Subject: Re: Colleague's skepticism (and holiday reading)

[Eric Crump <wleric@showme.missouri.edu>]

From:          KARLF@AIKEN.SCAROLINA.EDU
To:            WCENTR-L@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu
Date:          Sat, 6 Jan 1996 2:10:06 GMT+5

I think I have reduced my anger enough to respond.  I'm piggy-backing on
Mike's response just cuz I found it convenient.  Forgive me if this
rambles, but I can't take it much longer.

History . . .
I spent my high school years in a Jesuit school for reasons only my
parents can explain (although I tend to agree with them today).  I
learned all the nifty rules of writing, and I could edit like there was
no tomorrow.  Somehow someway, I was placed in the remedial comp class
when I entered college.  I didn't care much, though.  Afterall, I was
poised to be an engineer with two years of physics and two years of
calculus in high school (I took one year of each at a local college
during my senior year of high school).  I felt like "engineering king"
when I entered college, and no way was this comp. thaaang gonna stand in
my way.

Unfortunately, my first college comp instructor showed me that I could
structure ideas as easily as numbers and graphs and diff-e-q's.  Sure,
it was the proverbial five-paragaph theme, but I realized that
diagramming (sic? I'm not gonna bother) a sentence meant communicating
an idea.  So I took more  . . . and more . . . and more writing classes
until I was informed that my  support would run out in four years and I
my only option for a major in that time was English.  I decided that I
could do the English thing because I learned one thing--how to revise.

I learned to love the idea of re -VISION.  Each word, each sentence,
each paragraph, each idea was capable of being "trash, trash, trash."
And the person who told me to take out the trash during college wasn't a
Phd but my one of my housemates.  In fact, the first time that I
considered myself a "writer" was when I told him that "Joshua Fairchild"
was too obvious a name for a character experiencing a Hemingwayish
boy-to-man experience.  He changed to "Josie Childs" and wrote a pretty
fair story for his short story course.

I guess I'm saying that your colleague has a pretty narcissistic view of
him(her)self.  Us clones (and I still consider myself one) don't teach
anyone.  We try to give people the tools and motivation to teach
themselves.  When students want to learn, they will come to someone
approachable and willing to discuss the learning process.  Generally,
that person is not the stiff behind the podium in front of the class.
Afterall, that stiff has countless other students to deal with.

The Writing Room provides students who want to learn with other students
who want to learn.  They do it together.  That's the beauty of the
Writing Room and the students who care enough to work in it.

Perhaps it's my high school or my Roman Catholic upbringing (for which,
again, I have no regrets), but I've become tired of instructors claiming
that they teach anyone anything.  We give tools and preach motivation.

Learning is something students do amongst themselves.

The Writing Room provides that forum and opportunity.

karl

>>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
>>
>
Karl Fornes
USC-Aiken Writing Center
B-2 Classroom Building
Aiken, SC 29801
(803) 641-6851 ext.3706
karlf@aiken.sc.edu