If what Bartholomae suggested is true, and we do tend to praise work that is "too perfect" but doesn't do anything to push the boundaries of "basic" writing, then how do we, as writing instructors, offer praise to work that is polished while still insist on encouraging writing that is full of more original creative thought?
Furthermore, but along the same line, when looking at the WPA Outcomes guidelines, the argument could be made that they are simply cementing the very concept of simplistic writing which regurgitates old ideas after cleaning them up a bit. In what ways can we use those listed outcomes as a springboard to begin a truly productive conversation about where we would like our students to be at the end of the course?
Hi Amanda,
ReplyDeleteI like your question about how to praise polished work while still insisting on creative thought. I was thinking about this myself. I think one way to start answering the question is to be clear that, just because a work is "polished," so to speak, it is not necessarily lacking in substance. The danger is when a work's superficial qualities are covering for a lack of intellectual engagement. So, we should not hesitate to praise clean prose so long as its function is to be a clear pane of glass through which we can view the writer's ideas, instead of an expertly choreographed dance meant to distract us from the fact that the writer has not thoroughly considered the implications of his argument or the possible objections to it.
-Michael
In response to Bartholomae's consideration of criticizing perfect writing, I've always personally been of the viewpoint that perfection isn't actually a proper objective for a writer. This is because perfection without proper risk or ambition (a writer choosing to express concepts in a unique way or branch out their writing styles in an attempt at growing as a writer) has always struck me as negligible, much in the same way that I wouldn't be impressed by someone make a "perfect" piece of toast by popping some bread in the toaster and turning the dial. Writing, as with any endeavor, always seems the most praiseworthy to me when the individual takes risks and performs outside of their comfort zone, yet succeeds all the same despite the high risk/reward function at play. I believe rather than pushing writers to emulate a safe style of writing that they can use to merely coast in the name of objectivity, we should offer praise to writers who constantly seek to push the boundaries of their skills and their respective disciplines.
ReplyDeleteHi Amanda,
ReplyDeleteIn response to your first question, I think that as teachers it can be very difficult to both praise polish work while also pushing the student to recognize their unique voice. It can often seem to the student as though their own voice is the opposite of clean and polished writing. It's important that teachers explain to students that the can use their unique voice and perspective in any form of writing. As Tobin discusses in his piece, students need to "gain access to their 'real' or 'authentic' voice and perspective that traditional school has taught them to distrust and suppress" (Tobin, 5). When students finally recognize that they can integrate their personal voice into any form of writing, then the writing process should come to them much easier because they are no longer bound by the tight constraints of "traditional" writing.