Eva Marie's Reading Journal 6 04 08

Reading Devitt has helped me form my own theory about genre. As Devitt placed emphasis on the similarity and relationship of language to genre, I have concluded that genre like language is a form of code switching. It is not inhibiting, rather it frees the code switcher to move in different discourse communities, written or spoken, comfortably and in proportion to their familiarity with the genres they are switching to and from.

Devitt made a great point about the elements of linguistics that are not new (hence the epigraph) just old elements re organized in new and original ways. She argues against the formulaic complainers regarding genre by showing how it to is generative. New thoughts, new ways of expressing something within a genre community. No one can claim that they have read two books by different authors that wrote the same romance novel word for word even though there are millions written and sold at Half Price Books. The formula for tittilation may be in place but the authors have used their own unique expressions and writing skills to make their book different.

Back to language and genre. We move fluidly between our many discourse communities as we change from student to wife to employee. We do not confuse our diacourse and speak technically to our spouse or as a student to our employer. In the same way, we can easily aquire the appropriate method of writing between genre and disiplines.

I recall, again, the first time I had to write a biology research paper in college. I had no concept of what was expected and I frankly thought that I was to write an essay about bio diversity. what a shock when the TA threw up a power point and gave us a five minute lesson on how to write a lab report. Shocking yes but daunting, no. I simply followed her pattern, or should I say her genre, and I entered into a new written discourse community. I understood why a lab paper was best suited to be written in a quantitative manner as opposed to a narrative. Genre is not constraint in my opinion it is a choice born of necessity. It does open the mind to become 'other' centric and to fill the need of the chosen genre. It empowers the writer to be bilingual so to speak and like any new endevor, it becomes natural to a degree with repetition.

While genre may be a social construct, it is a useful one and one that has become almost a cognitive impression, because as Devitt's argument shows, the alternative could be chaotic. The writers creativity is no more compromised than a speakers ability is when they switch from one discourse community to another. The only restraint is the speakers / writers adeptness within the community in which they enter.

Devitt writes that standard features of language have and will change over time. for me, these are cosmetic changes that answer to ongoing changes in societies. It would take a much longer and a big lexical or cognitive shift even for societies to become comfortable with the removal of the distinctions of genre. So, for me, this makes working within genre a natural process. They are not random as Devitt states and SEE responds to the needs of social order in communication. I agree with Devitt's idea that (ways of being) genre constrains people in a way that they want to be constrained in that it places them in a space of a particular group that they may want to identify with (pg 149) in genre ettiquette the implications are the same "In addition to generes constraining people...then genereic ettiquette constrains people if they want to belong to a group."

Genre is fluid even within a genre because of the variable creativity that the writer brings to the table and new formulations are a constant. But all told, it sems to me that we need the structure of genre to build new narratives.

Lindemann's chapter on why teach writing supports the idea of genre as she writes that the ability to write well is indespensable to living in society. It is that same society that requires that structure of an appropriate approach in writing within a genre or speaking in an appropriate voice within a given discourse community. While Lindemann says that people don't use writing in the professions as they used to, we stilll need to consider who created those 'forms' that the professionals rely on for documentation that makes sense. Since our modes of communication, we have agreed, change with the needs of a society, so do those templates and who is to have those skills in writing if it is not taught? Somebody has to do it. It is an ongoing social necessity that needs to be filled. This is a strong case for teaching writers to write and teaching the different genre needed for a society to function. How else can we effectively transmitt meaning in a meaningful way? I recognize the model Lindmann uses as the communication triagne from somewhere in my dark past. This model really did not speak to me then in a concrete way nor does it now. I am more comfortable with the model of transmission which has a coded message decoded by the listener. If both the speaker / writer and the audience are in the same type of discourse community and share knowledge of their codes, the message will transmit without a problem. I do not feel that communication is as involved as Jakobson's model.

Overall, Devitt's article was more enlightening simply because it showed me how language and writing are so similar as we move from one community to another with a fluidity that i was not aware of until I made that connection with what she was saying.

---

Joanna Hodges – Reading Journal: June 3

I have to start this off by saying that I really, really liked Devitt’s article. It makes some great arguments for the creative qualities of genre, and not just of specific genres, but of all genres. Really, I had not considered this before. Not that I thought many genres were inherently NOT creative; I just did not even consider whether genres such as a science lab report are creative or not. To me, this is kind of enlightening. I never partook in creative writing classes, so I always felt like I could not really write creatively, simply from the lack of practice. Thinking about genres in the way Devitt presents with her article allows me to see it from a different point of view. I can write creatively, even if I don’t write in the genre of “creative writing.” Anyway, now that I had this personal enlightenment, I can move on to more specifics about the article itself.

One aspect of this article I liked was the constant comparison to language. Many of us in this class just took Dr. Sullivan’s linguistics class, so elements about language are fresh in our minds. As I was reading through the article, I was constantly reminded of things we studied in that class. For example, on p. 145, Devitt discusses that “not only using an inappropriate standard but also avoiding the expected variety can be seen as speaking inappropriately.” This reminded me of the conversational maxims we learned about in lingustics, specifically flouting the maxim of relevancy (I think). If someone asks you, “Can you please pass the salt?” and you answer “No, I can’t,” you are flouting the maxim by responding inappropriately. You know they don’t intend a yes/no answer. They just want the salt. So, similarly, purposely using an inappropriate standard of genre or language, as the analogy goes, is flouting. I found it ironic that after this section reminded me of flouting, Devitt refers to flouting on p. 148.

Devitt’s argument is very clear and makes perfect sense to me. Only by knowing and accepting the standards of a genre can one find a way to creatively deviate from them. Convergence and divergence are both necessary. I like the idea of balancing that she uses to describe the breaking up of the dichotomies. It’s like you can’t have one without the other. The standards both constrain and enable. Vertical and lateral thinking are needed. Genre both “empowers and subjects to power” (162).

So, genres allow for creativity by constraining the writer in certain ways. Though some complain about the constraint, it is necessary to allow for direct communication in specific discourse communities. Devitt brought up Shania Twain as a country star, which reminded me of our conversation in class earlier about musicians and genres of music. Shania Twain fits some of the standards of country, so is a member of the discourse community, but she also enters the genre creatively by diverging from the standards of traditional country ideas by being more poppy than is typical. Therefore, I totally agree with Devitt that to be creative, one must converge with a genre in order to diverge and be creative, which also allows for new genres to be formed. Maybe pop country?

Lindemann’s chapters were quite different from Devitt’s, in that they provide much more ideas for application in the classroom for setting up the answer to the questions about what writing is, what the process of writing involves, and why we should even teach it. She provides some pretty good models to show the relationships involved in writing and reading. I really liked the table on p. 20, as it made many of the terms used more accessible. Once again, this reading brought up concepts from the linguistics class last semester. My final paper was an experimental research paper that reported on two think-aloud protocols I conducted. Not only does Lindemann refer to think-aloud protocols, but a good amount of the research she refers to I came across in my own research, particularly Flower and Hayes and their ideas about the writing process. On p. 27, she refers to their idea that experienced writers differ from students because students always need prewriting. In my experiment, I found that the experienced writer did not write out any form of prewriting or planning (she formulated ideas in her head, I suppose), while the “basic” writer made lists to plan for what she would write. Also, Flower and Hayes’s ideas about writer-based versus reader-based were supported in my experiment, as the more experienced writer appeared more reader-based, based on the organization, thesis, and topic sentences. In my research, I used a similar idea of Sondra Perl’s as reference, that basic writers tend to be egocentric in their writing.

I liked Lindemann’s switchboard analogy for the writer involved in the writing process. It shows the complexity of the process and the frustration that I often feel when I get lots of ideas at once and have to be shifting gears constantly to keep track of my thoughts.

Lindemann’s discussion of discourse communities and the influence the members have in the transformation of the communities reminds me of Devitt’s ideas about genre and how being creative in a genre can sometimes, if done enough, develop a new genre. Since discourse communities are socially-constructed, like genres, or language as Devitt might note, they constantly shift based on the members. This also reminded me just now of Blair’s ideas about taste and how taste can shift over time. Great.

---

Liza’s Reading Journal – June 3, 2008

I told myself that I was going to finish the readings before I wrote anything but I had to begin to write when I read this sentence: “If we examine, together, with our students, the kinds of writing required in jobs that interest them, they will discover important work-related reasons to improve their skills” (4). The “what ifs” began to unfold in my mind. For example, what do I do if I encounter a student who is certain that he is going to be drafted into the NFL or NBA and he doesn’t see writing as a work-related necessity? Can the answer be as simple as encouraging that student to work on an MVP acceptance speech? I would suggest that if it gets him writing.

Finding a way to relate to all students will definitely be an interesting and challenging task. Perhaps one way to do that is to share our stories with and writing processes with our students so that they can become motivated. I’m willing to admit my mistakes and allow my students to glimpse an imperfect ally. Would that help build a stronger relationship and aid student motivation or would that simply cast doubt? I think it would help. I wouldn’t mind telling my students that when I took freshman composition, I never gave much thought to audience. My professor – the giver of grades – was the only audience in my eyes. That is a natural assumption for novice writers. I would take the time to go through the prewriting process on one of my graduate papers and bring it class to show it to them so they can see a work in progress. Students need to know that we practice what we preach.

Unfortunately, there will be times of opposition from students so it makes sense for instructors to leave room for students to have a say in certain parts of their assignments. Prewriting would certainly come easier for students if they are given options in inventing their own topics since Lindemann says that “prewriting helps us examine what we know” (25). If this is true, it gives students an opportunity to be more excited about and invested in their writing. They will still need some guidance because we have most likely all had trouble selecting topics when there are unlimited options. This is where the meshing of the traditional and constructivist classrooms will come in handy.

Assigning genres and keeping track of each student’s future job/writing skills might be a bit more complicated. However, variety in writing is important so assigning different genres would be crucial. We do not need students to become comfortable with only writing in one genre. Yes, they should be allowed to write personal narratives. In Comp Theory, I wrote my final paper on what place the personal essay has in comp classrooms so I can see why it is important to allow students to tell their own stories. I can also see how completely breaking away from tradition can be a problem when students enter upper-division writing classes. As Devitt states, there are compelling arguments on both sides. Another issue discussed is how much “voice” students should be allowed in freshman composition. (Of course, the personal and voice are two separate things.) Voice can certainly be present in multiple genres. If written properly, a lab report could very well have a student’s voice.

---

Jennifer Marciniak ~ Reading Journal ~ 6/3/2008

A lot of what Lindemann said in the first part of this book reiterated Tuesday’s discussion on the writing process. It also fades in and out on discourse communities, social commitment and writing as a “social necessity.” I cannot tell you how many times I have found myself in the position of “Eyes Opened.” It is really unbelievable how many problems you can actually solve by writing things out. I think that is one reason why journaling is so meditative and healing. You can get so much out that way, figure things out. I also find having conversations with myself a good way of figuring things out, which is probably puts me in the loony discourse community, but I bet there are more of us out there in the closet! I also agree with the fact that a lot of these freshmen are not just beginning writers. They have written, albeit a lot for TAKS, and have a fundamental understanding of how things work.

It felt like Lindemann was in my brain sometimes as she talked about how some students write well and others may never have written anything in high school, and because they are going to be superstar athletes, or were superstar athletes in high school, now college, there is not so much pressure for them to produce since they were not, or are not, in the classroom a lot during the semester due to sports. I bring this up because as a consultant at the Writing Center in the spring, I tutored an athlete weekly who had never written a single paper in high school. She did not know how to start a paper, what research was, how to quote information or how to really develop a thesis. So we took it step by step from the basic, basic format for APA and walked her through formulating her ideas. Once she understood the basics, she really took initiative. It was really fun watching the facial expressions as she was thinking, as well as hating-loving-crying over what she was writing. Lindemann goes into that in detail as well. Observing student reactions. In the end my student got a B in her English class, which was a huge relief and sense of accomplishment not just for her, but for me as well.

I have never had a history of writing class, but I think it would be extremely interesting. I relate this to Lindemann’s mention of paragraph indentions, drop caps early writing conventions. Like Joanna, I thought Table 2.1 on pg. 20 was really interesting, and I think it will be useful in determining different audience shapes and styles.

One thing I did not necessarily agree with in Lindemann’s article was Emig’s mention that writing by hand “constructively slows down the process, permitting half-formed or unexpected ideas to develop.” (28) I have to go back to my athlete in the WC. She wrote her intro by hand as we worked through it. As a very basic writer, this is where she feels most comfortable. I kind of think it is the same idea Lindemann had about prewriting rituals, such as housecleaning, setting up your “area.” I did not think that her writing got worse or ideas faltered as she wrote her intro by hand. I actually found that the slowness of the writing allowed her to think more and to better develop what she wanted to say. Sometimes, I find, writer’s block has to do with staring at a screen. It goes away when you pick up a pen. Of course, this also can occur vice versa. It all really comes down to taste, as Hugh Blair would say. Now, what taste is better, let him be the judge.

I can see how students would consider rewriting a form of punishment. It also depends on how the teacher communicates the need for rewriting. It is really easy to be condescending, just as easy as it is for a student to be very sensitive to criticism.

I think one must write about what you know. If you don’t know much, conduct research until you feel comfortable. This kind of goes along with Devitt’s ideas of genres and how you must be knowledgeable in your area before you can branch out.

---

Chelsie

I really enjoyed the chapter in the Lindeman book. I felt like this was a deeper explanation of what Dr. Murphy was explaining in class. Although there is a “writing process,” writers often diverge from this process to accommodate their own needs as writers. It’s kind of like a genre that allows the writer to be creative by following most of the rules, but making their own as they go, as well.

The fact that the blank, white page is frightening is so true, especially if the writer hasn’t done any inventive work. I am considering that students coming out of high school, up to this point, are still being told what is right and wrong leaving them without confidence to attack blank pages with their own opinions. I assume this is why plagiarism is such an issue for freshman students.

Writing is social. The last section of the Lindeman reading was informative. It is important to remember that I need to keep my students communicating with each other through writing. Maybe having online discussions a few times throughout the semester would be a good idea. I know in my Composition course and my linked Comp instructor’s course last semester there were writing groups. These groups were permanent and we were responsible for peer review each other’s pieces as well as working collaboratively. I’ve always wondered if having one set group of peers is better than having changing groups. Getting comfortable sharing with a select few might be better than introducing writing to somebody you’re not quite as comfortable with. I have always been more afraid to have my peers read my paper than my instructor. This is good practice for audiences other than the instructor.

I thought the Devitt article was pretty cool. Creativity comes from what has already been outlined. In art, the Romantic period couldn’t have come about without the Enlightenment. The only question that I noted while reading this article was “are we teaching students to be creative or are we teaching them to communicate?” This question doesn’t really matter with the conclusion with Devitt’s article because he speculates that genres actually enhance creativity. By giving them patterns and templates we are providing an outline to be pushed to the limit.

---

Sarah's Journal Two

I think "writing as social interaction" might be one of the most important things we can stress to our students. It's hard to become motivated about something or see it as useful when you feel like your teacher (and maybe your writing group) is the only person who will see your paper. It feels like it doesn't matter. If you can see your paper (or whatever kind of piece of writing) as part of the bigger picture, part of the conversation as they tell us in grad school, you are more likely to see the value in what you're doing. I know that the science learning communities try to do this; they treat their students as part of the scientist community. My composition partner last year tried to give students the opportunity to write in different genres, depending on their topics, and actually use what they created in the real world. For example, one girl wrote a letter to a Congressman and actually sent it. I know that a couple of people wrote newspaper or magazine articles, and the instructor encouraged them to send their work somewhere for actual publication. These are just a couple of ways to show students some of the real results of writing/communicating well or learning different genres.

---

Sean's Journal, part 2

Lindemann delineates the fundaments of writing instruction with lucidity and depth. I felt as though the examples and references she gave were something that I would be able to use immediately, from Jakobson's diagram to the quotes she chose for the chapter headings. One of my concerns about jumping into teaching was that I would have difficulty translating my ideas about the function of writing and its value in professional and, perhaps more importantly, personal context into lessons that students could appreciate. This text makes me feel much more comfortable about doing just that. It has been quite a while since I was in the position of a freshman writing student, so I wasn't sure if my memories of the experience would serve me adequately in the role of teaching. After reading this first part of Lindemann's book, however, it seems clear that the things I need to teach have become a part of my repertoire already - I just need to formulate them into lesson plans.

One thing I have adopted as part of my philosophy of teaching is the importance of understanding rhetorical choices. The creative writing workshops here at TAMUCC did wonders for my ability to recognize those decisions in my own writing, and I think I can take that into my teaching style. Both Lindemann and Devitt's readings address the importance of these decisions in writing, and I think they are absolutely right about the value of instilling awareness in young writers about the constraints of genre and style which will allow them to make informed choices in their own writing. As I read the Devitt piece, I was constantly reminded of my own experiences in becoming a better writer; I always had a desire to break tradition and experiment in my writing, and I think learning to know how to do that and when it was appropriate for my intentions were some of the most important lessons about writing I ever faced. Taking that message into the classroom is one of my highest priorities.

As far as expressing creativity in terms of constraint, I am reminded of some of the work we did in Lit Crit and the semantic concepts of Levinas and Saussure. The idea that meaning is not a fixed entity, but that it is always contextually dependent, helps clarify the meaning in Devitt's article. When approaching genre in the composition classroom, I think this perspective is essential.

The process of writing described by Lindemann seems to tie together these concepts, also. When she speaks of writing as social interaction, I think that the ongoing development of writing is best exemplified. In what better way can we teach students that their writing should be constantly evolving and growing than to relate it to the forms of communication and interaction which they already engage in?

---

Garrett's Reading Journal 2

As far as these two readings go, I think I enjoyed “Creative Boundaries” the most. Going back to my “music snob” talk from yesterday, I think musicians often think and talk about genres of music. Devitt writes “to use a genre, then, like using language, is to say or write something never before said or written using generic patterns that have often before been used.” (141). I thought of music when I read this passage: in essence, it seems like everything that can been done with music has been done, but occassionally, something comes along that mixes and matches genres in new and creative ways, or uses an old and tired genre and revitalizes it. Creative seems to stem from this well spring, and I don’t think generic conventions are constraining in any way, especially when it comes to writing. I use this quote all the time, but I think Robert Frost once wrote “Writing poetry without meter is like playing tennis without the net.” You have to work within some structure first before you break it. I think that’s just doing your homework.

In regards to academic writing, it’s probably even more true. You have to use the generic conventions in order for a teacher to be able to grade you on some level. But within those conventions, as Devitt asserts, there are divergences and convergences. You cobble together an argument in an essay using a thesis, research, and paragraphs proving your thesis, but you are still generating something unique that has never quite been done in exactly the same way.

Lindemann’s essay was enjoyable, and easy to read, but pretty much restated what we discussed in class: the writing process, its steps, and how it’s hardly ever sequential. I saw quite a bit of my own experience in this essay, especially when she writes “for some, however, making a few tentative scrawls on the page is a torturous affair.” (27). It’s hard to start that draft, maybe the hardest part of the process for me because I often have an idea in my mind of how the paper should go, and sometimes my first scribblings don’t communicate that idea very effectively and I get discouraged. So, rather than become discouraged, I premptively put off writing for as long as possible and keep the flavor of my unwritten, awesome paper in my mind. It’s also nice to see her drafting method is a lot like mine. Write a little, get up, have something to drink, write some more. I thought I just had ADD.

If anything is to be taken away from these readings, it gave me a clearer idea of the writing process and how it’s probably different from person to person, and especially with students who don’t have much experience with the college essay. It would probably also be helpful to communicate to them, as Devitt does, that an essay isn’t a creativity killer, but a form that continually generates new and interesting ways to work within its conventions.