To (Alternately the Block Blog)

Talk about accepting the block. I accepted it so well I didn't remember to post this. Thanks for the reminder, Julie.

As usual I'm the Smith fan. When He says how "the writing releases the block" I realized how true this is, but how it is so difficult to write something I may just end up tossing. I went through this twice already this week, while attempting to get going on my Case Study assignment. I'd find myself about a page and a half in, sit back, look at the screen, and the only thought would be "What kind of aimless rambling crap is this?" Sure, that got that "bad" writing out of my system, but I haven't yet seen the "good" writing it cleared the way for.

I did like the section in Smith on habits of avoidance, because they have a special place in my life. Has anyone here ever played Diablo 2? It's so easy to sit down at the computer, boot up the WP, stare at a blank screen for two minutes, and then go kill demons for 2 hours. The follow up advice by Smith was killer though.

"Write and be damned." This is beautiful. Just like the above, just get it out whether it's art or excrement. Easy to say, hard to do (at least for me).

"Write every time we sit down to write." This can create a "habit of facing up to it" in stead of avoidance. While I know I won't make a complete piece every time I grab a pen or keyboard I can certainly write and be damned each time. As I get used to going for it every time I have the chance, hopefully the little failures won't deter me as much.

"Stop in the middle of a sentence." What? What the hell kind of advice is this? Have any of you tried this? Do you realize how much it hurts our formula trained brains to see an unfinished sentence? Much like how we see a construction sight and project what the completed building will look like we can't not try to complete the sentence. Of course that might be the point, since if we leave it hanging on the page our brain will just keep worrying at it, like a terrier with a rat. IDK, though. It still seems as if

Blog # 5

O.k., so I'm obviously a tool. Monday's class really made me think about grading papers and how there are no cut and dry lines in which to do it. As we soon found out, we can't all be perfect and many of us can be way, way off. Although I feel our class experiment wasn't entirely accurate (I feel we needed more time to make the grade assessments, while carefully following the rubric), it was a revelation to me; I need to consider all the possibilities of my students' writing, and pay more attention to how they can improve their works of art.

Which is why the reading from Spandel was interesting this week. Of course, it had everything to do with our class discussion (had I read the text by that point.) Many of the things she writes about makes us reconsider every possibility in evaluating writing--and we will still struggle with the right decision...However, there are easier methods of assessing a students drafts/final papers without guessing too much, while keeping in mind that there is no real "formula". As Dr. Kearney was saying in class (and as Spandel was writing about), we absolutely need to walk away from a paper feeling good about what we've just read and be able to feel as if we've gained enlightenment or a perspective we may not have had before. We need to "feel" the writer and relate to their message, even if we don't agree or can't relate through experience. The only way we can make this happen with our young writers is to eradicate the use of boring outlines which make the writing process a whole lot more scary than what it need be. Of course, I agree with some of my classmates regarding teaching it anyhow (for standardized testing and such) but feel it should be a last resort, not the first one.

I am relieved that Hillocks "alleges that formula not only fails to 'support higher level thinking skills' but actually imposes 'a way of thinking that eliminates the need for critical thought.'" (Spandel, 125). This is exactly what I stated in class and exactly what I meant. Don't take me the wrong way; I'm not insinuating that some formal method is not useful to teaching, I just feel as though this "formula", pertaining to writing,is the wrong way to teach. Yes, the "real world" requires us to learn and teach it, yet it does not require that we use it all the time. And yes, "vacuous thinking" labels the ideology just fine.

In addition, Kramer states that "we do need to help our students understand and apply concepts..." I have the same ache inside me when I graded my third-graders' work and realized what was happening to their talent. The fact that I was only the assistant hurt even more--knowing I could do nothing to stop their aggravation with learning the procedure. (It does sound like surgery, right?)This writing class struggled to maintain focus, learning had suddenly become dull, and the teacher made sure she listed all the elements (rules) for writing on the blackboard so everyone would have a clear idea of exactly what SHE wanted. Nice...I was bored reading the papers too...

In "The language of coats", I found myself exhausted at what the author had gone through in one day of teaching. It makes me wonder if I'll have the stamina to "make the day" and whther I'll cut it as a teacher. I also like Sommers' explanation of what she likes to hear from gifted writing teachers. I will be sure to include the writing process (just as Dr. Kearney so eloquently led us to understand was the main topic for discussion)and will always make sure I define my success in teaching writing by using the "language of coats." I just hope I'm wearing the right one.

Whenever I think back on my middle/high school education I become a little bitter!

When I read in Spandel that formulas are "restrictive," that "instead of lifting students up . . . they effectively keep them in place" (121) I immediately called to mind a story that I read in an education class my sophomore year and I am hoping someone can help jog my memory. It was about a little boy who was instructed to draw flowers and he began by creating all different colors of flowers until his teacher told him that the his flowers weren't any good and that the petals must be red. Well after a few years this boy transferred to a new school and was again instructed to draw flowers but this time the teacher said they could be any color. The little boy, however, continued to draw red flowers. I think this story can be applied to what has been discussed in this weeks reading, that once you are given the "right formula" it becomes difficult to create a path of your own, even when given the freedom. This story also inspired a song so if anyone is familiar with either one I would appreciate it if you passed the info along to me.

After some of the experiences that I had it school it amazes me that I ever decided to major in English Lit or that I ever decided to teach. My 8th grade English teacher took the 5 paragraph formula to the extreme. The class would "choose" a topic and complete their "research" and when this portion of the assignment was done she would put a transparency on the overhead that resembled a Mad-Libs game. We would fill in the blanks and wa-la the perfect essay was created without anyone in the 8th grade having to produce and independent or creative thought. None of us learned anything from this method and I began to hate writing. In particular, I hated that we had to begin out final paragraph with "In conclusion..." Of course I was never one to keep my mouth shut so I questioned why we had to begin our last paragraph in this manor and she actually answered "How else will anyone know that this is your conclusion?" How about the fact that it is the last paragraph? How about that I make some concluding statements that tie all of my points together without treating the reader like an idiot? Now every time I read the statement "in conclusion" I cringe.

The Fifth Blog

As a former spoon-fed student of the five paragraph essay format, I agree with Spandel in that there are many inhibitors when following a formula. yet, I do feel to some degree that the five paragraph essay was successful in helping me, as a young student, to focus on structure. For some students that find writing troublesome, this method can help alleviate the pressure of beginning writing and writing in a manner that makes sense. For me, it also helped my formal writing, largely because I followed the form for a few years, and then a wise teacher told us we can do more than five paragraphs. And we can put our thesis where ever we feel is suitable. And we can make it our own. It's hard to say for sure, but I do not feel the five paragraph essay held me back as a writer, especially when compared to the detrimental effect of being taught phonetic spelling, which crippled me as a speller for quite some time. (so you know, I had spelled phonetic incorrectly the first time around because I attempted to spell it phonetically)

Once again Smith lays on a heavy dose of philosophical writing, and it was a good piece but thick to read. He had many interesting points relating to the creative process, such as "the actual process of imagination is, like all the brain's activities, not under our immediate conscious control." (123) Again, it was interesting to hear him expound upon the nature of the creative mind, but I do not find it to be too helpful as a writer or in teaching writing. The more valuable tidbits came in the section about writer's block. Unfortunately, it is all good and dandy for him to say "accept the block", which I have previously employed as a last emergency option, and it often resulted in me having nothing to present worth reading due to the last minute attempt to put my jumbled thoughts into words.

I really enjoyed the Language of Coats. For a change, I didn't resent the analogy at all. Also, there is a wonderful feeling when reading about the fulfilling nature of a career as a writing teacher. Many of the lines made me smile to myself. When Sommers says, "in a heavy semester, I myself write nothing except that genre we call 'comments' or 'responses' to student writing," (176) there is a feeling of comradery that developed for me as a reader, since being on the opposite end of teaching feels much the same. I think this piece best related to our class this Monday past, where the value of good feedback in order to shape and develop a student as a writer is centrally important.

Blog 5

How appropriate that I was struck with a "block" during this blog. Smith's ideas of getting stuck after writing a few lines or paragraphs really hit home, and lead me to erase everything I had already said and rephrase it. For me, every piece of writing always goes through a similar stage. I often begin just cranking out my first paragraph or two, only to discover a new view or opinion or way to contextualize what I'm trying to say and end up scraping the previous lines for something new. This is my personal formula for writing and how I get through these said "blocks." I think the most important thing a teacher of writing can stress is the opportunity to revise, not just a rough draft, 2nd draft, etc.--but rather the ability to learn or discover new things just by putting your thoughts on a page and letting things work themselves out.

I think that these ideas are supported through Spandel's views on learning to "love and treasure" surprises in our writing, which as I've said for me comes only through putting my ideas on a page. While my way is in no way perfect, it's my formula, and I would therefore argue that formulas are not bad things. It is just that we may need to allot room to stray from a formula.

Blog Five

I started my classroom observation yesterday and got my first experience at actually witnessing teaching in a classroom. My teacher is a reading specialist and she did a very good job asking her students questions about what they had read in order to help them develop thoughts. After taking a look at these readings, particularly Spandel and Sommers, I was thinking a lot about getting kids to like writing because it is infinitely easier to do something you like doing than something you don't. I'm not really good at basketball but I could play all day because it is a lot of fun to get out there and mess around. It's obvious that the reason I like playing so much, is that i like the concept of the sport to begin with. It took me a while to build up the confidence to play and not just sit and watch my friends play because i was afraid i would mess up. With their encouragement I have gotten much better because they help me do the things that I am good at (passing, driving, and defense) rather than expect me to do things that i can't (shooting consistently, and ball handling). By reinforcing my positive skills I've been able to better my weaker skills exponentially. If i apply this too writing, then i think i could reach a few kids who were simply lacking confidence.


In Sommers article on page 176 she states, "So much in teaching writing is about what we can't size or label and involves, at first, not always giving the customers what they want." I wanted to be a great basketball player but I didn't have the basic skills developed enough to just step out there and do it. So i started watching games more closely; finding out what worked and didn't work so that I could try different things out for myself. I think that as a writer this also holds true. If you find something that you really like to read it is going to have a huge impact on the way you write. I think that if i teach a writing specific class I would focus a lot of time on having my students read two or three things that they really like before they even start writing. Sommers also says "we need to climb in their heads and they into ours" (177). One on one meetings while they read would be a good idea because i would ask them to talk about what they liked and didn't like in someone else's work rather than their own because then they will know what to avoid when they do start writing. Having a solid foundation in reading is very important because you write things in order that they be read by someone. The students might not want to read more, but it will definitely help make writing easier for them.

Coats, Pigs, & Mr. Smith--Blog Five

I also liked Sommers analogy of every size does not fit all, and the customer's not always right. The customer may need assistance finding them self. Some of the best inspiration in Sommers essay comes not on her technique but on her dogged persistence in finding ways of reaching every child. I, like her, was frustrated by the story of the girl who possessed so much talent but rarely let it out--put it to paper. How does one motivate such a child? I like that Sommers continually works on strategies to make better writers of her students. It reminded me of our discussion of last week about so many teachers fall back on doing things the way they have always been done. Sommers constantly searching, always modifying her process takes a lot more effort but must be far more rewarding in the end.
Mr. Smith as ever is a tough read but certainly is worth the effort. He always has some insight for better understanding the process of writing for me. I did disagree that incubation might be the most difficult of the stages. I seem like I can always compose a great paper in my head while thinking through problems. It is the transferal of thoughts to ink that is the killer.
Toss out the formula. I would agree with some of the other bloggers that there are some kids who would flourish when boundaries are removed but others that that would be a scary thing. Some people seem to need rigidly defined structure before they can be creative. It doesn't restrict them, it seems to actually inspire them as it removes a lot of choices. As ever the trick, I think, is to be sensitive to manner that each and every child works best in and then urge them to take chances.

Blog 5

I really enjoyed the readings this week. At one point, Spandel said "formula leads to reassuring, sometimes maddeningly predictability." When I was reading that, I thought "you forgot boring as well.", but she talks about that later on. She says "it's extremely difficult to go from formulaic prewriting... to interesting reading.

The best quote that I have found in this whole book is by George Hillocks Jr. He says, "In my most cynical moments I wonder if the master plan is to train people not to think... If students learn to think and question, they might detect the nonsense in their own representative's speeches... Is there a plan to keep students from thinking, a kind of subtle 1984?" He is saying that he doesn't believe this all the time, but I kind of do. Writing makes you think. The last thing that the government wants is people that think for themselves, because if they do think for themselves they realize that all the propaganda that the government is feeding us is bull. I completely believe that the "hidden curriculum" is not just used for our minority students to keep them down, but to dumb down our privileged students so they will believe everything that they are told. Oh... sorry... I am on a hippie antiestablishment diatribe, sometimes I do that. (You don't wanna get me started with cell phones, On Starr, and GPS, just ask Brian:))

The section about writer's block in the Smith book is interesting. I think all blocks are a manifestation of fear. I think it was Hemingway that said something like the scariest thing it is a blank page.

Blog 5

Chapter 8, 9R: I totally related to the recipe analogy because I love to cook and experiment with recipes, but only when I have the time, which is kind of like writing for me. I thought the description of thinkers vs. formula writers (115) was an accurate one, and I related to it because, in journalism, you're always warned not to go into an interview with your story already written. In other words, let the story reveal itself to you. Don't try to make the information you get fit the story that's already in your mind. I also pictured every teacher I had in high school cringing at the thought of more than one thesis or an overriding implicit thesis (117), but if that's what makes the most sense, then why not? "Thinking is hard - hard to achieve and, consequently, hard to assess. Formula lets us off the hook" (121). I think it would be easier for teachers to grade formula writing, and to justify those grades, but I also think I would be bored as a reader, and my students would be bored as writers. I think the extra effort from both sides would be worth it.

Chapter 9, WW: Smith strikes again. There's something about this guy that just bugs me. I think his writing makes him seem pretentious, not to mention long-winded, whether he really is or not. He did manage to make one point that actually made sense to me, though. "It is a mistake to regard the thinking that underlies writing as something special, as a unique kind of activity that calls for unusual efforts and abilities" (122). I think this is true because, as we've talked about in class, there are so many people who are convinced that they can't write. In reality, they're probably just intimidated by their misconceptions of writing. After that point, though, the pages and pages of brain activity all sort of ran together.

Sommers, WTL: I'm not sure if Smith just makes anyone else sound good, but I really liked this story, probably because it read more like a story than a textbook. I loved the descriptions and how everything seemed to connect to everything else in a way that didn't feel forced. "...days folding one into the next, overlapping deadlines, breathless dashes from meeting to memo, from conference to classroom, each day an unfinished draft" (175). Who can't relate to that? I think the alliteration grabbed my attention at first, but the image at the end of each day as an unfinished draft is universal, at least for those of us who often find that there just doesn't seem to be enough time in a day. If you don't get everything done, and I usually don't, how do you know if you've "made your day," especially in a classroom setting? I'm not sure I have an answer for that one yet, but it's definitely something I'll be thinking about.

Tenth Grade English Sucks

As someone has already mentioned, I did not find much to disagree with in this week's readings. What is disturbing to me though is the perpetuation of the belief that following a formula makes one a better writer. I just received an admonition from a professor to do a short outline before beginning to write in order to avoid "stream of consciousness" writing. Does this really make one a better writer or just a lazier one. As Spandel suggests, students do not need to be taught how to write, but how to think. I was assigned my first first full length research paper in tenth grade. Every sentence in the 10-page paper had to either be a direct quote or paraphrase of a sentence from a book or journal article. This assignment taught me nothing, except maybe that my ideas are not worth anything. I just now, in this moment, realized the detriment of that assignment. I think that paper instilled in me a severe aversion to taking risks in my writing; it also robbed me of the right to draw my own conclusions, and I haven't done so since. Schools say that they value critical thinking skills, but it doesn't show in the way writing is taught.
I appreciated Smith's discussion of Psychological blocks. While I know these are present in me, they primarily reside in the subconscious, and I appreciate Smith bringing them out into the light of day for me to observe. Perhaps that fact in itself will allow me to get past them.
Sommers' analogy was effective, and I particularly like her sentiment of a teachers job being to show students how to be designers. The customer is not always right.

Blog 5

Spandel's use of cooking and Jazz as metaphors for writing really hit home for me. In the same way that I love to cook but hate following a recipe, I love to write unless I am forced to follow a specific formula. As a student however, I can remember times when I wished that there was a formula to help an essay get started. Spandel offered in my opinion the perfect solution to the five paragraph essay when she said that writing should be "variations on a theme." Students who have been trained to use a formula and are loathe to give it up might find some comfort in this idea. Also, the steps that Spandel outlines on page 122 provide some structure without removing creativity.

I agree with Danielle that writing about what you love is not always possible. Sometimes for school or work we are stuck with assignments that are not always thrilling. However, I too have dreaded writing a paper only to find out later that I learned to love my topic by the end. Some of my favorite essays have been written this way.

Smith had a few quotes that really struck me. Particularly his solution to knowing when a piece of writing is the final draft. He says we know a piece is finished when "any further change would only detract from it." As a writer I think that this may be one of the most difficult concepts to grasp.

Finally my favorite line of all in this set of readings can be accredited to Smith. He said that "imagination is the basis of reality." I wholeheartedly believe that good imagination is key t o good writing. Teaching students to take risks and break the mold has become a theme to this course and I think that encouraging imagination is the best way to encourage individuality.

Blog 5

Nothing really jumped out at me with this week's readings. Every other week, I've felt like there's been a point that I can expand upon, and this week is proving a bit more difficult.

However, I did enjoy Spandel's writing on the formula and the five-part essay. While I've written many, it was always tough to pick only three points and to write ten pages that way. And now, after being out of school for four years, I find it tough to go back to that format and write like that. If I have trouble with it, why am I imposing it on a class of middle or high schoolers? I think we need to encourage them to let the words flow and come out the way they'd like it to, in an organization that works for them. I'm not encouraging throwing all format and structure out the window, mind, but if they want a.. gasp.. ten paragraph essay? Sure! Thesis coming out a little further down in the paper? That could work.

She says "Writers must live on both sides of the text, wearing two hats all the time" (123). Absolutely. This doesn't just mean reading your own writing, but reading constantly, whatever you can get your hands upon. It gives you a feel for how certain types of writing twist and flow and that helps you learn to put your own words together. It also speaks to peer editing, which makes me wince whenever I type it, just because in high school, I was always the one who absolutely, without a doubt, hated sharing my writing before I deemed it done.

Sommers' coat story was thought-provoking. How exactly do we know that our teaching writing is working? That it's sticking? I think all you have to do is look at the writing your students are giving back to you. Are they improving? Are they digging deeper into the work and bringing out ideas you didn't realize they would? If they're making those connections, it's working. If they're enthusiastic, it's working.

Blog 5

While reading Smith's book when he's talking about writer's block, I couldn't help but think of the writing portfolios that some of us had recently completed. He discusses that there are two main reasons why people generally have writer's block and I could completely identify with the first one. He says, "We may be committing ourselves to a considerable amount of effort, and even risk, and the first few words we put on the page may set a course from which we feel there will be no turning back or even opportunity for second thoughts. This degree of resistance to undertaking the enterprise will increase depending on the perceived magnitude, importance, and probability of succeeding in whatever our aims might be" (Smith 131). I think this is very true and by experiencing it first hand, I will hopefully keep this in mind when it comes time to teach my own students. He goes on to talk about the second concern is the audience of the paper or the pressure of having previous works of excellence. This can apply immense amount of pressure on any writer. To incorporate what I have learned into my classroom, I hope to be able to give my students the opportunity on most writing assignments, the freedom to write whatever they choose. I will probably even use some of the writing activities that we have done in class that will create more of a fun atmosphere to writing than a tense, fearful one.

Along those same lines, Spandel writes "When it comes to writing, surprise is not only something we should tolerate, but something we should seek out and treasure" (Spandel 115). If we continue to assign writing assignment after writing assignment, we are going to be eventually bored by the time we get to our 25th paper. Personally, I really don't feel like reading 25 papers on my favorite birthday party. Let them spice it up and choose to do whatever they want to do. Let them choose a tweed coat with rabbit fur, or a three-quarter length jacket.

blog 5

I liked Sommers analogy of the coat business and writing as well. The part of this reading that really struck me was when she asked the question, "How do you know you have been successful in teaching your students to write?". Obviously, she doesn't give a definitive answer or any type of guide to measure one's success, but it really got me thinking about how exactly do we know when we're successful in teaching students to write? Is there any way we can measure if students are successful writers? What criteria do you we use to judge this? I do not know how to judge whether or not I am a successful writing teacher. I was curious to know what guidelines other people use, or what it is that you should use in determining your success as an instructor. Do you consider how much the student has improved, how interesting their writing is, how creative it is? For some reason I really got stuck on this idea and I only wish there was a clear cut answer to it!

I can't remember which reading it was, but one of them said that writers should only write about things things they would read. At first, this idea seemed obvious, but then I thought about it some more and I'm not quite certain I agree with it. For instance, there have been times that I have had to write about things I was not interested in, and initially I was not enthusiastic to work on it. But, when I actually started to work on it and write, I found that I really enjoyed it and I made some fascinating discoveries. Had I followed this person's advice and only written about things I would read, I never would have written the assignment and discovered how interesting it actually was. Maybe this isn't true for everyone, but I think there is some merit in not always writing what we would read.

One of my favorite quotes from the readings came from Spandel's chapter on formula writing, when she said, "Formula writing takes away both the pain and the reward of thinking like a reader" (123). I completely agree with this and I also think there is almost something rewarding about the pain and struggle we go through in the process of a good piece of writing. Formula completely takes away from the creative aspect of writing, which is part of the enjoyment of writing. I never realized it before, but Spandel talks about how formula stifles thinking and makes writers fearful of new situations. Speaking from personal experience and having been taught formulaic writing throughout school, I do find that I am fearful of new writing experiences. I always think, 'well they never taught me the formula for this type of paper so what do I do now?'. It never crosses my mind to approach the assignment the way I think it should be approached because I'm always afraid it won't meet the formulaic expectations. I've also been trained that way for so long that I don't know how to write 'without formulas' which can also be a scary thing.

Let Voice Be Your Guide

Spandel stresses the importance of voice and how it makes one’s work recognizable and distinct. I could not agree more for the non-technical writers out there that voice becomes your stamp and as the book says “is like personality.” I’m sure most of us have a favorite author that we feel comfortable with like an old friend; it is the voice that we here and feel as we read. The Seinfeld examples were right up my alley and made the point even more helpful when you actually know and are familiar with the person’s actually voice. Try reading a letter, post card, greeting card, or emails from someone you know it is probably impossible for that person’s voice or face to not come through the words. Aren’t we comfortable with familiarity? The text encourages reading and discovering others voices to get the idea of how effective it can be and also help you find your own. I also really like the idea of reading your writing out loud, which will quickly determine if your intended voice is properly being projected.

Although it is obvious I enjoyed reading about the similar use of language for speech and writing. I do not know if this happens to other people but sometimes I say things I never would have written on paper and conversely for speech and writing. Why is this? Ideas are generated from the same source, right? I think it is answered when Smith talks about tapping into the creative nature of our brains. When we put pressure on ourselves to generate ideas it may prove to be an unnatural overload. It is the daily routine, the everyday uncluttered thinking that yields the most profound thoughts. Why is our programming so damn complicated? The great ones make it look easy, because their greatness is most likely routine for them. I also make it a point to never read about writing blocks, my superstitious nature prompts me to steer clear of them, including reading about them, no thanks!

I also had visions of Seinfeld while reading the beginning paragraphs of Sommers with all the dialogue about jackets and fabrics. Speaking of voice I could hear Morty Seinfeld’s voice talking about his days in the garment district in Manhattan working for the great Harry Fleming. Who could forget the belt less trench coat? Sommers compares her tumultuous times as the daughter of a coat salesman to becoming an instructor of writing. She says both involve attention to detail and that students are her customers and strives to teach those difficult students much like her father tried hard to fit that hard to please person. Sommers wisely believes that timid students and indecisive customers have to take more risks in their wardrobes and the classroom to make “bold statements” and stand out from the crowd.

Blog 5

In Nancy Sommers’s The Language of Coats, I really appreciated the author’s analogy relating the teaching of writing to her father’s work in her uncle’s department store. In the business of selling coats, there is a straightforward determination as to whether you as an employee “make your day” based on the number of products sold. In writing, however, how does one really know whether he is making his day? While we as English teachers may have our own guidelines for determining success in the classroom, I find it personally frustrating that the most important tool currently used to determine whether teachers are “making the day” is the standardized test. Even if I know that I am achieving my predetermined classroom goals, if my students do not score well on these regimented tests, I am considered not to be “making my day.”

As Somers points out, the other way in which we are evaluated as teachers comes with student evaluations, in which students are more likely to rate you on how much they like you as a person rather than on what have they learned in your classroom. One way that I can think of demonstrating the impact you have had on students’ writing is by encouraging them to send their works to the Scholastic Writing Awards (or some similar competition). This would allow students to be recognized at the regional or national level and would help demonstrate how you as a teacher have influenced your students as writers. One of my favorite quotes from this article is on page 178: “Students, all writers, need to learn how to design for themselves garments that fit.”

I completely agree with Vicki Spandel’s encouragement for teachers to push writers to go beyond formulas. A few questions that occurred to me are as follows: How important is it for us to teach students the five paragraph essay formula at some point in their school careers? Is this the type of writing that will be expected on standardized tests? Does this formula have any positive values, such as teaching students how to determine and develop a thesis or main idea?

Spandel states that “on a map, there are many paths to take you from A to B.” (122). Once again, she is making a direct comparison to traveling, which she discussed in Chapter 4. I think this is a great analogy to use with students to make them understand that there is no wrong way to write. Using formulas might be a way to guide writers initially, but students must be encouraged and willing to break free of these barriers to truly be able to express themselves on a deeper level.

Although I have not been a huge fan of some of Frank Smith’s other chapters, I did appreciate his definition of the types of writing blocks and the ways in which we can overcome them. I am the type of writer who finds it difficult to sit down and write on the spot without some period of brainstorming before I pick up my pen or sit down at the keyboard. It is much easier for me to write and avoid writing blocks when I have a chance to think about what I am going to write for a day or two. I always find that the greatest difficulty comes at the beginning and ending of a piece of writing. These tend to be the times in which I face the most writing blocks. I often need to just get up from the computer and occupy myself with some other task. Usually, the ideas come to me during a time when I least expect them.

Blog 5

There isn’t much I have to say this week and this is mainly due to the fact that I can find no way to truly be an advocate to the opposite way of thinking from that of any of the writers in this week’s readings. I am happy to see that the idea of the five paragraph, highly organized, and utterly boring type of paper is falling out of favor in the writing community. As a chaotic writer, and as a writer who does not always follow the rule of thesis statement followed by supporting evidence followed by conclusion, I can appreciate fully the move away from this kind of writing. I do wonder though if formulized is as much of a danger as it is presented in 9 Rights. What I mean is, would not some people flourish under such rules and formulas, especially if those rules and formulas were altered to allow slightly more freedom? I ask this because of a friend who is a very “black and white” person. He follows every rule, every formula, every law to its letter, not its spirit, and I cannot begin to imagine how he would be able to cope as a writer without the formulas he was taught while growing up. While I revel in chaos and perform at my best when there is nothing but a looming deadline and a vague notion (which is why I have yet to figure out my second paper) my friend would be utterly lost. Part of me wants to say it is because of the formulas and how they were beaten into his head, but that is only a small part. A larger part of me believes that he needs them to operate, without them he would write nothing, would express nothing (although expression is somewhat limited with him anyway). So, that leaves me with the question of whether or not formulas are truly evil.

As for the other readings … I have to honestly admit that Writing and the Writer is not for me, I have a tendency to fall asleep while reading anything in the book that is longer then 7 pages, and I thank my Laundromat for having buzzers on their dryers or I would have slept through the day. On the point of Smith’s observations on reviewing writing and writer’s block I must admit that I am happy to at least see someone, and a professional no less, who agrees with me on the issue of editing. It is quite true that a writer may never catch all of his or her mistakes. What we see on the page is not what is on the actual page, is not the actual print but what a translation of the voice in our minds. We as writers hear that voice again as we attempt to edit our work, and so we miss that we typed “ever” instead of “every” or that we forgot three whole words in a sentence. To the writer those words are there because the voice in our heads repeats them from its memory and we see “every” and not “ever” because that was what we though when we wrote. On a side note, I’m also happy that I am not weird for projecting possible situations and that it is normal for the mind to do so … I think, that is what Smith said right? I bet you all think I’m nuts now, right?

Someone out there, posting in this blog probably has something really important to say about the Sommer reading. Something profound, some great and some other “p-word” I cannot rightly think up right now. Needless to say, I am not that person, and found myself more interested in the allegorical story of the author’s youth than to the points she was trying to make. I got lost in the story and wandered to far. Sorry.