Re: To form or not to form

[Richard Long <rlong@daemen.edu>]

Cliff wrote:

> she made it clear that though she appreciated my cautions,
> she was nevertheless committed to her structure.  I didn't
> feel I needed to say much else, except to compliment her on
> her courage for taking risks.

I understand what Cliff is saying here: that often it takes courage for a
writer to stand by her discourse. Yet, I wonder if this is always the case.
That is, I wonder if the writer is always committed to her discourse but
instead is resistant to revision. I've worked with many writers, those in
my classes and those I'm tutoring--if there's a difference--who have
written fine essays that otherwise do not fit the assignment. I've told the
writer as much, who then says but that is what he intended to write. It
seems to me that much of the argument in this 5P discussion is based on the
assumption that all writing is expressive and that all readers must be
willing to accept that all writing is expressive. Or that all readers must
be willing to accept that all writing is writer-based. I'll admit that the
reader must often adapt herself to the discourse, but the writer must also
adapt his discourse to the reader. In the current climate of pedagogy and
ideology, however, it seems that we are wanting to give complete control to
the writer, that the writer is always right, and if a reader has problems
with a text, whether with its style or structure, its the fault of the
reader. Sometime it is, sometimes it's not.

Richard Long
Daemen College