Re: Colleague's skepticism (and holiday reading)

[Mike Keene <mkeene@utkvx.utk.edu>]

Two more points (well, three):

1.  Your colleague treats writing as a monad.  One "thing" one either has 
or doesn't.  It makes more sense to treat writing as a whole bunch of 
things, say, perhaps, a _suite_ (as in this box called Microsoft Office 
over here, a "suite" of software).  Imitating the sound of writing we 
read is part of the suite; editing is part.  But there are lots o' other 
parts, certainly some more teachable/learnable than imitation is.  How to 
revise (or even the existence of revising, in your colleague's case) is 
one; how to recognize and adapt to different audiences and situations is 
another, etc.

2.  On learning from peers.  Having recognized writing as a suite, we can 
say of working with peers things like "yes Ralph is a better composer 
than I am, but I am a better reviser," or "yes Kate has a better grasp of 
this approach to this subject matter than I do, but I am more experienced 
at doing this kind of writing," or "yes Harry has this content down 
better than I do, but I am quicker at producing passable rough drafts."  
So say to your colleague, James, that Mike has co-authored with half of 
the population of this hemisphere, all peers, and _all_ of them were better 
than Mike at something, some part of the suite called "writing," and Mike 
tried hard to learn about that part of the suite from each peer.  Ralph 
taught me to be a better composer; Kate to see the approach to the subject 
more clearly; Harry to see the content itself from his point of view.  
Each is valuable; each adds to my suite.

3.  Thanks to whoever suggested _Smilla's Sense of Snow_ and 
_Borderliners_!  Wowzers!  Great reading!

Mike Keene
mkeene@utkvx.utk.edu