After reading some of Brandt, I started trying to analyze my own writing process. How I write depends on what I'm writing, actually. If I am composing something scholarly, I will write not to keep the reader engaged, per say, but write what “needs” to be written. By “need,” I mean that structure has a lot to do with something scholarly. One needs to expertly place this subject in this paragraph and this topic sentence above this paragraph in order to make the paper, overall, appear more sound and coherent. I'm not sure if this means I am placing more value on the end product rather than the process or if it ,actually, is all about the context. I need to better understand the processes that are a cause of any form of composition. At times, I feel that I am making corrections to my own writing and not really knowing why I corrected it; This all applies to structure, syntax, diction...etc. I'm trying to trace the cord back to the wall and better understand the processes that have caused me to think the way I do. I think that understanding these processes, and I believe Brandt would agree, is the best way to understand how one composes. Like I said before, context means a lot, too, but context is a generic word at this point and understanding context leads to a perpetual cycle of tracing the cognitive processes. A lot of what Brandt was getting at made sense, but some was just too subjective and could have been refined a little more. I could be wrong, though; That's just my opinion.
The Heath text made me think of how people outside of the English department think about English. I noticed that a lot of the townspeople Heath was studying valued reading, but didn't necessarily see value in acquiring knowledge from reading. I see this as somewhat of a paradox: You don't do the very thing you value. I guess I can relate, though. I haven't read some texts because of how dense they appear. I didn't think the text was too hard to read, but ,rather, the time taking to read and understand the text wouldn't translate into something of value. I think of time and energy as a resource, just like anything else. For people in these mill towns, reading isn't going to yield something the same way a day of working will. I think this is a sentiment held by people, even within academia. I could spend days on end reading a book about farming, but actually doing it and seeing results is what is tangible and needed in an agrarian (or industrial) society. I'm still trying to figure out how to actually spend my time and energy towards something that will yield and intellectual crop of fruit. This is done by trial and error. I see the inherent value in reading and literacy, but the extent to which I am supposed to understand it can be overkill, even for an English major. This, again, brings to mind what it means to be literate. Being literate of the written word is one thing, but being literate of how to accomplish a task such as farming/building is another. A person can be illiterate of the written word, but through oral tradition and observing elders, one can be literate of how to do things ( like working in a mill). I believe there has been much revealed about literacy, but it is still changing and lots left to be learned.
I definitely share your sentiments about academic writing. Most of the time, I'm more worried about the structure and execution of my work than the content. While I know that all writing has a certain structure and list of expectations, I seem to affect a certain voice in my academic writing that I wouldn't call my own. It's like an academic persona that I've created in my head that, while different, isn't entirely divorced from who I am.
ReplyDeleteThen again, I'm often reminded that I'm a terrible critic of my own work. Have you ever written something that thought--"Yeah, that's *my* idea, and those are *my* words, and it sounds great"--and had your teacher tear it to shreds? I have, and I've probably done it as a teacher myself. I've learned to fear scholarly writing, but I at least can consider the fears of others when I teach writing.
I keep thinking about identity, whether individual or communal, related to writing and reading. It always upset me more when I received a bad essay grade than it did when I failed a geometry test. I can't quite figure out why exactly people, generally speaking, invest so much emotion into written texts.
David Bartholomae speaks to the issue of how we imagine and create an "academic" voice and style in his article "Inventing the University." Bartholomae discusses how we imagine academic writing vs. creative or personal writing, and try to match our writing style to the expectations of a scholarly audience (to summarize the argument briefly). I think we all correct our writing to match our perceived audience's expectations, as you said, sometimes without knowing why. Sometimes we hate academic writing (so many long, obnoxious sentences!) but we still give it a lot of value. Just like the readers in Heath. And just like them, we all sometimes just want the knowledge without having to read the whole text.
ReplyDeleteJ.P.,
ReplyDeleteI was thinking about what you said about how people outside of the English department think about English (or literacy and its usefulness in any language). Those are Street’s contexts (I think he explains the usage in a purposeful way). Beyond just the US, he has also looked at literacy practices in Iran, Nepal, South Africa, and India; but many of the situations he examines are outside of academia. The value that academics have for literacy is very specific to our professional aims and survival; I think that the currency each individual places on specific literacies is relative.
J.P.,
ReplyDeleteI never thought about it before, but everything you said about your writing is true of mine, as well—my writing changes depending on what I’m writing. I never really thought about it like that before. And your response on Heath’s text made so much sense to me. Like you said, “For people in these mill towns, reading isn't going to yield something the same way a day of working will” therefore, they do not value it. We’ve talked about the value system and who holds the power within literacy previously in class and I think this definitely plays into the dialogue.