Creativity vs. Functionality-- Thoughts on Hartwell

After reading Hartwell's article, I thought long and hard. I thought to myself... "Can I make some sense, or f ind common ground, with an article that had my blood boiling three sentences in?" The answer is both yes and no.

I have no problem with Hartwell's thesis, that, "for me, the grammar issue was settled atleast twenty years ago with....the teaching of formal grammar has a negligble, or, because it usually displaces some instruction and practice in composition, even a harmful effect on improvement in writing" (205). I acknowledge that everyone is entitled to different opinions on different subject matter. Such is the nature of being human beings. More so, sometimes these different perspectives can make for englightened reading, especially if the thesis is argued convincingly. Hartwell's problem, therefore, is the way he tries to argue his thesis.

For the most part, I found Hartwell to be particurially condescending to those who believed grammar is an important component of good writing. He labels those who defend the teaching of grammar as, " [having] a model of composition instruction that is rigidly skills centered and rigidly sequential" (208). Hartwell seems to find no middle ground in composition instructions: teachers are either grammar control freaks, or they aren't.

If that wasnt enough, Hartwell really lost me with the identification of someone commited to teaching grammar a "hostile reader". He says he "tr[ies] to think of ways to hammer in the central point of this distinction..." (215). The word choice here is really revealing, and seems to continue with the controlling grammar teacher motif.

Hartwell's main reason for disliking grammar seems to be his belief in the grammar's hindering of the writing process and the creativity within it. He points out a college writing handbook with instructions to test each sentence for completness, make sure each sentence has a subject and predicate, etc. Okay, now, while this make seem to be unnesecary for someone in English 101, we do not know who the book is aimed for. It could be used for a 015 class, ESL classes. What I am trying to say is that I agree that there should not be this level of control in a higher English class. But as an English tutor, I can assure you I have come across many English papers that need help in this area.

What if Hartwell took his own advice? What is he wrote this article without any thought to grammar, usage, coherance, etc. The article could become terribly articulated in these terms. Could we take Hartwell's argument seriously in an essay laden with errors?

Or rather, what is Hartwell wrote his article with this kind of language:


http://icanhascheezburger.com/

(please click link, I tried everything to upload the picture, but to no avail...)

I know this may be a drastic example, but the world as a whole is seeing an increase in "webspeak" "textspeak" and this "lolspeak". If you have time, there is an interesting article on the page I got this from about the evolution of language on the internet


http://icanhascheezburger.com/2007/05/08/a-special-in-depth-analysis-by-david-mcraney-l337-katz0rz/

Considering Aristotelian Impact on Contemporary Composition

Both "Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories" and "A Brief History of Rhetoric and Composition" were important in understanding the way rhetorical thought and writing has evolved. Although Berlin's article focuses on his thesis that New Rhetoric is "the most intelligent and most practical alternative available," I feel that the latter of the two articles make a valid point in saying, "classical rhetoric, although concerned with oratory, still influences writing instruction" ("A Brief History")

What i would like to focus on are the devices within Aristotelian rhetoric: the rational, the emotional, and the ethical (258). When writing an argument, these can be powerful tools the writer can use. One common thread throughout all the pedagogies is approaches to finding truth. When speaking about Current Traditional Rhetoric two quotes stuck out to me:

"Current Traditional Rhetoric views the rhetorical situation of an arena where the truth is incontrovertibly established by a speaker or writer more enlightened than her audience"(268).

"...truth is empirically based and can only be achieved through subverting a part of the human response to experience" (268-9).

I could not help but to think, part of Aristotle, and thus, Aristotelian Rhetoric,would agree with these statements. After all, what better way to evoke a human response but with examples based in something the reader can put an emotional tangibility on? Likewise, a way to establish an enlightened writer could be through their command of ethics and a rational way of looking at things.

I acknowledge not every aspect of Aristotelian Classical Rhetoric can meld within today's contemporary composition pedagogies. However, it was refreshing to evaluate parts of rhetorical history to see how they have impacted our methods of learning, and also how they will continue to.

The Basic Aims of Discourse

Kinneavy's article first sent me into a worry-some state over the use of the word "discourse" in the article title. The word "discourse" used to make me uncomfortable--what is discourse anyway? It is a term I have heard tossed around quite frequently since I have started graduate school, and have heard several definitions. I was glad that Kinneavy articulated his own definition of it almost right away, saying "discourse here means the full text, oral or written, delivered at a specific time and place or delivered at several instances" (129). Once that was established, I felt more comfortable approaching the text.

One of the things that I found interesting overall in the article was when Kinneavy wrote about the consequences of restricting composition to expository writing and the reading of literary texts (137). He writes:

The neglect of expressionism....has stifled self expression in the student and partially, at least, is a cause of unorthodox and extreme forms of deviant self expression now indulged in by college students on many campuses today. (137).

I wondered what Kinneavy meant by "deviant" forms of self expression...is he talking about deviant as in "different" or having a much more sinister notion. The truth is either connotation of the world deviant brings with it further implications. I am not sure what these implications are, but I would like to look into them as a future teacher of writing.

Furthermore, self expression has been an issue for me lately, and although I am not deviant (atleast I think im not ;) ) I think for the first time I am seeing the results of neglect or stifling of self expression in my own writing. I consider myself a very "formal" writer, and as I further my education, it seems the "rules" of writing have become lax. This has resulted in my desire to want to free myself from these rules which have bound me, but ultimately leads to a writers block of some sort.

New Beginning

Hello everyone!

Well, this is my first offical blog, and thus-- my first blog post! I am looking forward to reading what everyone has to say, and learning to work with a blog (something I always wanted to do, but never made time for)

Jessica