Stephanie Maccombs
December 10, 2012
Instructor May
Project 4 Final Essay
My
Writing Revolution
College has opened so
many doors for me. At one time, I thought my primary and secondary schooling had
taught me everything there was to know, but then I moved on to bigger and
better things. Here at college, there are no set rules for each classroom or
each subject. Here—there are opportunities, there are debates, there is
opposition to commonality, and there is discovery. After my first semester at
Ohio University, I feel I’ve learned more in 15 weeks than I have in 15 years.
The most influential discovery I have made is in composition (one thing that
applies to every thing). The ‘rules’ I have always been taught are really just
constructs; and the way I was accustomed to writing was done just to please my
teachers at the time. Now I have learned that writing is argument. Writing is
not a step-by-step process—it is a recursive experience that each writer can
change every time they write. Simply following someone’s ‘rules’ does not mean
your work is polished. Writing, as I’ve come to know it, is nothing like what I
thought. To me, my English 1510 (Writing and Rhetoric) class has caused my
writing revolution.
This new writer that I
am is the product of this writing revolution. When entering this class, I
thought that effective writing was simply something that informed, entertained,
or persuaded and consisted of perfect grammar. However, that was just a result
of my previous schooling and not being exposed to the real world. This course
has proven to me that I was certainly wrong. For writing to be successful, at
least as I have come to determine, it has to have a meaning and it has to be
relevant to you and those whom which you are writing to. Writing cannot be
written solely to please others and it is not effective exclusively based on
proper grammar. Writing varies from topic to topic and it is the reader’s job
to analyze text well. My new view on writing, or theory if you will, is much
more applicable to the real world and is much more pleasing to me. If a piece
of writing touches someone, disrupts a commonality, raises questions in a new
area of thinking, or grabs the interest of someone who would have otherwise
been uninterested in the subject—then, and only then, it is successful.
The Beginning
In this class, I have
read work from several authors that have truly renovated the way I view
writing. A few of the first authors explored in this class were Greene, Kantz,
Berkenkotter, and Dawkins; these authors sparked the fire for my
transformation. Throughout the course I learned about visual rhetoric,
discourse, discourse communities, and ethnography. All of these things had an influence
on my subsequent writing— and my process, as well as my products, were much
more enjoyable. But, it was the closing of the semester that I learned the most
from. Late in the course I read about binary thinking in society, how it is
linked to composition, and how negativities can be destroyed. A couple of the
authors that described this “black and white” world were Flynn and Malinowitz.
Each author touched on a different binary, and each had something to say that
pushed me to further analyze my reading and writing. Another influential person
in this class was not a published author, but rather my instructor. Instructor
May provided me with several insightful explanations of texts, suggestions, and
information. With a new view on the structure of writing, the logic behind the
writing I encounter in today’s world, and my own process—I have become a new
writer with a new purpose and a new understanding of effective writing.
The author that framed
this class, and thus my new view on writing, is Greene. In “Argument as
Conversation,” his focus was explaining that an
argument is not a dispute, but rather an ongoing discussion. A quotation by
Greene that summarizes his assertions and really caught my attention was this:
Every time you write an argument, the way you position yourself
will depend on three things: which previously stated arguments you share, which
previously stated arguments you want to refute, and what new opinions and
supporting information you are going to bring to the conversation. (12) [Emphasis added]
After I
really understood that my work was essentially a piece in a conversation, I
feel my writing really began to flow better. I did not write speeches, but I
wrote in a way that I thought others could follow, agree with, add to, or
counter-argue. Kantz also helped me in the early stages of my change. Her argument
entered conversation with Greene. She stated:
Students
need to read source texts as arguments and to think about the rhetorical
contexts in which they were written rather than to read them merely as a set of
facts to be learned. Writing an original persuasive argument based on sources
requires students to apply material to a problem or to use it to answer a question, rather than simply to repeat it or evaluate
it. (72)
Essentially,
Kantz described me as a student writer previous to this class: I had never even
considered the credibility of a “fact” before, or even how to properly
incorporate them (and reference of the counterargument) into my work. Later in
her piece, Kantz asserted, “…creativity is what research should be about” (81).
Just one small statement epically transformed my view on research and writing;
and I believe had a major impact on my creating of Project 1. Kantz and Greene
together intrigued me, and led well into the work of Berkenkotter and Murray.
The next two authors
actually did collaborative work together to study the actual writing process
(as opposed to the ever-so-popular linear version). Berkenkotter studied the
writing process of Murray, a published writer. Previous to reading this article
I was apathetic toward writing: dreading going step-by-step in a boring undeviating
way. When referring to the “great and small decisions and revisions that form
planning,” she stated, “These decisions and revisions form an elaborate network
of steps as the writer moves back and forth between planning, drafting, editing,
and reviewing” (227). I took away (even from this lengthy article) something
valuable— writing does not have to be boring! It is not a rule that you must first
plan, then draft, revise, and polish. Sometimes, in my writing before college,
thinking that there was a step-by-step process actually hindered my progress
because if I was polishing my paper and wanted to go back to the drafting
stage, I thought that was impossible. Thanks to this class, all my writing
since reading that article has been much more enjoyable and customized to what
I was writing. I feel the outcome has been much more successful writing. In
other words, I started to question authors and add to conversations in a better
way because I could rethink my writing better.
On a more fundamental
note, Dawkins’ article really surprised me. He wrote:
First,
manuals of style and college handbooks have it all wrong when it comes to
punctuation (good writers don’t punctuate that way); there is, I propose, a
system underlying what good writers, in fact, do; it is a surprisingly simple
system; it is a system that enables writers to achieve important—rhetorical
effects; it is, even, a system that teachers can teach far more easily than
they can teach the poorly systematized rules in our handbooks and style
manuals. (140)
This is where I learned
that proper punctuation and grammar does not mean that a paper is perfect, and
it might not be so proper after all. Actually, prior to reading this—I spent
more time making sure my punctuation and grammar were correct instead of
writing. Afterward, though, I started using dashes and colons and anything to
add emphasis where I wanted it. Dawkins’ impacted my new writing theory because
now I feel that the author has choices and freedom in their writing as opposed
to conforming so that all texts look the same.
The Core: The Projects
Next came
the time for Project 1. Since I had recently discovered that the writing process
was not so linear after all, I chose the writing process as my topic and I was
excited to try my own punctuation and grammar styles. This project was my first
college paper, and I hadn’t learned everything from this class that I needed
yet. I feel that my final paper was decent in the sense that it entered the
conversation and included supporting evidence as well as coverage of any
counterargument. However, this was my first experience writing recursively.
This was the first time I got to try not
going step-by-step. I feel that this project was a good start for me but I
could improve, and if I re-did that project now that I’ve had more practice, I
could do so in a more effective way.
In the
middle of the semester I learned about visual rhetoric. Some of the authors
(such as McCloud and Bernhardt) wrote about this. I learned most about it,
though, via Project 2. What I had learned about writing so far in class
actually shaped how we scripted the film, and how we spoke it. We did not
write, then speak, then edit: we wrote, edited, spoke, re-wrote, and spoke
again. Essentially it was a recursive process of it’s own but it was very
relatable to the new view of writing I had started to form. My writing
practices were influenced by just the idea of media: I learned a lot about note
taking in this project, and I believe I write my rough drafts in a more
script-like fashion now. The two members in my group were very familiar with
film. Also, our topic was essentially freedom within the classroom: mainly the
freedom to choose one’s own topic. We took advantage of our multimedia project,
the irony that we had the freedom to choose what our topic was, and our
background in film to create a masterpiece. Albeit, it might not actually be a
masterpiece in some people’s eyes, but I am proud of our work and I think it
was successful because it added to a conversation, it caught people’s attention
around campus, and I discovered from it that even a script – a different type or writing and analyzing - had an
impact on my personal prose.
Project 3
consisted of an ethnographic study of a group of my choice. I learned that
these “groups” were really discourse communities and I learned about different
genres and communication. The discourse community I chose was the Lifeguards of
Nelsonville Water Park (I am a member). In this project I noticed myself
spending more and more time writing. I planned, then wrote, edited a little,
then planned again, revised, and planned, edited, wrote, etc. I could really put
myself into my work with the new recursive way of writing, and also because I
could identify with the discourse community. I had something important to say
about this community, I had questions to answer and thoughts to share. I
believe I wrote something that could really mean something to someone. For
about this first time ever, I was sure of making an impact.
The End— For Now
By this
point in the semester, I was amazed. It was shocking to me that I had learned
so much- and more so shocking that I actually applied those things in my own work. I didn’t, however, want to get
that feeling that I knew it all again like I had after high school. So, it was
refreshing to touch on a new subject toward the end of the semester that I
really enjoyed. Who knew I would enjoy reading about binary thinking: culture,
society, how to overcome. To demonstrate binary thought, or at least how I view
it after reading our class articles and after our discussions, I’ve provided
some examples below. Essentially, the things on the right are Good and the
things on the left are Bad (in societal terms). Articles special to my writing revolution follow.
|
Successful
|
Failed
|
|
Desired
|
Unwanted
|
|
Popular
|
Ignored
|
|
Right
|
Wrong
|
|
Exciting
|
Boring
|
|
Wealthy
|
Poor
|
|
White
|
Black
|
|
Straight
|
Gay
|
|
Majority
Masculine
|
Minority
Feminine
|
Elizabeth
Flynn wrote about the line between femininity and masculinity as it pertains to
composition. That “line,” as I have come to know it, is what creates binary
thought, and binary writing. To simply paraphrase Flynn, she says that men have
written history and have forced women to become inferior (thus, as they write,
they may appear weak or be viewed as such anyways). She states, “In exploring
the nature of the writing process, composition specialists expose the
limitations of previous product-oriented approaches by demystifying the product
and in so doing empowering developing writers and readers” (156). It’s
interesting to me that though this unit had a totally different focus, the
writing process itself is still a key factor. I believe this is where I started
to really dig deep into my thinking processes involved in my writing. I had
never realized before how history has impacted the way I was taught to write. Perhaps,
this new perspective helped advance my interest in my writing process as
Berkenkotter had—and would explain the difference in my writing from Project 1
to Project 3.
Another
explained binary came from Malinowitz in “Queer Texts, Queer Contexts. In this
article she explains the binary between heterosexuality and homosexuality and
how it affects the writing of the minority. Malinowitz brilliantly relates the
binary to composition when asserting:
Think of how [students] are told to be aware of issues of
audience, subject, and purpose, and to claim textual authority. Then consider
the convoluted dimensions these rhetorical issues take on when lesbian and gay
writers inevitably have to choose between risking a stance from an outlaw
discourse or entering into the familiarly dominant discourses of
heterosexuality. (123-124)
This
article (alongside Flynn’s) challenged the way I analyzed texts. When reading
the rest of the articles in the class, I dug deeper. I wanted to know about the
author, their background, history or the topic: I wanted to know what made each
author write the way they did about what they did. Ultimately, I wanted to
explore my own reasons for my style of writing. I think analyzing further about
those things and about the audience the work was directed toward only made my
writing and my understanding of successful writing stronger.
At this
point, though it had been building up throughout the semester, I realized my
purpose in writing: social change. Flynn and Malinowitz both call for change in
their articles. Flynn wants inclusion of the study of feministic composition in
the classroom; Malinowitz wants the same for sexual identity and homosexual
studies. Yergeau, who wrote about autism, wanted the world to view things in a
more positive way when stating, “Conceiving of autism as rhetoric, as a way of
being in the world through language, allows us to reconstrue what we have
historically seen as language deficits as, instead, language differences”
(269). Sherman Alexie, an Indian who fought against his stereotype of being
unintelligent, fights for change in writing and
through action. He wrote, “I visit schools and teach creative writing to Indian
kids… I throw my weight against their locked doors. The door holds. I am smart.
I am arrogant. I am lucky. I am trying to save our lives” (365). All of these
authors have so much to say to anyone listening just to make a change, an
impact, a disruption in a commonality. I want to be like that. I want to do
something. I want to make that impact on the world.
This
semester has made me progress so much. I’ve learned far more than what is
mentioned in this piece: how to incorporate headings, the effects of your
culture on your writing, identity, authority, historical and rhetorical
contexts, etc. I feel my new theory of writing is much more accurate; but, I
know that if one class can mean so much to me, I can’t imagine what else I will
learn throughout the rest of life and how it will modify my new understanding. I feel you can only truly understand the
impact just this semester had on me
(and the development of my new theory) if you review some of my work.
Analysis of My Work
My improvement
throughout the semester can best be reflected in my work. All of the works I
will be discussing are in my final portfolio.
1.
I think the first summary
(Greene’s article summary) I had ever written for this class is a good place to
start. I wrote:
“In “Argument as Conversation,” Stuart Greene
attempts to convince readers that argument is conversation. The audience is
composed of students and Greene’s focus is explaining that an argument is not a
dispute, but rather an ongoing discussion. Greene’s reasons for questioning
this writing construct include the historical context behind any given argument
and the fact that engaging in and leaving an argument does not mean that it is
over. He also introduces his view on framing and research as inquiry, cites
other authors, such as Kenneth Burk, and writes in the way he is describing (or
practices what he preaches). To Greene, the dialogue related to an argument
justifies it being a conversation.”
At the time, I
really thought this was a good summary. I had covered the main points; that was
all I had ever been taught to do. However, as I began to think more critically
throughout the course I noticed my summaries became a little more detailed and
I really analyzed texts better. For example, I think my summary of “Identity,
Authority, and learning to Write in New Workplaces” by Elizabeth Wardle was very
in depth:
In “Identity, Authority, and learning to Write in New
Workplaces,” Elizabeth Wardle attempts to explain how identity and authority
issues affect the process of enculturation for workers in new environments.
Wardle argues that the issues of identity and authority can affect one’s
assimilation in a new working environment and that miscommunication with the
two can lead to one being viewed as a “tool” and stress.
To start, Wardle describes modern
socio-historic theories describing identity and authority. She details the
Activity Theory by David Russell, which says that as one encounters new
activity systems they encounter new genres and must determine how and when or
if to use them. Wardle notes that an activity system is essentially a discourse
community. She also describes Etienne Wegner’s theory that details three
interrelated modes of belonging: engagement, imagination, and alignment.
Engagement can me negative or positive and is where newcomers and experts
interact. Negative engagement for Wardle is called non-participation and it can
marginalize the workplace. Imagination can enable a sense of belonging but can
also cause disconnect if the imagination is not similar to the reality.
Alignment is where the new comer aligns with the new discourse they are in.
Basically, positive communication and effort on the behalf of both the newcomer
and the existing workers is necessary for the newcomer’s success in the new workplace.
For authority, Wardle expands on Wegner’s theory. Wardle claims that authority
is an intangible thing but is nonetheless granted within institutions. She
states that clear job position separation is necessary to avoid confusion of
authority. When there is confusion, imagination can get in the way of
alignment.
To end, Wardle presents a case study of sorts. She tells about
Alan the computer specialist. He began working after graduating college in a
department that he felt he had no authority in. He then worked for the
department of the college from which he graduated. He claimed he was a “God”
here and assumed that his only boss was the department chair. He sent vast
emails regularly but lacked the language that the members of the department required.
He eventually because the joke of the department and the other members in the
activity system did not view his prestige in the same way he did. Alan’s story
portrayed that the engagement process was flawed and combining that with his
false imagination about his authority led to improper alignment in the
workplace. Wardle used Alan to show that learning to write in new environments
can require more than just new skills and ways of thinking- it requires
involvement, understanding power, and effort to assimilate with the other
members.
Both summaries were written to be posted on my
blog. However, for Green’s summary I was writing to my teacher, and for
Wardle’s summary I felt I was writing to the discourse community that she had
written to. To me, the substantial difference in analyzing and identifying
audience demonstrates how I dig deeper in my readings and why my new theory has
come to be what it is. If I had not made this change I would never have really
grasped the importance of what an effective text is, I would have never
discovered these binaries, and my Projects would have been shorter, less
detailed, less audience oriented, and consequently less successful.
2.
Next I want to show you my way of
thinking, not necessarily the text at hand. In my “Personal Thoughts” section
of Greene’s article I wrote, “In my opinion, I did not particularly like this
article at first. Perhaps that was because it was my first assignment this year
for college, or maybe because it actually challenged what I wanted to believe.”
Clearly this demonstrates how close-minded of a student I was when starting
this class. I was ready to accept writing rules as writing constructs, and thus
I was not prepared enough to produce successful work. By the end of the class,
however, in the “My Personal Thoughts” section of my response to Helene Cixous’
article- I wrote, “I thought this article was slightly difficult to follow-
more than likely because it was a translation” and concluded with, “At first,
the title made no sense, but after reading her passionate words and her reference
to Medusa- it all came together. Overall, despite the flaws, I liked this
article.” From this I have gathered that instead of not liking something just
because it goes against me, I have learned to appreciate situations, circumstances,
and be more open-minded.
3.
To demonstrate how interested I
have become in the history of a text and its writer, I present a recent blog
post. The post was about Helene Cixous’ “The Laugh of the Medusa” which was
about feministic composition. I wrote:
I researched Helene Cixous herself, and she was an interesting
woman. She is a professor, literary critic, playwright, philosopher, French
feminist writer, poet, and rhetorician. Now, she is 75 years old. This work was
written in 1975 (explaining how demand for such Woman was so imperative …
women’s inclusion in society has advanced since that era).
To tell the truth, I might not have cared about this information
at the beginning of the semester. But, again, I have learned how important this
type of information is to a text and to one’s understanding of what has been
written. Maybe if research is always done like this, the way something is
written or the style might be more understandable. This background information
has an impact on the successfulness and effectiveness of a text. Furthermore,
maybe a text someone comes across was much more relevant 100 years ago than it
is today (making it effective writing then and not so much now). Understanding
something as important as that had truly changed my writing theory.
4.
Next, I want to revisit my
proposal that I have progressed between Project 1 and Project 3 in my writing.
I will not include the texts and grading comments within this essay (though
they are included in my final portfolio), but I will comment on what I believe
caused such change. In Project 1, my weakness was structure mainly— but also, I
was writing to my instructor, not the community that would have been
interested. Additionally, I did not truly write recursively and I held back on
altering my punctuation and grammar a little more than I had wished.
Furthermore, I had gaps because I had not practiced incorporating sources, let
alone examining each source in detail in regards to their historical and
rhetorical context. In Project 3, I had improved greatly because all of the
weaknesses I had in Project 1 were obvious to me at that point. I had worked on
all of those things in my writing assignments between Project 1 and 3, and the
sources I chose for Project 3 were carefully examined. Also, I wrote to the
community of Lifeguards rather than to my teacher or class. To put it simply,
the experience of this class and the practice of writing throughout greatly improved my writing abilities.
5.
For a final analytical view of my
texts, I want to describe something most important to me that has happened in
my writing—the writing for change. I
had so much passion already, to make a difference to someone, to something,
somehow. And now, thanks to this class, I know I can do it through writing. No
example summary or synthesis can demonstrate how passionate I am about this
notion. The only textual example I can really provide is my Project 3, in which
I expressed my want to make a change in the community of Nelsonville Water Park
Lifeguards. However, that change only applies to a hand full of people. In the
future, I want to write something epic—something that everyone can read.
In the future, I
know to better analyze texts. I know it is important to ask questions, and
argue for what I believe. Research is necessary, as well as adding to what is
already there. My process no longer has to be that boring step-by-step process;
I can move freely in my writing, different every time. In the future I plan on
spending a little more time on my writing, making sure that it is going to make
an impact. I want my work to disrupt those commonalities, answer questions, and
spark interest.
I have come a
long way since the start of the semester. It is only rational to think I will
learn more about writing, and my personal writing, as I go through college.
Also, I feel I will learn more about it in my future jobs. I am a double major
in Psychology and Social Work—and I have a niche for writing for social change,
I believe. So, it is very likely that those work environments will allow me to
write successfully while still learning how people in those fields compose. My
theory on writing has changed so much already! I want to turn my writing
revolution… in to a world revolution.
Works
Cited
Alexie, Sherman. “The Joy of Reading and
Writing.” Writing About Writing: A
College Reader.
Boston: Bedford/St.
Martins (2011): 363-365. Print.
Berkenkotter, Carol. “Decisions and Revisions:
The Planning Strategies of a Published Writer.”
Writing About Writing: A College Reader. Boston: Bedford/St.
Martins (2011): 218-230. Print.
Dawkins, John. “Teaching Punctuation as a
Rhetorical Tool.” Writing About Writing:
A College
Reader. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins (2011): 140-154. Print.
Flynn, Elizabeth. “Composing as a Woman.” Readings on Writing. Cincinnati:
Van-Griner
Publishing (2013):
156-166. Print.
Greene, Stuart. "Argument as Conversation:
The Role of Inquiry in Writing a Researched
Argument." Writing
About Writing: A College Reader. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins
(2011): 10-32. Print.
Heilker, Paul and Melanie Yergeau. “Autism and
Rhetoric.” Readings on Writing.
Cincinnati:
Van-Griner Publishion
(2013): 261-269. Print.
Kantz, Margaret. "Helping Students Use
Textual Sources Persuasively." Writing About Writing:
A College Reader. Boston: Bedford/St.
Martins (2011): 68-84. Print.
Malinowitz, Harriet. “Queer Texts, Queer
Contexts.” Readings on Writing.
Cincinnati: Van-
Griner Publishing
(2013): 110-130. Print.
