Blog 09

“More teachers than ever before are sharing criteria openly with students – or even working with students to define together what it means to write well” (Spandel 102). If there has been one subject I have been interested in since I started college it is the subject of trust and what trust is. I believe that one of the biggest obstacles faced by teachers is the lack of trust that exists between the teachers and their students. I just mentioned obstacles and that is exactly what a lack in trust is and near physical wall that permanently separates student from teacher. One way I think that trust can be gained is through what Spandel is talking about in that single line I quoted above. By allowing the students to know, up front, all of the rules, expectations, and requirements of an assignment the teacher can effectively beginning to hammer at the wall that exists between him or her and the student. However, I am slightly apprehensive about allowing students to help define those rules, expectations, and requirements. During the summers I work as a councilor at summer day camp close to my parent’s home. One year, after taking a course in adolescent psychology, I decided to allow my kids (as I called and still call all the children at my camp)to help in the formation of the rules of the camp . . . it was the biggest mistake I ever made, and for one overriding reason: the majority of children and teenagers are self-serving. This is not necessarily a bad thing as it is a crucial part of mental development, however, the self-serving attitude of many children and teenagers make any rule just and balanced rule system impossible. The only thing I can suggest is that after fully disclosing the rules, expectations, and requirements in a class the students should be allowed to make suggestions and give feedback on the rules and such with the teacher taking the suggestions and feedback under advisement.

The Juska article was interesting, but more for the setting than the message behind the article. After all, we have had it beaten into our heads for four or more years that process writing is flexible, adaptable, and the way to go when teaching writing (although I wonder if the product writing generation had the same message beaten into their heads as if it was “gospel truth?”), so it was no surprise that Juska managed to teach writing, and teach it well in a maximum security prison.

One of the worst things about writing is getting started. The ideas exist, the thoughts bubble up and overflow in the brain like a cup of chocolate milk that a child is blowing into, but those thoughts cannot, for some reason, make it from the overflowing cup of the brain to the hand holding the pen or resting on the keyboard. Oft times what a writer needs is a sounding board, someone that they can just blurt, with no form, no function, no style the ideas overflowing (yet trapped) in their minds. This sounding board of a person acts also as a filter and focuser, asking the questions that need to be asked and cutting off the loose ends that are not needed. I think this may be what Smith is trying to say in the first part of his article about teachers demonstrating writing. Maybe by acting as the soundboard and focuser of one student while allowing the other students to watch and study would allow them (the students) to figure out how to finally allow the overflowing cup in their brain release itself through pen or keyboard . . . this is one very long fragment. When Smith talked about the researchers and the stop watches the only thing I could think was my own difficulties lately with lesson planning and “proper use of time.” While it is not true I think part of the problem with allowing time (enough time) to read and write in school is that allowing them can be seen as not a productive or full use of time. Here let me explain better:

Students are reading Romeo and Juliet in class, a mixture of silent self reading and group reading out loud. The school administration does not see this as productive because class time should be used to discuss and drill into the students Shakespeare’s intent, and meaning, and the subtles of his language and the meanings behind the text. And most importantly a large chunk of class time must be spent reviewing what they read to make sure they understood it.

I am not saying this is the case all around, and I’m not saying that it is even a real reason, but I do know that many teachers feel that they may get in trouble if it looks like THEY are doing nothing.

Late I Know...

So there seems to be a general consensus that the reading in WTL was painful so I won't say what has already been said. Smith, on the other hand, was refreshing. I too was struck by the quote on 193 that "reading is the essential source of knowledge about writing." I took an advanced college writing class my senior year at Hartwick and was surprised by the number of books that we were required to buy for the course. Here I thought it was a writing course. The first day Dr. Martini told us that in order to learn to write better we have to read more. It was a great class and I think I enjoyed the reading more then the writing. All the books had the same general theme (war) but took a different perspective, were written in different styles, and each author had a distinct voice. After taking this class I wondered why educators would bother to teaching reading and writing as separate subjects. They truly aren't. Nearly everything you write is meant to be read by an audience. No two subjects are more connected then reading and writing.

Blog 8

I always liked to revise, it's never been a problem for me. It helps to understand your main point in the paper or general writing. This is the time that you hope said writing has a point. It's been said before, pounded in our heads; revise, revise, revise!! On the topic of reading, I couldn't agree more. I think the more reading you do the better writer your going to be. You might even develop your ideas from your reading. I am a strong believer in versatility, you have to be open to different writers. If not you'll start writing in the genre and you may never come back.... i.e. Stephen King

The Eighth Blog

One of the most common tips from established writers to those who wish to become established writers is to read and read well. Smith hits this directly at the beginning of chapter thirteen with "reading is the essential source of knowledge about writing." (193) Smith had many good points in this chapter relating to learning to write through experience the techniques before you try to practice them. He even goes on to accredit spelling well to reading well. I am also glad he assessed the lacking ability of textbook instructions. And the whole bit about how no one says that knowing grammar made them into writers (204) made me smile. Like Smith, I feel grammar should not take the place of writing, but like Jim, I remember all of those students who couldn't begin to understand a sentence, much less compose one. It's a hard battle to try and find new ways to revamp old schools of teaching, but there needs to be some sort of concession to make grammar and writing come together in the process of composition. And no, conjunction junction does not cut it.

The Hartwell on the other hand left me knee deep in grammar speak that I was not ready to handle. Like Smith, there is a call to learn grammar through means beyond the textbook jargon students find inaccessible, but to address the matter Hartwell used textbook jargon I found inaccessible. Like in our previous classes, Hartwell asks the reader to address the "why" issue of teaching grammar, which is understandably a good lead in. The five meanings of grammar was an interesting way to present why grammar is so complex, and why students have issues with it. I agree with the author in accrediting "the internalized system of rules" from Francis (202) as a good point for how most of us come to know grammar. As a child, grammar just made sense, so when I couldn't decipher the rules, I went with my gut and was typically right. As a whole, this piece made many good points about grammar, but the theory-speak was a big turn off, and though I might find metalinguistic awareness to open my eyes to the way grammar is approached, I didn't find myself in full understanding of why Hartwell chose to approach the matter with heavy citation and heavy-handed language.

This is why I'm not a linguist.

Blog 8

First of all, I totally agree with Seth and Danielle about the Hartwell article. I actually thought for awhile that I was reading Smith all along. I found Hartwell to be a painful read. It seemed like an awful lot of wasted words to come to the conclusion the reader already expected.

So, it turns out that all those miserable grammar classes were a waste of time after all. There is a part of me that feels kind of vindicated on that point.

Actually, this time around, I found Smith to be pretty interesting. I like the concept that “writing is learned rather than taught” (215). If I were ever to find myself teaching composition I think that would be my mantra. When you think about it from this angle it really makes sense to take the focus off of teaching and put it back on learning. This also explains why writing (both in process and product) and different for everyone. There is no truly right way to write.

Finally, I especially though that Smith’s concept of beginning writers as apprentices. After all, what is writing if not a skilled trade? Just like any other hands on art the product varies from artist to artist.

This section of reading has me convinced that breaking writing down into distinct parts (composing, reading, grammar, spelling, etc.) in the classroom is counter-effective. Rather than fracturing knowledge, teachers should be showing students how the bigger picture comes together.

Blog 8: Revise!

Smith is getting quite a bit more accessible lately. I would agree that more reading transfers into better writing. Most of the well known authors that I've seen interviewed talk about the large amount of reading they do. Not only does it get one used to grammar and syntax it fuels inspiration. The more ideas that a writer has going in the mix the better. I read alot and yet still spell like the average Elizabethan, I'm still waiting for the improvement that Smith says is imminent. Thank God for spell check in the mean time. One thing is certain, and this class continually impresses this idea, writing must come out first before rules are applied. Starting with all the rules first and then expecting kids to write with inspiration will not work. I know this is the way I learned in school. Endless classes (or so it seemed) on grammar, spelling, vocabulary before pen was put to paper. At that point everyone was so intimidated by the multitude of boundaries, that is was amazing anything got written at all. That's not to say that grammar is not essential, the idea is to communicate with others and there should be a common meeting ground. Read, Write, Revise.

Blog 8

As students, we have heard so many times that reading will make us better writers, but I never really stopped to think about why. Obviously, any piece of writing can serve as an example of what works or what doesn't, but I think if you read a really good piece of writing, and you enjoy it, you'll be much more excited about the idea of writing and what it can produce. The more positive associations you have with writing and the writing process, the more likely you'll be to actually engage in it yourself. And, whether it's intentional or not, you'll probably incorporate elements of the writing that inspired you.

I thought Smith's idea of the author, not the text, showing the learner was really interesting. "Authors - even dead ones - have this tremendous advantage over live teachers; they always proceed at the pace of the individual learner, and are able to repeat their lessons as often as the learner wants, without any coercion, embarrassment or punitive threat" (196). This makes sense but seems to totally contradict the idea I had of authors, especially textbook authors, being totally detached and far less personal than live teachers. I guess it depends on the author. Based on our discussions of voice, an author should be able to make that kind of connection.

The section on children, and adults, butchering the English language reminded me of a word my family now uses, in fun of course. My aunt, who teaches second grade, once had a student ask her how to spell "aposta," as in "I'm aposta do my homework when I get home from school." It seems silly, but it totally makes sense if you think about children trying to use what they hear without considering spelling rules. I've had experiences with my friends misusing words, but when they've grown up around other people who consistently do the same, there's really no way for them to know the difference until they encounter someone who doesn't.

I must admit, I cringed at the thought of reading an entire chapter about the teaching of grammar after recently writing an entire paper about it for my writing portfolio, but I think Hartwell makes a good point. People on either side of the argument should be informed and share points of reference. To me, the bottom line isn't whether grammar should be taught but how. I think there are ways to work it into everyday activities and existing assignments, which would make it seem less formal and detached for students.

it's (nobody's actually tracking these titles)

Ah, Smith. The theoretician shows insight. I loved it. But you all new I loved Smith already. What did I love? Spelling and punctuation and the distinction between revision and editing. I believe I've mentioned before that I often help my friend with her drafts of Crim J papers/articles she's producing. I'm becoming more familiar with criminological theory and terminology via my exposure to her work and realized that this learning on my part is analogous to how we learn both spelling and grammar. Alese has not "taught" me about her discipline in a direct manner. I have LEARNED how much of it goes by the demonstrations of it she keeps presenting to me. We often argue about proper word choice to make points in as concise a manner as possible (and she is armed with a Blackberry, so online dictionaries are not a simple solution). But it's during this interplay that we both see how vocabulary and spelling are done and accepted. While arguing over the use of "apogee" or "apex" we ended up polling passersby in the coffee shop to make a final decision. When Smith says that "Every convention of writing is tied to an intention that lies behind writing" we need to see that the audience is intimately tied upo in these intentions. Add to this the need for purpose and I have a much greater appreciation for Alese's assertion that she hates writing any academic piece that she's unlikely to submit for publication. Her purpose is publication, literary masturbation is not enjoyable to everyone.

Hartwell brought back memories long forgotten of diagramming sentences with Mr Smith (Andrew, not Frank) in Honors English in High School. Chalk all over the place and the end result an alien graphic representation with subjects and predicates in the center while adjectives, conjunctions, and adverbs radiated outwards the the flagella from some alien beast. Oddly, since I often have a visually oriented mind, these moments cemented how the word-components of a sentence structure worked together and linked up, for me. I was in the minority. But I think this is like giving the chance at different methods to compose. Show it, give it a chance, but don't cram it down the students throat as THE way.

What?!

Not surprisingly, Smith points out that many of the perceived “rules” of spelling, grammar, punctuation, and handwriting are nothing more than convention and tradition. I really appreciated this sentiment on page 196; “Authors – even dead ones – have tremendous advantage over live teachers; they always proceed at the pace of the individual learner, and are able to repeat their lessons as often as the learner wants, without any coercion, embarrassment or punitive threats.”
While I never thought much about it, I think that it is probably accurate that, “… Poor writers rarely read their work at all. Poor writers are much more likely to be satisfied with what they have written, without really knowing what they have written.” I don’t know that I have been satisfied with them, but I do know my worst writings have been those that I did not take the time to read.
The Hartwell piece was very confusing to me. It was if Smith’s consciousness inhabited someone else for awhile.

nothin' like a late night blog

Smith writes about the importance of self-image to the writer and I sort of suppose it is true. I mean, technically I may be a writer, because my hopefully degree(which is upcoming) will say so on it. It will be raised, embossed print on a parchment certificate saying I am a “professional writer”, but I have always felt my writing is technically sound but crappy shade of gray from an creative view point, but as it has been written about in a few of our readings, inspiration is out there to be discovered, it may be right in front of you but didn’t know yet. I don’t see myself as a creative writer, so Salinger should have no worries over me stealing his fan base. It certainly wouldn’t hurt if I read more, but as stated in my case study paper, with school, family, work, a love of HBO, and sleep I have had very little time to do “extra” reading other newspapers, online reading, and Golf Digest on the can, with the latter being the most reliable forum. Resisting my digression I have to admit that reading can only help one’s writing. Reading makes people ponder and reflect; it is constant feed if one is up to the task or has the time. Word choices, sentence structure, idea generation, style, voice, grammar, and punctuation are just a few positive by-products of reading. I read Smith and some of my classmates’ responses to this and I can only imagine some of these technical aspects of writing may only be important in handwritten documents. I say this because that is the only way that our grammar, spelling, some punctuation, sentence structure are exposed as terrible with emergence of the computer. My trusty computer solves all of these writing woes so quickly, so what’s the point? I will say that while I misspell the same words seemingly all the time (especially recommend, see my computer already corrected it so you wouldn’t know), I have become more aware of some of faults and it is primarily punctuation and spelling, but is has come so far since high school that’s its comical. I also wanted to address the petering out of my handwriting skills because the computer, most of classes requires a lot of writing and reading, but not too much note taking because of the ease of printouts and Angel; it allows the student to have no excuse to not be informed. My handwriting has had to come out of the closet and pat the dust off with my internship which requires me to take hand written notes almost extensively. It was a little rusty, but it’s coming around, thanks for asking.

And just some comments on WTL, it is easy, and I apologize for de-emphasizing grammar by simply stating that my computer will just take care of it. Good readers will always pick up on poor or suspect grammar. My grammar is far from stellar, but I do understand that knowing grammar reflects one’s seriousness in understanding the limits and capabilities of their language. So, while knowing when to use relative clauses and modifiers can be exhausting and painful, it will prove beneficial in your writing.

Blog 8 Grammar

First of all, I can barely stand to read any more Smith. I may be a bit dramatic, but seriously, sometimes he makes me want to gag. He is so full of himself that it makes it quite difficult for me to learn from him. He may very well be a very knowledgeable man, but just the way his "voice" comes off, I can't stand it. It literally makes me sick. And... apparently I'm holding a grudge because it seems as though some of you didn't have such a problem with him for this weeks readings.

As for grammar... I am a huge supporter of it being taught in school. For example, while I was observing today, I actually did something besides stapling or cutting things out. (This is funny to those of you who know my situation). I graded the students end of marking period exam without an answer key. There was this one section on the test that had the students put one line under the subject and two lines under the verb. After grading about 135 papers with I'd say without exaggeration about 90% of the students missing every single question, it made me start to second guess myself. I questioned if I really knew what I was doing. I was thinking, it's me against 135 students. Maybe they are not all wrong and maybe it's me. So I verified my answers with my host teacher and she informed me I was correct and then I showed her the results from the test.

Once she saw the results from the test, she then informed me that she was not supposed to focus on grammar, but rather focus on ways to improve PSSA scores by building vocabulary and reading comprehension. I found this really interesting because without grammar, these other areas of English are rather pointless, don't you think? She told me that the thought process is, is that by seventh grade, students should already know how to do grammar and to move on to other things. So to summarize... students do it once and they are experts. So when they turn 16 and drive a car for the first time they should get their license right away? Or a medical student reads how to do open heart surgery, he/she now qualifies to do the actual surgery? I don't really get this thought process. I apologize for getting on my soap box, but I am a firm believer in grammar and think that it needs to be reinforced with quality instruction throughout all grade levels.

Blog for 10/24 Here we go again...

This grammar thing eludes me--completely. I was just discussing (persuasively) my opinions on the old paradigm vs. the new one today; once with a round-table conference of teachers (pretty cool that I can do that now) and my Mom--who was wishing to know why I was being called in for my son. This issue continuously pops up in my life now, and just when I thought my stance was concrete, Hartwell sheds doubt on my confidence in the new paradigm. I mean, I will always feel that grammar can be taught through writing and it should be, but he did remind me of why we taught grammar the old way to begin with: We can learn a lot through writing, but we can't learn everything all the time. Touche

The old method worked. Somehow, we learned this boring, drone subject while sitting in a chair, taking notes, quizzes, exams, etc. But we still learned it. As Hartwell points out "Those of us who dismiss the teaching of formal grammar have a model of composition instruction that makes the grammar issue 'uninteresting' in a scientific sense. Our model predicts a rich and complex interaction of learner and environment in mastering literacy, an interaction that has little to do with sequences of skills instructions and such." (WTL, 200)

I do realize that the new paradigm will shake the foundations of the tried-and-true, old school philosophy.However, we will be able to incorporate grammar instruction within the writing process, thereby making it easier and more FUN to learn. As I read the text and realized that I do still hold fast to the ideology behind teaching grammar in a formally structured approach, I will readily embrace the "rich and complex interaction" of learning and teaching the process methodology. Remember, the key word here is "fun". We may have learned grammar the old way, but how many of us really remember exactly what it is that we learned about it? As it is, I can't even remember half the stuff I read in this chapter about the many different forms of grammar. I wonder we can't just integrate both methods, while focusing on new and inventive ways of teaching the subject.

I speak to people all the time who speak and write effectively, yet they can't even remember the definition of grammar. And I will admit that up until a few semesters ago, I was one of them. Chomsky, Lester Christensen and Britton's analogies made perfect sense. Maybe we don't need Grammar 2 in order to learn to write and produce effective results. As Smith reiterates "The major problem with formal statements about punctuation is that they require an understanding of what they are supposed to explain in the first place. They may also require an understanding of grammatical terminology, which itself is explained with respect to punctuation--complete circularity." (Smith, 201)I can't tell you how many times in my life this was true. Why, just this week I found myself grammatically confused and upon looking up the first answer, I had to utilize my dictionary and several other books to clarify the meaning of the definition. I was exhausted to say the least--never mind my frustration...

Regardless of the structure in the old method, something is wrong with the system. If we can't teach students that writing and grammar (ugh!)can be fun, (and slightly easier to learn than in my story above) we're not doing our job. Our students won't remember it later on and we'll just be earning a paycheck rather than teaching--we'll be wasting our time. This is not why I want to teach. We dicussed in class this week that only a small percentage of students in this country actually graduate from college. What about the other ninety-something percent that don't or can't go? Once they graduate from high school,(if they make it that far)they won't have anyone making them write and so they won't. We are the ones who need to change this mindset (and unfortunate statistic) and although we may not have all the details right, we need to try. I don't need research to know I'm right...I've performed the experiment several times, and to me, it's already proven--especially as I struggled through the WTL text. (yawn)

Blog 8

I finally figured out why I'm not a huge fan of the Frank Smith readings. He's very wordy; I'm more a fan of being concise. Sometimes you don't need 20 pages to say something, it can be said in a couple of paragraphs. While his examples this time were interesting, I still feel like he didn't need to spend so much time detailing each technicality of writing.

I enjoyed his quote that "being a writer begins with seeing (yourself) as a writer" (193). If you can't see yourself as someone who writes, how can you get your words onto the page? It's a teacher's job to instill that belief into students, because sometimes the parents don't or can't do that. There's also the idea of reading like a writer, which is instrumental in learning how to write. You can study that other person's sentence structure, the way they organize their thoughts, and from there begin to create your own style of writing. Amusing, how Smith points out that spelling can be learned from reading. So can vocabulary. I have a couple of friends overseas who learned English in grammar school, but their internet travels have helped them learn conversational English. They've then incorporated that into their writing, and it's made them better writers.

Revision and editing... what do I have to say? Well, I've always been one of those people who write one draft and that's it. It's not so much as being taught that you just write to hand something into a teacher. It's more along the lines of "Good, it's done, I'm done, no more of this paper." However, things are different when it's something I've written that I really care about. That's when I take the time to go through and rewrite and rewrite and rewrite.

As for the Hartwell essay on grammar, I have to admit, he brings up a few good points. When I think of grammar, I think of the general usage of the rules of English. I don't go into specifics of subject-predicate and so on. However, I believe some of it needs to be taught! Yes, we pick up some of the general ideas of usage through speaking and reading, but does it stick? How many times have you heard someone say something and been tempted to correct them because it just sounds wrong? If I remember my high school years correctly (and I may not), we stuck to general usage throughout the years, except for 11th grade. That's when we spent half a semester or so (block scheduling- everything was in semesters) immersing ourselves in grammar. I have to admit, it was long. It was sometimes boring. But we learned it. Maybe we just need to find the key to making it interesting for students instead of just stating "These are the rules, now follow them." We shouldn't be dropping it all together.

Blog 8

In my opinion, this week’s chapter by Frank Smith covered a number of really interesting topics regarding the process of learning to write. His thoughts describing the ways in which reading helps to develop our writing skills were very insightful. This just demonstrates another reason why it is important to read to your children before they enter kindergarten. After all, we can’t expect students to learn how to write without providing them with examples of good writing.

It is also important that we demonstrate to our students how the writing process should look. As Frank Smith points out, many inexperienced writers consider themselves to be finished after the first draft. He states, “They rarely see their teachers writing, let alone revising, editing, or throwing drafts away.” I can certainly attest to the fact that none of my teachers wrote in front of students, and I don’t remember having teachers model the writing process for us. This past Thursday I attended a workshop at the Capital Area Wordfest that touched on the importance of modeling our own writing for our students. By showing students how we have continuously edited one of our own pieces of writing, we will teach them the importance of producing multiple drafts.

I will admit that I did become a little frustrated while reading this chapter, because I felt as though the topics Smith was touching on pertained primarily to children and elementary school-age students. I was happy, however, that he made the point that “the requirements of learning to write do not change as one grows older.” Smith also states that there is “no formula for teaching anyone to write.”
I believe that as a future teacher, this is a very important factor to keep in mind. We cannot expect to reach all students the same way, and we must take the time to work with them individually to meet their specific needs. This is just another clear example as to why classroom sizes need to be kept at a smaller number so that teachers can provide more one-on-one instruction.

In terms of the grammar argument which was the subject of Patrick Harwell’s article, I believe that spending less time on formal grammar instruction will provide students with the ability to uncover the true power of the written word. It will also help students to develop a stronger appreciation for language and its uses. If we are constantly bogging students down with the rules they have to follow, then they are less likely to take an interest in the writing process itself and have the chance to discover all of the many possibilities that writing provides.

F#$K Grammar

Sorry for my crude title. One of the characters in the story The Body by Stephen King scrawls that in his grammar book. I thought that was fitting.

Ugh… grammar. I have read many articles (pro and con) about teaching grammar. I still don't know what the answer is. It does not behoove us to teach grammar in middle school, but what do you do when students have to learn a foreign language in high school. They have no idea the conventions of the English language, so they have problems trying to learn this new language. Educators have been fighting about grammar for decades, so I'm certainly not going to figure it out.

I agree with Danielle about the readings this week. I usually I just hate reading Smith, but I thought he was interesting this week. On the other hand, I basically just scanned the Hartwell article. The only thing that I thought was interesting was the thing about the French girls and that everybody immediately produces the "correct" order. Okay, Dragon is not cooperating with me today so I think I'm done for this week.

blog 8

Usually, I really prefer the articles in WTL as opposed to Smith's WW, but this week I can not say that's true. I really enjoyed Smith's chapter and was quite confused by Hartwell's essay on grammar. Was I the only one who didn't totally get everything Hartwell was talking about with all her diagrams and such? I like the definitions that were offered and I do agree with Hartwell's point that grammar is basically a counterintuitive process of our minds. I understand the argument against teaching grammar-one point being that it does not improve students' writing, but don't the conventions of grammar still need to be taught at some point? I didn't realize the teaching of grammar was such a hot topic in the writing world, and both sides brought out good points to defend their side. I'll have to think about this some more because I'm not quite sure where I stand on this issue.

I really liked Smith's chapter and found it very easy to read. I heard the phrase 'read like a writer' before but never completely understood what that phrse encompasses. Now I do. I thought it was great that Smith refers to this as a type of collaborative learning, and indeed it is. I never thought about how much we learn about writing just from reading other writers works. And as an avid reader, I really appreciated and agreed with Smith's point that reading is the essential source of knowledge about writing. Smith said that authors have a tremendous advantage over teachers because they can teach at the writer's speed and ways that can't be instructed from another person. I think this is a great observation. Smith brings in the quote "Writing is learned rather than taught, and learning to write is a recursive process rather than a linear one" (215). I think if all teachers understood this idea, teaching writing would be a more enjoyable experience for all involved. My other favorite quote from the chapter came on page 196 when Smith said "the basis of learning to write is inventiveness, manifested through sensitivity in reading and experimentation in writing." What a great philosophy on writing! I don't think it could have been said any more concisely or meaningfully than how Smith words it. Smith makes such obvious statements and observations about the process of writing and teaching writing that it makes you wonder how so many teachers can do it wrong?!

Blog 08

Patrick Hartwell, 20 pages and an hour of my life I will never get back. 20 pages and I am still trying to figure out if anything that was said in Hartwell’s article had any point beyond “RAWR TEACHING GRAMMAR BAD! ME SMASH GRAMMAR!” Yes, that sounds cocky and rude; after all I am nothing more than an undergraduate who seems to have an unfounded grudge against the system. However, going against what Harwell is saying - or at least what I think he was saying considering by the time I got to the math part I was reading it like the teachers on in Charlie Brown – has merit, at least some. I may be wrong but what is being said boils down to the idea that by teaching grammar or at least grammar as we can quantify it either hurts or adds/improves nothing to the writing process and as such grammar education in its current form needs to be eliminated. This despite the fact that grammar seems to be making a comeback of sorts in the school system after my generation played guinea pig for the grammar elimination idea. Obviously grammar instruction has its place and is needed, without grammar I would currently be talking like Yoda and not find something wrong with it or typing “I wrasled ah bare tadey” and be perfectly fine in how I use it. Yes, grammar is far more than just spelling it’s how you place your words, the proper order and Hartwell gives a good example on how we subconsciously already know how to order our words without instruction with the “French the young girls four” (203). However as anyone who has ever used Microsoft Word knows messing up proper word configurations is an easy thing to do and in doing so we as writers make the Great Paper Clip an angry and vengeful god.

Just for general information I am sick an tired of these damned hippie conspiracy evil “MAN” theories we keep reading about: “It is, after all, a question of power … to take power from the teacher and to give it that power to the learner” (217). Yes! Exactly! Teaching grammar is nothing more than a bunch of cruel and evil people on a power trip! Oh God, it is so clear now! Well, I guess this means I can write my next paper any way I want. “Relateship my readin’ wuz ah buy ‘egan …” After all grammar instruction is a power trip not an effort to make sure people write coherently. (Yes, I am exaggerating)

One question before I move on: Who are the “alchemists” again?

Probably the only thing I have come to like about the Smith readings is the almost Zen like (and I mean Zen in the Karate Kid “Zen Bowling” way) fashion that Smith presents writing. It certainly feels as such when a person becomes a “writer,” the clarity of the idea, knowledge and direction. It is a beautiful thing. Try as I might I am having a hard time finding my position against him this time, although I do not think that it is as simple to learn the technicalities of writing as he says. However, as First Sergeant V always said: “if you don’t have a solution when you complain, don’t complain.”