You've Gotta Fight...

Brannon & Knoblauch: I'll start out with a quote this time around: "The more we know about a writer's skill, the more we have read of that individual's work or heard of his or her reputation, the greater the claim to authority. This claim can be so powerful that we will tolerate writing from that author which appears to be unusually difficult, even obscure or down-right confusing." (p 157) I agree with this completely. This explains why I forced myself through Orlando by Virginia Woolf. I hated it immediately but kept trudging through, just because it was Woolfie. What a waste.
I have to admit that I'm glad I read this before I started teaching. It's true that even when I peer review, I don't attribute much authority to the text of my peer and so I probably go in there with the preconceived notion that there are mistakes to be unrooted, problems to be solved. I would say that the descriptions of the Paternalistic teacher who swings to the conservative or the liberal is shockingly similar to the differing views that Bartholomae and Elbow have of student work. I would be so frustrated if a teacher gave me a bad grade and then told me that I really meant to say this or the other. I remember speaking to an unnamed student who had an unnamed professor who actually made a vocabulary change on the student's rough draft. It was something like changing the word "work" to "toil" or something as ridiculous. When things like that happen, the whole work stops being the student's.
The Lindbergh Ideal Text thing was crazy, but I can see people reading something like what that student wrote and making those comments. It's nuts, but it's happened before. What is profound to some is absurd to others.
I guess the answer to finding some sort of middle ground between the conservative paternal teacher and the liberal paternal teacher is really just that...take the middle road. Negotiate with the student. Talk to them about their work or better yet, ask them about it. Don't assume it's wrong if it doesn't neatly fit predetermined conventionality, but don't assume it's groundbreaking and has some sort of artistic agenda behind it.

Someone used the phrase, "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" the other day and I thought of the Lindbergh baby. Maybe that's what really happened to him.

Attention: Suppression!

Lauren: I thought this was great. It reminded me of when I was in high school and my crazy nutso World History teacher would give us sets of 50-70 identifications to do each night for homework. She wanted us to go through our antiquated history book and define whatever names or terms she had as identifications. I would do them for an hour and then start making stuff up. I remember I described Lloyd George (the Prime Minister of England right after WWI) as being the androgynous lead singer of the 1980's band, Culture Club. I did this with a ton of the identifications, as well as writing hidden messages such as "Tabatsko, I'm going to kill all of your ferns before the semester is out." I received an A on all of my identifications.
Anyway, yeah. this thing that Lauren did reminded me of how some teachers just look at format and the very basic clues as to what makes a good paper (1 inch margin, title, cited sources, topic sentences for each paragraph, etc.). I thought the whole thing really spoke to a teacher's awareness of student writing and maybe their attention focus on individual papers.
I did have a problem with the poorly graded paper. One of the teacher's comments was "Yuck" about a transition. Absolutely, the particular transition the student makes is not a great one, but I would be destroyed if a teacher wrote "Yuck" on my paper. Maybe I'm touchy on this because I have notably terrible transitions. I could just be overly-sensitive in this arena.

Bartholomae eats Elbow pasta for lunch.

It's been a considerable amount of time since I've read this...I fell off the good blogging wagon. :(
Bartholomae: I like this fellow. I suppose I don't really get what's so wrong about teaching academic writing. If it "passes as currency in the academy," (p 62) then teachers would be wrong to pass out Confederate dolla dolla bills (y'all) in lieu of skills that hold value in a community that students will be a part of for at least the next four years. Like it or not, academic writing is something that has proven itself to be useful to students in the past. Is everyone excited about it? Heck no. I happen to kind of like writing academically and even I don't respond "I get to write a thesis statement and support it with reliable, documented sources? Color me PUMPED!" I think Bartholomae is sort of arguing against the "tricking" of students into thinking what they are doing is not academic writing. Kind of like the vitamin pill in the twinkie, so to speak.
I have to agree with what he says about the work of Jane Tompkins and Mina Shaughnessy in that they are advocating (maybe?) that the work their students are doing is more authentic than academic writing. "The danger is assuming that one genre is more real than the other ( a detailed, loving account of the discourse on domesticity found in 19th century American women's magazines) - in assuming that one is real writing and the other is only a kind of game academics play."(69). Word, St. Bartholomae. "True" that. One time in class, Shipka was reading a list about what some people considered qualities of good writing. One that kept popping up was "honesty." Like, "I felt they were writing from the heart." or "Their writing was so completely honest." What does that mean? Does that speak to the authenticity of the piece? Who is writing inauthentic texts that we need to be so concerned with how "honest" something is? I'm confused by this whole idea, I guess. (I feel like I've blogged about this issue before, but I don't feel like going back and checking. You'll have to deal with my repetition.) Last word on Bartholomae: "You have to learn to write like E. B. White before you can learn to write like Gertrude Stein. Picasso couldn't have been a cubist if he hadn't learned to draw figures." (70) Yeah, totally. That's what I've been saying!

Elbow: Is Peter Elbow adorable? I just have a feeling he is. (Shipka, if you know the answer to this...don't tell me. Let a girl dream.)
Why is there a conflict between the role of the writer and the role of the academic? What defines an academic? Constraints of assignments or goals? Need for focus? How is that different from the definition of a writer? To me, even writers are working under the constraints of many things...language, background knowledge, audience, maybe publishability (who knows?). I guess I don't get why there has to be a stark contrast between these two roles or why they have to conflict at all. I feel like Bartholomae and Elbow really want to have them not conflict, and yet they insist they do. Elbow has a good point about approaching texts "We must try to come at these strong important texts: - no matter how good or hallowed they may be - as much as possible as fellow writers - as fully eligible members of the conversation: not treat them as sacred: not worry about "doing justice" to them or getting them dirty." (74) Point well taken. I agree with the "conversation" metaphor as well, and I think that academic writing can accomplish this.
I'm going to conclude this, because I don't know what else to say that hasn't already been addressed in other blogs. It looks like Bartholomae wants to tell his students to understand that they are just a small drop of water in the big, wide literature ocean. You know, be aware of your own ineffectuality. Elbow insists that students should believe themselves to be the next T.S. Eliot or something, that everything they write should be with the notion that it is utterly groundbreaking. My thoughts about student writing fall somewhere in between. Somewhere waaaay in between.
P.S. I found a note I wrote to myself when I first read this back in March. I was reading it at my local pub and I was overhearing conversations all night from the people around me. Here goes:
"Since when did the phrase 'Being real' replace 'Being yourself?'" If anyone can answer this, I'd be grateful.

This is sort of related...

I'm doing observations for my education class and during my last observation there was a period of boredom while students were quietly working on a worksheet. I took this opportunity to look at the textbook they had been using in the classroom, so here are my notes:

The book is Adventures in American Literature, Pegasus Edition. It is broken up into time periods and literary movements. At the end of the book, in Modern Nonfiction, there is an essay from James Baldwin on "The Creative Process" and William Faulkner's Nobel Prize acceptance speech. The end of the nonfiction pieces feature study and discussion questions, as well as prompts for further research. Also, at the end of the book is a section titled "Reading and Writing about Literature." The first objective of this section is for the student to "develop skills in critical thinking." The students are guided through a close reading with the story "A Game of Catch" by Richard Wilbur. Following this is a piece titled "Guidelines for Reading a Short Story." There is also a guided close reading of a poem by Elinor Wylie with "guidelines for reading a poem." The same occurs with a play. After all of this is a section called "Writing about Literature: The Writing Process." The section seems to be geared towards answering exam questions and answering an essay question. Evaluating and revising papers are also covered here. (Just looked on Amazon.com to get an image...the text is from 1989! Can't get an image...you can find it here: http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0153348542.01._BO2,204,203 )

So there it is. It's not much, but I was thinking of this class as I was looking over the book and I didn't put these notes in my paper, so I thought I'd just go ahead and post them here. I also thought it would be interesting to see an actual textbook that is actually being used in a school this semester. The school is Dulaney High School in Timonium.
P.S. I have an inner ear infection that has given me severe vertigo. I am officially Liza Minnelli on "Arrested Development."
Love,
Lucille 2

Pomo Blues w/ a splash of nonfat, zing of honey, and no lid

It's so depressing to sit down to the computer again. For some reason, I thought I already responded to this, but I then realized that I was rereading my blog about Connors, not Carroll. Hup, two, three, four:
Carroll: Man, I hate to talk about postmodernism when it's been so nice outside, but I suppose it must be done. The fact that all writing assignments can be placed under a handful of categories is a little disheartening, but pretty accurate. I was sort of agreeing with Carroll all along until the story about Alex and the "true meaning of Christmas" came up. She presents Alex's two versions of the story and then says "neither version of Alex's story is necessarily more authentic" (922). Yeah, I guess, but if Alex volunteers that the "mood" the one narrative contains is closer to his actual feelings of the event, isn't that one more authentic? Was it Runciman that pointed out the pleasure one gets from finding exactly accurate phrasing to say what one wanted to say? Doesn't that make that particular piece (or at least sentence) more authentic than other ways of saying it would be? Obviously, there is a problem with what is "authentic writing." I forget what Shipka was reading in class the one time, but it was something about judging good writing and that it was based on how "honest" the writer was. I mean, that's a doozy, right? How is that something that can be either slated "yes, honest" or "no, complete bull crap"? Sorry, moving on...
Aha, here we go: "the best essay is not the 'truest'; it is the one that rings most true for the readers" (924). Okay, so there we encounter another problem with authenticity...the reader's perspective. Holy Geez, Pomo is such a headache sometimes.
Overall, I thought the essay was well done in it's application of postmodernism onto freshman composition writing assignments. The student yelling "IT'S ALL TRUE!" at the end of the piece seemed like an easy out to me, but I suppose she was right. Also, it's pretty appropriate in keeping with the theme of postmodernism being something that everyone can be blamed for, but no one can help.

The Jumping Dog and the Room Full of Clowns

I'm pet/housesitting for a few of my cousins while they're in Florida this week. You know what just occured to me? I don't know if I'm getting paid for these gigs. Oh man, I better be.

Alright, so today was the first day of my "checking in" on Mr. Peabody, my cousin's very small, very jumpy dog. I went after work tonight (around 9:30 p.m.) and was greeted by what appeared to be the Olympian high-jumping dog of the century. Right away, I took Peabody out which was kind of a treat because my cousins live in a development with lighted sidewalks and neatly paved streets. This is a stark contrast from my curvy wurvy road that leads to my family's giant hill, complete with barn (thankyouverymuch). Right, so I'm walking. Peabody's walking. We're having a grand ol' time. He does his busin-nasty and I clean it up. Homewards we go.

Clearly, I must feed this dog. I find the note my cousin Christy leaves on the counter for me, detailing the rigorous procedure I must follow in order to adhere to Mr. Peabody's needs. The note says brilliant and enlightened things like "Food in food dish." and "Give him water." Amazed at my cousin's innovative approaches to canine caretaking, I wander around the house to look for the aforementioned food dish. I can't find it. I even call my mother (who literally hasn't been able to walk for weeks due to some horrible knee problems. Needless to say that she hasn't been over their house in quite some time) to see if maybe she has any insight at all as to the location of Mr. Peabody's shite (not literally shite...I saw where that was. Outside, thank Jesus). You can all guess that my mother had no idea. Correct assumption, folks.

I should probably mention this before I go any further...I have a phobia. I have no problems with bugs, snakes, mice, or closed-in spaces. I am afraid of clowns. DEATHLY afraid of them. There is no logic to it, really no reason at all. Bottom line is that even as I typed the "c" word (twice!), my stomach did a dip. Shudder. Okay, on with the story:

At this point, I'm thinking Peabody's food and water could be anywhere. Christy told me that he likes to sleep in her room, so I thought it would make sense if she kept his stuff in there. The room was completely dark and I remembered that Christy told me to turn on her light by the lamp on her dresser (across the room) and not the lightswitch on the wall. Easy enough.

For all of my bright ideas and helpful memories of Christy's room and Peabody's sleeping preferences, I forgot the one thing that I have known about my cousin since childhood. THE WOMAN VOLUNTARILY COLLECTS CLOWN FIGURINES.

I want you all to take a moment and think about my thumb and forefinger clicking on that lamp. Okay, you can now visualize all of the blood draining out of my face and my inability to move my entire body.

They were everywhere!! On her bed, on her dresser, on her television, on her side table, on the clock, knitted on a throw pillow...and God knows where else. Because once my fear subsided enough for me to regain standing consciousness, I got the Unholy Hell out of Dodge.

Here's the best (or most ironic) part: I was supposed to sleep there, you know, as a part of the housesitting perks. Christy told me she put new sheets on her bed for me. Looks like she's going to have fresh sheets when she gets home because I'm safe in my office at home now. She's out of her Goddamn mind if she thinks I'm sleeping within a three-mile radius of that house.

So, where were the dishes for the dog? About three feet away from Christy's note, under the kitchen table. I'm an idiot.

I'm Bridwell-Bowles[ed] over. (Someone stop me with these titles...please)

Bridwell-Bowles: I cannot stress how much I liked this reading. I think I may be getting into a good frame of mind for this class now...I hope I'm not psyching myself out.
Right, well. I'll admit that I'm that student who is afraid to go outside of conventionality when it comes to writing "academic" papers. For the record, this class has made me feel like I have to put everything in quotation marks - as if what I'm saying may not really mean what I want it to mean (such as "creative" or "voice"). I don't know if I can respond to this reading in any short manner (and I want to be short because I want to get to bed). I highlighted/underlined a lot of stuff. A lot of gems to be found in this reading, comrades!
Funny - Donald Murray came up again. Fancy that. Here's what Bridwell-Bowles has to say about him: "he argues for a distinction between 'academic voice' and 'personal voice.' They are clearly separate for him" (351). Chaka what now?? Um, isn't this the bloke that said ALL WRITING IS AUTOBIOGRAPHY. ALLLLLL WRITING! I don't know what to think.
What else? Oh, I liked Gearhart's comments about writing being like a "matrix" instead of an assault via argumentation. Incorporating, presenting, questioning, connecting...webby and good. I agreed with Carolyn Heibrun's assertion that "most women's stories about themselves are facades...artifices built of what the culture expects of them, including acquired modesty and humility" (356). That might be able to be stated for anyone of a status or social category that doesn't neatly fit within the public discourse. No one wants to be essentialized as whatever boxes they check off on their legal forms (gender, class, marital status, race, age, etc.) I don't think many people want to be a token for whatever category society has decided to put them in. This is evidenced by Bridwell-Bowles' section on "Sexual Orientation" where she says, "The topic is not safe enough obviously; while gay and lesbian students in my classes have written about the connection between their sexual orientation and their writing, they chose not to give me permission to include samples of their writing in this essay" (360). I thought about maybe why that is. Is it because they feel like they will be held apart as "the voice of the lesbian essayist" or something similar? It's the whole identity thing. Sometimes it's just easier to write "academically" or at least attempting some level of objectivity, even if only because it makes your personal choices/circumstances more anonymous. It's sad, but I can understand why people would prefer their papers to be read that way.

Blaaah. I think I'm going to add more to this later, but right now I'm tired and should get to bed because I've consumed 2 Yuenglings and will get approximately 5 hours of sleep. If I go now. No...now. NOW.