Dawkins IWA

"Teaching Punctuation as a Rhetorical Tool"

Summary:
           John Dawkins approaches conversation of punctuation and teaching it as a rhetorical method: that is, as if punctuation is a choice how to use by the author. He deems that in the past "rules" have been established so that writers will learn the proper use before they misuse it for different purposes. He questions how many of us have heard the phrase "You have to know the rules before you can break them." Most of us have heard this before and Dawkins questions whether or not this phrase is true. He gives MANY examples of cases in which grammar handbooks create strict rules, and then compares grammatical uses in essays to show more realistic applications that involve flexibility and author's choice. In conclusion, Dawkins sums up his point with the idea that the reason manuals are faulty are because there is more than one or two ways to write something. Therefore, rules cannot be set in stone, so to speak, because the opportunities of grammatical use are not as strict as the rule itself.

Before You Read:
My sister's treehouse (made of wood scraps and cardboard) made a great place to play with her friends.
The wood scrap and cardboard treehouse made a great place to for my sister to play with her friends.
A great place to play with my sisters friend was in the treehouse made of wood scraps and cardboard.

The rules in which I have used are basically the same for all three sentences: to keep the verb the same in each sentence but to switch the position of subject and object, allowing identifiers to stay with what they identified.

As you read...
We should conclude that, in Dawkin's view, writing that does not follow one set of rules is the more natural, realistic way in which we approach language and writing everyday. He would think it's the most accurate.

QDJ:

I know more about punctuation now than before I read, by far. I agree with Dawkins that handbooks have it wrong with they force strict policies because it intimidates students and writers. What if something brilliant is written but never put into the word because the author is afraid it's grammatically incorrect? Good writing can be grammatically incorrect and grammatically incorrect works can also be boring and a waste of time to read.

AEI:

Reading the obituary of a 93 year-old woman, I realize that the sentences are shorter than her life by far. The most complex sentence in the whole piece is the combination of her surviving relatives. It's grammatically correct, yet merely factual and a tad boring. No stories with complex ideas and tales. The most interesting thing about it is her name, which was Alexandra Johnstein.

MM:

I think I gain from this article a sense that not all authority believe the same strict grammatical rules, that someone's opinion that matters has been heard and is on the side of creativity and reality.