Coach yourself
In Chapter 1 of The 9 Rights of Every Writer, Vicki Spandel writes about the importance of silence, of reflection, of deep thinking. I agree with her that this practice is an asset to anyone and that it is becoming a lost art. My great-grandfather used to fall asleep while working on crossword puzzles. His crosswords naps would typically not last more than five minutes. When he would wake, he would immediately begin to fill in an answer without even needing to re-acclimate himself. I always considered these naps to be his reflective times. The brain, isolated from the business happening around him was able to breath, consider, ponder.
I also agree that there is nothing quite as great as the smell of a book, especially of an old book. (I too am a sniffer, Christine, as was my father before me.)
However, I do not agree with Spandel’s assessment that only “real” books provide encouragement to reflect. Spandel’s attitude reminds me of the attitude taken so many times by the establishment. There is nothing intrinsically inferior about newer technology that places it in a lower rung of culture. (I imagine people took much the same stance when books began to replace scrolls.) Any material thing can be misused or mistreated but that does not make the thing itself bad. We too often condemn what we do not understand or are not comfortable with. I would be greatly saddened to see the demise of books, but Spandel has made an idol of books. The point of books is not the object themselves but the wisdom, creativity, challenges, and inspiration contained in and elicited by the text. Reflection is encouraged by the text, not by the book.
One thing that Smith said in Chapter 4 of Writing and the Writer leapt off the page. “… By writing we find out what we know, what we think. Writing is an extremely efficient way of gaining access to that knowledge that we cannot explore directly. It is more efficient than speaking in many respects because of its relative permanence and because we can stand back and examine it as an independent entity.” This has been true for me. Not only this but writing is how I learn. I think this passage brings some light to Smith’s whole premise of we don’t know how we know what things mean or why we even thought of it in the first place. Or not. I think Smith just might understand the art of being reflective.
I am conflicted about the Nelson piece. On the one hand I think that many people have become desensitized to language or perhaps rather that we have in some ways emasculated language. On the other hand I do not believe that language is dead, I see a vibrant activity to language; nouns have become verbs, adjectives have morphed into one another creating entirely new words, people take notice of poetically phrased texts. I think Nelson’s point may be a conglomeration of Spandel’s and Smith’s theses, with a little of his own thrown in.
Just a side note: Writing a thank you note to classmates seems a little bit too touchy feely for my tastes.
Another side note: Since I have never heard of G. Lynn Nelson I kept picturing Craig T. Nelson while reading.
I also agree that there is nothing quite as great as the smell of a book, especially of an old book. (I too am a sniffer, Christine, as was my father before me.)
However, I do not agree with Spandel’s assessment that only “real” books provide encouragement to reflect. Spandel’s attitude reminds me of the attitude taken so many times by the establishment. There is nothing intrinsically inferior about newer technology that places it in a lower rung of culture. (I imagine people took much the same stance when books began to replace scrolls.) Any material thing can be misused or mistreated but that does not make the thing itself bad. We too often condemn what we do not understand or are not comfortable with. I would be greatly saddened to see the demise of books, but Spandel has made an idol of books. The point of books is not the object themselves but the wisdom, creativity, challenges, and inspiration contained in and elicited by the text. Reflection is encouraged by the text, not by the book.
One thing that Smith said in Chapter 4 of Writing and the Writer leapt off the page. “… By writing we find out what we know, what we think. Writing is an extremely efficient way of gaining access to that knowledge that we cannot explore directly. It is more efficient than speaking in many respects because of its relative permanence and because we can stand back and examine it as an independent entity.” This has been true for me. Not only this but writing is how I learn. I think this passage brings some light to Smith’s whole premise of we don’t know how we know what things mean or why we even thought of it in the first place. Or not. I think Smith just might understand the art of being reflective.
I am conflicted about the Nelson piece. On the one hand I think that many people have become desensitized to language or perhaps rather that we have in some ways emasculated language. On the other hand I do not believe that language is dead, I see a vibrant activity to language; nouns have become verbs, adjectives have morphed into one another creating entirely new words, people take notice of poetically phrased texts. I think Nelson’s point may be a conglomeration of Spandel’s and Smith’s theses, with a little of his own thrown in.
Just a side note: Writing a thank you note to classmates seems a little bit too touchy feely for my tastes.
Another side note: Since I have never heard of G. Lynn Nelson I kept picturing Craig T. Nelson while reading.
TV watchers, raise your hands...
I'm amused that as I was going over this week's readings for a second time, I was also listening to the season premiere of "NCIS" and then an episode of "Eureka". I'm one of those people who, every fall, makes a list of what tv shows they plan to watch and then only end up watching half. Or twice that, depending on the quality and my attention span. I spend at least half my day on a computer with internet access (though that also includes my job), and although I only use my cell phone for emergencies, I compulsively check my e-mail every few hours. There was a time when I watched at least two hours of newscasts a day, on four different channels.
I agree with Spandel, that we have too many distractions these days. I went on a week-long road trip with my family the past summer. My parents, my brother and I, all in one car, traveling to what amounted to nine or ten states. At first, I thought I was going to wither away without internet access for that long, without my connection to the outside world. But somewhere inside day 2, I realized that this WAS the outside world. A sunset over Lake Erie, with oranges, reds, purples, and blues layering over what felt like an endless expanse of water. Niagara Falls with its rushing water, spilling endlessly into the river below. Tourist trap? Sure, but there were places without people around, to sit and reflect on how insignificant we humans seem compared to something that's been there for years and years. Vermont and New Hampshire, with their endless expanse of forests. A rocky beach in Maine. A sandy beach in Rhode Island that I swore I'd seen before in a nightmare. The reflection on this experience is still taking place, and I hope to share that with my students someday, that there is so much in this world to write about, to use as inspiration if you only go outside and soak it up.
Switching topics now... In broadcast journalism, you're taught to write things at an eighth (formerly fifth) grade level. You're basically dumbing down stories and information so it can be understood by a wide variety of people. But at the same time, I think we're also limiting people's exposure to language.
I enjoyed how Nelson gave us strategies to pull into our own classrooms and even our own lives. When was the last time you sat for five minutes and just breathed?
I agree with Spandel, that we have too many distractions these days. I went on a week-long road trip with my family the past summer. My parents, my brother and I, all in one car, traveling to what amounted to nine or ten states. At first, I thought I was going to wither away without internet access for that long, without my connection to the outside world. But somewhere inside day 2, I realized that this WAS the outside world. A sunset over Lake Erie, with oranges, reds, purples, and blues layering over what felt like an endless expanse of water. Niagara Falls with its rushing water, spilling endlessly into the river below. Tourist trap? Sure, but there were places without people around, to sit and reflect on how insignificant we humans seem compared to something that's been there for years and years. Vermont and New Hampshire, with their endless expanse of forests. A rocky beach in Maine. A sandy beach in Rhode Island that I swore I'd seen before in a nightmare. The reflection on this experience is still taking place, and I hope to share that with my students someday, that there is so much in this world to write about, to use as inspiration if you only go outside and soak it up.
Switching topics now... In broadcast journalism, you're taught to write things at an eighth (formerly fifth) grade level. You're basically dumbing down stories and information so it can be understood by a wide variety of people. But at the same time, I think we're also limiting people's exposure to language.
I enjoyed how Nelson gave us strategies to pull into our own classrooms and even our own lives. When was the last time you sat for five minutes and just breathed?
Blog 4
The first time we were reading Nine Rights... I was really digging it, not so much this time. I really didn't care about her experiences in the wilderness. Maybe it's just because I'm sick or whatever. I was scanning a lot to find things that were relevant to a classroom. One of the things that she said that I agree with is to slow down the pace of dialogue.
I liked her examples of types of teachers. We've all have those teachers that don't give you enough time to answer their question or the others who think that busyness is writing. She writes, "Many writers... are notorious starers and thinkers." I don't stare when I'm beginning to write, but what I do is pace, so I understand what she's talking about
Okay, I thought reading chapter 4 of the Smith book was extremely painful. Ray probably really enjoyed it, I did not.
I like that Nelson's article had strategies that we could use in our own classrooms. I think that writing thank you notes is a great idea in a classroom. The writer gets more than a "great job" on their paper by the teacher; they know that their story affected their readers personally.
I liked her examples of types of teachers. We've all have those teachers that don't give you enough time to answer their question or the others who think that busyness is writing. She writes, "Many writers... are notorious starers and thinkers." I don't stare when I'm beginning to write, but what I do is pace, so I understand what she's talking about
Okay, I thought reading chapter 4 of the Smith book was extremely painful. Ray probably really enjoyed it, I did not.
I like that Nelson's article had strategies that we could use in our own classrooms. I think that writing thank you notes is a great idea in a classroom. The writer gets more than a "great job" on their paper by the teacher; they know that their story affected their readers personally.
Hi, my name is Christine and I'm a sniffer...
Ok...I'm getting a little bored with the hum-drum routine of writing for the teacher so that she knows I did the readings. If I'm blogging, I apparently did at least some of it and my real point is that I do need to write from the heart. Not force out tid-bits of summary (oh, sorry, my "viewpoints")by covering it up with my own words. If I was to do that with this weeks readings, none of you would be able to fit your blogs on this page. So, now that I've done you the honor of saving you some page space, we can now get on with the real motivator this week: my addiciton to sniffing books.
Sniff, sniff, sniff...Mmmmm...How I've always loved the smell of books. And how I always thought I was the only one who actually did. Apparently, this is not true. I am so extremely elated by Spandel's view of why current media will never replace books as an entertaining/learning experience (and she sniffs!) I've been fighting this concept for years with my friends, peers, family, children, etc., who all seem to feel that video games, t.v., and the internet are by far the more entertaining of the two. Spandel's right...How fast do we need to train our children to think? The "schizophrenic technology" (made by our hands) has indeed "turned impatience and restless disengagement into normal states of mind." How very sad and how very true. My kids have become the product of this truth.
For years, I have been trying to find the words to express why books are so much better and why we will always need them. Needless to say, I failed. Young impressionable minds have been asking me since I was a child (especially those who detest books and ughh--reading)about the possibility of books becoming obsolete and why I love to read. I could have used this book at that moment. After I sniffed it first to check for freshness, I would have pointed out that "books save most of us". This is so true. It saved me from hell and I could share this horror, but not with a child who asked me for a much less complicated answer. I would say that indeed, "they develop our imaginations and our ability to think" (6), because it allows us to "curl our legs under a cozy blanket" (8) and feel the tangible (smelly) object in our hands. You can't scratch and sniff the internet (sorry, on a tangent), nor can you take it with you, everywhere you go (I'm sorry users, but computers really can't go everywhere that a book can and I can argue the point if you like). I love looking at how many pages are left to my excitement or demise, and I get a chill thrill at turning the pages and feeling my success as a reader--page by page as I near the end. The Internet (yes I do love that too) cannot cuddle with me on a cold and blistery day, while I watch the fire burning in the hearth (or the t.v. yule log) and relax to my favorite relaxation music--soft jazz, Singers and Standards, Loreena McKennitt or Enya. A book can shut, but will never shut down and I can use bookmarks to quickly retrieve my page. I do correlate the smell of books with the smell of coffee, but I'll settle for just the books in their "peace and anticipation". I think you get the point.
More importantly, we need to emphasize to our students that reading quiets the mind. And I can't emphasize enough the importance of quieting our minds in this rat-race we call life today. Yes, with our complicated and sometimes difficult lives, it could take a while to master this procedure. However, it can be achieved in the right environment. We need to slow down in the classrooms as well, giving them an opportunity to "long-think" about what they're reading, writing and speaking. If you can't give them ample time to answer the damn question, don't ask it! No wonder why they find talking as a crime in the classroom to get away with, when talking is hardly ever allowed. I get phone calls frequently from my children's teachers about this. As if it were in fact, a crime to want to get to know your fellow classmates. Rules are meant to be broken aren't they? Yet, reading is somehow the new form of punishment, like writing was and still is. O.k., so no more reading (I used to hide my books from the teacher), no more talking, no more writing (especially if it does not pertain to your boring class notes!)...What next? No more showing up for school?
Maybe I am getting too far-fetched, as Jim would say...But really, how far can these teachers push these kids? I don't give two-shits about policy (yeah, I know, I just hung myself as a teacher, right?) or curriculums or anything else. God help the school district that awards me tenure...I want my students to enjoy learning and I rarely see a face that does anymore. I don't know if it's a coincidence or not, but since I've taken this class, I've heard "I hate school", "I hate writing" and "I hate reading", more times than I care to digest. Yet, I always find a cheap thrill in telling some seventh grader that my drug of choice is sniffing. I then give them a demonstration. With my new-found words of wisdom, I can now also give an explanation as to why I'm addicted to books--I mean, sniffing. Hopefully, an explanation that will addict them for life.
Sniff, sniff, sniff...Mmmmm...How I've always loved the smell of books. And how I always thought I was the only one who actually did. Apparently, this is not true. I am so extremely elated by Spandel's view of why current media will never replace books as an entertaining/learning experience (and she sniffs!) I've been fighting this concept for years with my friends, peers, family, children, etc., who all seem to feel that video games, t.v., and the internet are by far the more entertaining of the two. Spandel's right...How fast do we need to train our children to think? The "schizophrenic technology" (made by our hands) has indeed "turned impatience and restless disengagement into normal states of mind." How very sad and how very true. My kids have become the product of this truth.
For years, I have been trying to find the words to express why books are so much better and why we will always need them. Needless to say, I failed. Young impressionable minds have been asking me since I was a child (especially those who detest books and ughh--reading)about the possibility of books becoming obsolete and why I love to read. I could have used this book at that moment. After I sniffed it first to check for freshness, I would have pointed out that "books save most of us". This is so true. It saved me from hell and I could share this horror, but not with a child who asked me for a much less complicated answer. I would say that indeed, "they develop our imaginations and our ability to think" (6), because it allows us to "curl our legs under a cozy blanket" (8) and feel the tangible (smelly) object in our hands. You can't scratch and sniff the internet (sorry, on a tangent), nor can you take it with you, everywhere you go (I'm sorry users, but computers really can't go everywhere that a book can and I can argue the point if you like). I love looking at how many pages are left to my excitement or demise, and I get a chill thrill at turning the pages and feeling my success as a reader--page by page as I near the end. The Internet (yes I do love that too) cannot cuddle with me on a cold and blistery day, while I watch the fire burning in the hearth (or the t.v. yule log) and relax to my favorite relaxation music--soft jazz, Singers and Standards, Loreena McKennitt or Enya. A book can shut, but will never shut down and I can use bookmarks to quickly retrieve my page. I do correlate the smell of books with the smell of coffee, but I'll settle for just the books in their "peace and anticipation". I think you get the point.
More importantly, we need to emphasize to our students that reading quiets the mind. And I can't emphasize enough the importance of quieting our minds in this rat-race we call life today. Yes, with our complicated and sometimes difficult lives, it could take a while to master this procedure. However, it can be achieved in the right environment. We need to slow down in the classrooms as well, giving them an opportunity to "long-think" about what they're reading, writing and speaking. If you can't give them ample time to answer the damn question, don't ask it! No wonder why they find talking as a crime in the classroom to get away with, when talking is hardly ever allowed. I get phone calls frequently from my children's teachers about this. As if it were in fact, a crime to want to get to know your fellow classmates. Rules are meant to be broken aren't they? Yet, reading is somehow the new form of punishment, like writing was and still is. O.k., so no more reading (I used to hide my books from the teacher), no more talking, no more writing (especially if it does not pertain to your boring class notes!)...What next? No more showing up for school?
Maybe I am getting too far-fetched, as Jim would say...But really, how far can these teachers push these kids? I don't give two-shits about policy (yeah, I know, I just hung myself as a teacher, right?) or curriculums or anything else. God help the school district that awards me tenure...I want my students to enjoy learning and I rarely see a face that does anymore. I don't know if it's a coincidence or not, but since I've taken this class, I've heard "I hate school", "I hate writing" and "I hate reading", more times than I care to digest. Yet, I always find a cheap thrill in telling some seventh grader that my drug of choice is sniffing. I then give them a demonstration. With my new-found words of wisdom, I can now also give an explanation as to why I'm addicted to books--I mean, sniffing. Hopefully, an explanation that will addict them for life.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Blog 04 - Rant
If there is one thing that I believe more than anything else in my life as an English major is that most people in this profession are pompous, self-involved, delusional little people who are so far removed from the real world that when they attempt to interact with it they fail. Instead of blaming their own self-involved state however, these people tend to blame the world for their failure, and denounce the world’s worth as being “too low” or “in decline” or “inadequate” if they are feeling especially verbal. I thought this as I read the Nelson article in the WTL (321-327), and could do nothing but shake my head as I learned the “theory” as to why language is supposedly degrading. Typical, is all I have to say, utterly typical to denounce the mass media, the entertainment of the masses, because, of course, the masses are unwashed peasants who are completely devoid of any proper learning. To be honest, the day that I, as a teacher, begin to act like this is the day I hope someone has the courage to tell me to get out. Yes, I sound mean; I understand that, however, the statement is wrong. Too much language is not, let me repeat that, is not the reason for the supposed degradation of language. Language evolves and changes, what we consider modern French is nothing more then the evolution of gutter Latin, spoken by the poor yokels on the outskirts of the Roman Empire. What we speak now is nothing more than a streamlined (and dare I say it) “dumbed down” version of the English language spoken a little over a hundred years ago. Language isn’t decaying, isn’t dying, isn’t being deluded, it’s changing. Changing in the natural way that language changes, and to deny that change, to attempt to force language into a state of suspension will cause more damage then letting that language evolve naturally.
Bruce Lee once said that a person should be “like water” fluid, changing, adapting, at once giving (not in the way of gifts but in the way of boards that “give” under too much weight), and firm. That has always been my person philosophy when it comes to teaching, and I don’t think it will change anytime soon. However, if I were to change my personal philosophy I would change it to “be like the loon.” Believe it or not this has to due with the readings. Spandel says, when relating her love and experiences at the Boundary Waters, that the “loons are the most patient of teachers. They are undaunted by fear, by reluctance, by initial lack of skill” (2). So, if you can not be like water then be like the loon, my friend. I wonder though as I read the Spandel chapter if what she is saying is possible connected to what Nelson was saying. Obviously, technology is the enemy in both pieces, but Spandel does not blame it for destroying language, for being a harbinger of stupidity and illiteracy. No, instead Spandel says, and quite truly, that the bombardment of all the information currently available can suffocate a person, and that we, as a race, need quiet tranquility to be able to access our deepest thoughts and emotions. This I can get behind, saying technology and mass culture is an evil pariah hell-bent on twisting, polluting and perverting the ancient institution of language is, however, idiocy.
Keeping with the 9 Rights book I would like to talk about the idea of what Spendel called a “voyageur trek.” In many Japanese schools a class (by class I mean like the 9th grade class) will do something called nature studies. This is usually a week to two week period were the student body and their teachers go, for lack of a better term, camping. During this time they have actual formal nature studies, learning about the land, animals, plants, and the geographic history of the area, but they are also given time to commune with nature. That is to take in the wilderness around them, to let it absorb into them, and feel at once part of the ancient world, and to revitalize something primal in the human spirit. Why something like this is not possible in the United States I don’t know. Something tells me however it has to due with test scores and the like, for that I would just like to remind everyone that Japan kicks our collective butts in testing.
The Smith chapter was … interesting. To be honest, I never gave much thought into, well, thought. Thinking is just something a person does in my opinion; we can train ourselves to think in certain matters. Unfortunately, the Smith chapter has caused my brain to fry itself this late at night, and I find that I really have nothing profound, or nifty, or even interesting to say about it. So, I leave this blog post with quotes!
“Why do we associate ignorance with stupidity, and value dogma over doubt? Would our institutions crumble if we admitted that there were fundamental uncertainties in our lives?” (Smith 29)
“I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.” (Socrates)
“And the moral of the story is: Everything we due is ultimately pointless to the flow of time.” (Me, I added it because I like it)
Blog 4
In Writing, Teaching, Learning, G. Lynn Nelson points out the fact that starting in early childhood, we all are exposed to an endless stream of words in our everyday lives. Rather than improving our control over words, it instead deadens us to language. I thought it was very easy to make a comparison between this statement and one in Chapter 1 of The 9 Rights of Every Writer in which Vicki Spandel discusses our compulsion to feel dialed up all the time.
Strangely enough, I recently wrote a personal essay for my writing portfolio about America’s obsession with technology. In this essay, I discussed a recent family reunion at Red Top, a lake-ringed, lush-forested state park far away from the bustle of Atlanta, Georgia. For seventy-two hours, we could not rely on television, CD players, or other distractions. Instead, all attendees of all ages had the opportunity to walk in the woods, eat watermelon for competition, and participate in a sing-along. From this experience, along with my three summers spent performing in the beautiful mountains of Vermont, I can easily relate to Spandel’s realization. She says that “a week in the Boundary Waters would be, for many students, more useful preparation for writing – or writing assessment – than many of the frenzied drills and practice we feel we must provide. A mind freed is a powerful thing.”
It is so important that we all give ourselves time to be alone with our own thoughts. For this reason, I loved Nelson’s recommendations to counter the chaotic culture in which we live. The processes of silent writing to quiet music and of using breathing exercises were very refreshing to me. At the start of acting classes, we often would lie on the floor and complete several breathing exercises to open our minds and to become more in touch with our senses. It seems so obvious to me now that such a method would have a similarly positive effect as a prewriting exercise.
I also was struck by Spandel’s pointing out the fact that in order to help our students to become more reflective thinkers, we need to slow down the pace of class dialogue. Many teachers are afraid of silence and, therefore, give students little time to think after posing a question. I still experience this at the collegiate level. In a recent literature class, after posing a rather vague question comparing two characters in a novel, our professor proceeded to get rather frustrated after only five seconds of silence. In order for students to think at a deeper level, teachers cannot be afraid of silence in the classroom.
Strangely enough, I recently wrote a personal essay for my writing portfolio about America’s obsession with technology. In this essay, I discussed a recent family reunion at Red Top, a lake-ringed, lush-forested state park far away from the bustle of Atlanta, Georgia. For seventy-two hours, we could not rely on television, CD players, or other distractions. Instead, all attendees of all ages had the opportunity to walk in the woods, eat watermelon for competition, and participate in a sing-along. From this experience, along with my three summers spent performing in the beautiful mountains of Vermont, I can easily relate to Spandel’s realization. She says that “a week in the Boundary Waters would be, for many students, more useful preparation for writing – or writing assessment – than many of the frenzied drills and practice we feel we must provide. A mind freed is a powerful thing.”
It is so important that we all give ourselves time to be alone with our own thoughts. For this reason, I loved Nelson’s recommendations to counter the chaotic culture in which we live. The processes of silent writing to quiet music and of using breathing exercises were very refreshing to me. At the start of acting classes, we often would lie on the floor and complete several breathing exercises to open our minds and to become more in touch with our senses. It seems so obvious to me now that such a method would have a similarly positive effect as a prewriting exercise.
I also was struck by Spandel’s pointing out the fact that in order to help our students to become more reflective thinkers, we need to slow down the pace of class dialogue. Many teachers are afraid of silence and, therefore, give students little time to think after posing a question. I still experience this at the collegiate level. In a recent literature class, after posing a rather vague question comparing two characters in a novel, our professor proceeded to get rather frustrated after only five seconds of silence. In order for students to think at a deeper level, teachers cannot be afraid of silence in the classroom.
blog 4
Jackie's comment on coma patients and t.v. watchers made me think of something similar. I heard you burn more calories sleeping than watching t.v. I don't know if that's very relevant, but it made me think of what a waste of time watching television is. I had some trouble getting through the Smith chapter in WW. I got a general idea of what he was saying, but couldn't grasp the everything. Did anyone else have trouble with this? I liked the chapter in 9 Rights on the right to be reflective. Something I had never thought about that the author brought to my attention was how we are constantly assaulted by information. I had to pause and think after I read this sentence. At first I couldn't figure out what she meant by this, but then I thought about it and realized it is true. I probably couldn't comprehend this at first because I grew up in the information age, so for many of us this incessant stream of information is "normal." I started to think about noise in my own life. I know that when I am home ironing or writing notes for class (among a list of many other things) I always put the television on for 'background noise.' I never actually watch any of the programs while I do this, basically blocking out the television, but for some strange reason I have to turn the t.v. on. I guess I am so used to noise that I don't feel comfortable with silence. I liked how the author reiterated the need for silence and reflective thinking. It certainly opened my eyes to the necessity of silence not only for our writing but also for our minds. I liked Nelson's article in WTL as well. It took me the entire article to finally understand the difference between I-it words and I-you words. It would have been helpful to have a more clear cut definition right from the start. I thought Nelson offerred great tips for molding reflective writers in a classroom environment. In talking about writing from the heart, I liked the quote "the heart can generate a skeleton, but a skeleton can seldom generate a heart" (Nelson 325). I thought that was a great way of stating the importance of owning one's writing and choosing personally important topics.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Blog 4 or HEY! Who hid the remote!?
Heavens to mergatroid! Who could possibly want to read when there's reality TV on? Seriously, how can Harry Potter hold a candle to Flavor Flav? Really though, I think there is a problem or is there? Without a doubt the TV/internet/video games have taken away much of the reading time of the past, but what do we do with those who say they just don't like to read? I have never quite understood how someone could think that, but I also can't understand why someone would want to be a mathematician or eat mushrooms, but I digress.
I liked the essay from Mr. Nelson. I never really thought about how we are bombarded all day long by words, it has become so much a part of the day that it seems weird when there is silence. Ms. Spandel covers that well on pg 4, "As much as we revere noise, we fear silence. In the quiet we are left with ourselves." It's tough to have spend time just looking inward. It can create some of the best writing but also expose all those deep inner recesses that we try so hard to keep hidden. Of course those deep recesses create some of the best writing, but it ain't easy. The other line from Ms. Spandel that struck me was "Serious writing requires long thinking." I don't know how many times I have sat and sat and sat before finally getting the right phrase or thought or word to start or restart or finish a piece of work. I just have to stop and move to something else or just sit and wait. Oftentimes, putting on a piece of music will help me but not always.
Smith . . . Smith, Smith, Smith. The only thing that comes to my tired mind at the moment is a scene from Enter the Dragon with Bruce Lee. Bruce is teaching a young student,"It is Lao's time," and Bruce puts his index finger up to make a point. The boy stares at the finger and Bruce says, "Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all the heavenly glory."
Smith seems to be saying if you must stop to think, then you must think to stop, or something like that.
Season premiere of House on Tuesday. I mean, come on! It's House! It's Holmes! It's vaguely literary.
I liked the essay from Mr. Nelson. I never really thought about how we are bombarded all day long by words, it has become so much a part of the day that it seems weird when there is silence. Ms. Spandel covers that well on pg 4, "As much as we revere noise, we fear silence. In the quiet we are left with ourselves." It's tough to have spend time just looking inward. It can create some of the best writing but also expose all those deep inner recesses that we try so hard to keep hidden. Of course those deep recesses create some of the best writing, but it ain't easy. The other line from Ms. Spandel that struck me was "Serious writing requires long thinking." I don't know how many times I have sat and sat and sat before finally getting the right phrase or thought or word to start or restart or finish a piece of work. I just have to stop and move to something else or just sit and wait. Oftentimes, putting on a piece of music will help me but not always.
Smith . . . Smith, Smith, Smith. The only thing that comes to my tired mind at the moment is a scene from Enter the Dragon with Bruce Lee. Bruce is teaching a young student,"It is Lao's time," and Bruce puts his index finger up to make a point. The boy stares at the finger and Bruce says, "Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all the heavenly glory."
Smith seems to be saying if you must stop to think, then you must think to stop, or something like that.
Season premiere of House on Tuesday. I mean, come on! It's House! It's Holmes! It's vaguely literary.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)