Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:04:55 -0500
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Subject: Re: Re/Joyce (clever?)

Yes, very.

I >see the traditional >essay as a time-saving device for teachers, so we don't have to figure out >the ramblings of >students. We can find the thesis (my son's professor even demands that his >students >underline their theses) and evaluate the thinking process involved in the >development.

Mary, my concerns about a thesis-driven essay, one that lends itself to a simple 5 paragraph format, is that it forecloses thinking, rather than represents it. If I demand a clear thesis and proper grounds and support (all in a 3-5 week span), I'm likely to get a pretty simplistic thesis and limited grounds of support. Which doesn't mean that I don't teach thesis driven essays: I'm just not sure it it is the right thing to be doing. Or, if it is the right thing to be doing, I'm not sure we are going about it the right way. I'm pretty convinced that the "rambling" is where the thinking happens.

It seems to me that Yancey and Spooner (aka Myka) are trying to represent their ramblings to show the ways in which dialogue leads to insight. When we draft with students, it is presumably "rambling" that we get in the first draft of many of the papers. I think many teachers might try to quickly get that draft in shape, but here is one place where I differ: I emphasize using the second draft to explore further possibilities, to risk messing the paper up further. A third draft is usually where I look for some pulling together, but I also have learned to value the messy paper that has energy and insight, rather than a boring old 5 paragraph theme. Power in writing, I believe, comes not from its correctness, but from a combination of the quality of ideas and freshness of language. In this account, I think I sound a little bit like David Bartholomae, and a little bit like Geoff Sirc, although more like B. than S.

>The MVE offers an electronic "marketplace of ideas" to be discussed. I see >merit in both.

I'm willing to see the merit in both, too, although I see myself (in the context of the work of many other scholars) as trying to re-invigorate the "term paper" or whatever you want to call that thing that makes up first-year comp., and I see myself as trying to harness the MVE a little bit--figure it out a bit more so that I can teach it in a way that doesn't simply result in me throwing an assignment at students and saying: good luck, you figure it out. I think I would come back to my idea that the MVE, as Y&S have written it, is like a representation of "process"--can it be more? should it be more?

>Your "confession" of being "a mouse with a plan" surprised me until I >realized that I have >told my students to tell stories of their lives that illustrate their >"thesis" instead of pointing >fingers by writing, "You should not take drugs because my mom really messed >up my life >by being an addict." I do have them write theses because I want them to >learn to handle >one idea at a time to avoid chasing rabbits. I think more experienced >writing groups >would find staying on topic (coherence) quite a bit easier.

What I would say about my advanced writing students is that most of them are trying to learn how to write by juggling ideas, rather than "staying on topic." Sure, there is some pruning and focusing that goes on, but most--I don't know what to call them: good, mature, sophisticated, engaging?--pieces of writing derive their power from their complexity and their coherence from subtle repetition. I can imagine counter examples, but this is definitely a kind of writing I value and want my students to try out.

>Joyce repeats "we must be aware of our desires and wary of what we are >rapidly >becoming used to in their representations, for what we are used to we too >often become >used by" (164-5). I understand this in reference to the web becoming a >billboard for >advertising that "uses" us as consumers, but some of his other meanings are >obscure. >Anyone care to explain other meanings?

I'm not sure what "other meanings" you mean, Mary.

>When I read, "communication involves no longer so much the substance of what >we say, >but more of its expression and construction," I thought that is opposite of >Shakespeare's >plea for "More matter with less art." Which do we want to teach our >students in freshman >comp--creative writing or exposition? Can we do both?

This is very similar to what Lynne brings up in connection with JJE. It seems that in our discussions we almost all agree that in the context of a whole curriculum (first-year to fourth-year writing courses) we could, and perhaps should cover "modernist to postmodernist" approaches to writing. That is certainly the "easy" way out. If we were more committed postmodernists, we might talk more seriously about throwing the modernist out, although maybe Mary and I represent the modernist and postmodernist approaches to first-year comp. Sirc would jump back in here and say, "If looked at from Duchamp's perspective, there is no difference between Mary and Kevin." The struggle over FYC is somewhat more heated, however, because so many of those students will not take another writing class, or if they do, it will be even more rigid than 110-120. Is anyone here postmodernist enough to say, "If that is the case, they need to learn how to write on the screen in 110-120, because they sure as heck aren't going to get that in a Tech. Comm. class." Is anyone willing to say a department of English and a university should be cutting edge rather than old as a favorite pair of shoes?

>I agree that our students need to be concerned with "knowing about," but, >again, I like to >challenge them to "know" where they stand at a particular point in time. If >we are "in the >midst of making a new culture" as Joyce says, isn't it important to "know >about" current >culture, but then to "know" where we want to go from here? To me, the block >quote at >the end describes "formless and void" or utter chaos. Being open to >possibilities is one >thing, but throwing out the rulebook invites anarchy. Am I the only one who >wants firm >ground to build on instead of shifting sand? Isn't the student in the block quote talking about trying to figure out where she is, in relation "bodies and waves"?

I think she is talking about the importance of rambling as leading to understanding. Maybe I am just an intuitive, rather than logical learner (although I wouldn't have thought that about myself), but I remember getting Cs, not Bs, on "assigned outlines" in English classes, but still being able to write A papers. What does that mean?

Are we even talking about the same things, Mary? I hope I am not missing your points too badly. What processes do you ask your students to go through as a writer? You said that you yourself like to have "surveyed the ground" before committing words to print. If your students haven't really surveyed the ground, can they write good thesis statements? Have you figured out how to get them to survey they ground? Not trying to proselytize, honest! Just trying to shake up those modernist foundations. ;)

Kevin

Next-->