Lamott, King, and Diaz Dialectical Notebook

Lamott--
This reminds me of Allen's debunking of the "inspired writer."	I know some very great writers, writers you love who write beautifully and have made a great deal of money, and not one of them sits down routinely feeling wildly enthusiastic and confident (301).
A good lesson for resilience.	Very few writers really know what they are doing until they've done it (301).
Hemingway said this, too!	Almost all good writing begins with terrible first drafts. You need to start somewhere (303).
King-- This reminds of Murray's inability to write in a different environment.	I'm in another place, a basement place where there are lots of bright lights and clear images. This is a place I've built for myself over the years (305).
Everyone feels it. You just have to write something. The something of nothing is often good stuff.	You can approach the act of writing with nervousness, excitement, hopefulness, or even despair--the sense that you can never completely put on the page of what's in your mind and heart (307).
Everyone approaches it differently and King asks us to bring voice and identity.	I'm not asking you to come reverently or unquestioningly; I'm not asking you to be politically correct or cast aside your sense of humor (please God you have one) (307).
Diaz-- Again, debunking the "inspired writer."	It wasn't that I couldn't write. I wrote every day. I actually worked really hard at writing (319).
I wouldn't call a novel relatively easy. Others wouldn't either.	Five years of my life and the dream I had of myself, all down the tubes because I couldn't pull off something other people seemed to pull off with relative ease: a novel (320).
Good last bit of advice to keep working at what you love.	In my view a writer is a writer because even when there is no hope, even when nothing you do shows any sign of promise, you keep writing anyway (320).

Bartholomae IWA

"Must We Mean What We Say?"

Pre-Reading:
My favorite novel is Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston. The author speaks in the beginning but there is a voice change throughout between author and main character Janie, which is brilliant for reader connection. I think it works very well.

Summary:
Barholomae, a freshman English instructor, gives us examples and summaries of use of voice and identity through papers he's graded and students he's taught over the years. His observation is that students write disconnected essays when they are not allowed to insert personal voice and identity claim to the subject matter. He does not feel that that allowing students to use such voice is wrong, nor does he believe allowing them to change voice in the paper is wrong, either. I connect this idea to McCloud's switch in voice the moment he introduces the real picture of himself. It does not change the voice of the comic for us, but it further reinforces his argument.

QD:

I believe that the title of this article, "Must We Mean What We Say," goes back to Bartholomae's claim that student write disingenuine and disconnected papers.  Must students mean what they write? Should they have connection to the subject matter and have identity in their claims? Or should they write it to turn it in and get a grade? There is much argument in just his title, alone.

AE:

Hoagland uses both devices to one, step back and introduce us as separate from the ungrateful teen, but then moves us into connection with a personal identity and character closer to the reader, the speaker. Then, as readers, we are invited to compare our own lives and understanding, and it becomes an active participating conversation between writer and reader.

MM:

I think that my contribution with identity play works well with fiction. there is a piece of my identity in everyone of my characters, and often times, it's resonance. However, We change how much we want to give a way in each character so we step back to caricature to allow audience a connection. Fiction writing is really a great analogy for Barthalomae's arguments.

Elbow IWA

"Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries"

Pre-Reading:

If I were allow to use first person in my papers, I would absolutely use it often. As a creative writer, we are told to write about what we know. Writing about what I know would give me a way to write a paper about something I didn't know so much about, but personalize it with my own voice. This makes me think about Murray's autobiographical text. Anything can be made ours if we are allowed to add ourselves to it.

Summary:

Elbow tackles the concept of voice in papers; a construct that hasn't been really talked about since the '60s. He goes about explaining voice with binaries of the previous argument, voice tone and presence being either/or but concludes that his binary argument for voice and first person is and/both. Because he makes the argument that not only does voice help establish authority and account, but it benefits the writer and reader (52). While there are occasions when it's helpful to not have an overwhelming voice in a paper, more times than not, voice grabs the attention of the reader/student and helps them connect. This thought relates back to McCloud and his argument for a "visual voice" as a comic version of himself in order to gain and keep student attention.


QD:
What sticks out most to me about Elbow's conversation about his own writing is that he argues all papers have voice, we just think of voice meaning narrative (54). In his own writing he establishes voice, sometimes with first person use of I and sometimes not. It depends on the circumstance.  I do believe he established voice in this text well, though.

AE:
Sincerity is voice that captures truth and uncontrived emotion, but relies on real connection to human emotion. Resonance is layering and adding details into a story or piece with undertones of their unconsciousness, with a rich meaning the reader may not even get.

Connecting to the Reading:
I don't believe Allen was fighting against voice altogether. I think she was fighting against a contrived voice believed to not be a struggle to obtain. Everyone has voice, we just need to use it appropriately.

MM:
I do believe that Elbow's compromise is possible. I believe that one can insert voice and anecdote, grabbing attention of the reader, and then back away and take an outside stance to allow reader participation in thought. I believe that his argument is a valid one to make and timely, as well. I have students who were taught not to use their own voice in papers. I don't agree with that at all. Perhaps this reading will bring them back to a love for writing.

Allen Apparatus Q's

Getting Ready to Read

     I think that writing constructs with professional writers are all just imaginative devices to make us believe we might not be able to do what they do. I think we make up things in our minds to deter us from trying. I believe the same is with students, that they have beliefs on what a good writer is and talk themselves out of believing they, too, can be a good writer.  I think the similarities are that both types of constructs end up being a hinderance to writing, in general, but I think the difference is, for professionals, they push forward with hope and students settle with their work.

     I believe that professional writers write on their own terms, but I've been around enough to know that this is the case. they write when they feel inspired and try to push through the blocks. However, students give up way too easy because they do not know it's like that for everyone.  It's not easy at all, it's just an acquired practice.

    My process is staying up all through the night when inspiration hits. I write until I can no longer write and then I rest. Sometimes the wave of inspiration goes away for a while, and sometimes it doesn't. to get back the inspiration, though, I sometimes do random word games and connect words I wouldn't usually.

  

Applying and Exploring Ideas

 I do agree with Allen that the purpose of writing is connection, but I also think that the reason some are better at writing than others is because of connection as well. For instance, I’m not a big fan of having students write about assigned subjects because they don’t connect to everything. The better written essays are ones that students connect to, therefore can help others connect to as well. Some of the other reasons could be to further help themselves to connect by learning more, but also just for fun and to find a different audience for their work.

Questions for discussion and journaling

 Allen poses that the inspired writer does not exist. I have to half-way disagree. I have met people who can sit down and write something brilliant on request. However, I believe that these writers are incubation writers, in other words, they’ve thought about and connected with the material for a while, worked on their thoughts, and are ready to write. Not everyone works this way. Allen says the idea of such a person intimidates students to believe they are not good writers, and I agree with this. I think students need to be taught many different ways of writing so that they know this is not the only way possible.

I guess technically I have colluded but did not know it was a form of plagiarism. Honestly, I understand constantly having someone edit your papers will keep you from learning how to correct grammatical mistakes, however, we do pay editors to look at drafts and help with mistakes. This is a very sticky question. I know people who think imitation writing is wrong as well but it all depends on the intent. I have typed Flannery O’Connor’s “Country Matters” over 27 times to understand her methods of timing and word choice. I love her short stories, though. I’ve never combined her words and mine, though. However, I have had friends look through my short stories for mistakes. Whether or not that’s collusion, I’m not sure. But Allen suggests having teachers and peers “suggest” changes. I’m honestly not sure of the difference.  

·       Meta-moment

·        In my early days as an undergraduate there would be nights were I would fall asleep so upset with myself because I couldn’t write something brilliant in a first draft before morning because I thought that some people could. I honestly almost dropped out of college for the very reason. But I learned what my process as a writer is. I look at an assignment as soon as I get it, then I stew on the idea and questions. I read it as often as I need to, then the day before I prepare a rough draft that as Hemingway puts it—first drafts are always shit. So I know this ahead of time. The next morning, I edit and change what I think is bad about it. But I had to learn this. It wasn’t something told to me in class or in Allen’s article. For many students, though, it will be this article. I plan to tell them Hemingway’s thoughts on the matter, too. That way they will figure out their process.

Murray Dialectical Journal

sent electronically via e-mail, because I still cannot figure out how to post the format in the block form others are doing.

Berkenkotter and Murray IWA

In reflecting on this particular reading assignment, I have noticed several important things, one being there is no specific way to measure one’s creativity and potential by a set plan. There are only ways to evaluate the processes in which each of us write and perhaps measure our productivity in a set amount of time. However, we must be cautious in how we measure productivity because as we’ve learned from Carol Berkenkotter, writers like Donald Murray spend a large amount of time in the planning and incubation stages. Therefore, if an author has not reached the end of planning and incubation, how then can we measure how far they’ve come? This leads me to our first question of discussion and journaling.

            My impresson of Murray’s writing processes were first of envy; how nice it must be to have someone to dictate to! I agree with his statement of the freedom he must have, especially with non-fiction to allow a more natural flow (233). Secondly, my process of planning by thinking and noting before officially writing is similar to his. Sometimes I will spend days processing ideas before typing the first word, which I do not think is uncommon. For this reason, I find standardized testing on creative people to be flawed. A writer that begins writing immediately upon a prompt can succeed in the situation, however, a person who spends the majority of their time thinking and incubating upon subjects don’t have the same advantage. Murray also said he did much better in his process when he could read his work aloud (220). Many creative people prefer to do this; specifically poets. There is no reading aloud during standardized testing unless the test taker has a reading disability. I find very large similarities in Berkenkotter’s experiment with Murray to the situational demands of the GRE.

            Murray also experienced the differences in being in a familiar place and a controlled environment in which he was not comfortable.  Immediately I thought of writers such as Emily Dickinson and Sylvia Plath that worked in very specific conditions and spaces in order to produce a certain outcome; one that they both could not find elsewhere. I also struggle with being able to produce what I find to be quality work in new or even tidy workspaces.  I feel all of these elements play a very big part in planning and developing ideas (revising).

            Bekenkotter’s understanding of writing processes changed because of her ability to see three specific things she hadn’t considered in her original plan: that calculating a writer’s mental processing is not completely possible, a writer moves back and forth between all stages therefore time limitations and gauging are difficult, and we cannot underestimate word and memory association. For instance, When Murray would revise specific sections he would go over the relationship words had with one another and how the sum of sentence added up to his individual memory. The specific addition of “listens” to his sentence about short conferences and teachers allows us to understand that he associates precise with the act of listening, therefore may recall not be listened to and it lasting forever. Also, he revises his title by shaving in the mirror and relating the first time he shaved to his new title “Teaching the other self: the writer’s first reader” (226).  Memory and word association go hand in hand, therefore, it cannot be determined how one writer will link a thought or phrase to a specific set of ideas.  This is probably the reason that his letter to an eleven-year old about death was very short and to the point from an outside perspective; because he had no memory to link creative thoughts and words to that were age appropriate.

            This is not uncommon with writers. The one phrase you learn first off in any creative writing setting is to “write what you know.” Writers often have the inability to accurately describe situations they have not experienced or researched adequately.  I struggle with this venturing out of what I know and sometimes assume that the reader knows exactly the situation I am writing bout. This allows for my revision process to have underdeveloped ideas that cannot stand alone without memory association. Because I do not spend the same amount of time on revising that I do processing and planning, I would categorize myself as a very lop-sided study, extremely heavy on planning and editing and not enough time spent on revising unless the circumstance requires deep analysis. My idea of how I spend my time writing, though, might be completely erroneous as was Murray’s.

            I have learned from Berkenkotter’s study of Murray’s writing processes that all writers do not process the same. What works for one writer may not work at all for another. I may think I am much farther behind in production, when in actuality, I am right on course because what I need more time for I grant freely. I have also learned to try new tecniques; to read pieces aloud, create aloud and let someone else document it, but most importantly, allow myself to revisit what I know needs more work. I will associate things with memories and similar ideas more often to come to the perfect fit of words for myself and my audience. However, revision is more important than I give it credit for. 

Teaching Reflections 9/3-9/7

My second week of teaching has been full of commenting on homework, memorizing names, clarifying that students do, in fact, have to work to keep the "B" in the grading contract, and selecting interesting ways to teach the text. Subjects had several questions about Project #1 and creating a writing construct. I had a student ask "Is it like, if we could break any rule while writing a paper, which one would we break?" And in essence, I think I agree. While they read the intro explaining constructs, we still needed to go through a list of constructs as examples. Since we were out of class on Monday and library research was on Friday (which, by the way, Loraine Wochna did an awesome job helping) I will just talk about Wednesday's class.

I revised my plan for Wednesday, because I think I had planned too much interaction, and not enough teaching moments. So I broke down the exercise I was going to do with them rewriting a news article to the class suggestion of picking out claims from facts out of a funny article. this seemed to help a lot. I chose rare and funny news pieces and then had them argue what they thought was fact and claim. We then talked about the rhetorical moments at hand and how that could have skewed the view.  Overall, many of them related with Shirley out of the Kantz reading, and could see themselves not adding original thought to papers. We talked about original topic ideas and ended reviewing homework and reminding to meet at the library.