Apologies for not posting my blog entries, I won’t bore any of you with excuses. Anyway, Berlin proposes a number of different theories of writing but in doing so, he makes a few comments that struck me. He first suggests that teaching writing is “to argue for a version of reality”—let me take a moment to feel like Darkseid for a moment. Okay done. Anyway, I’ve heard a number of teachers say that they want to teach to empower students, give them a voice, etc. but the gravity of Berlin’s suggestion worries me. How can anyone trust me with that sort of power? Also it implies that as instructors we attempt to shape our student’s reality in some way and isn’t that kind of the opposite of what we’re attempting to do when we guide students to think critically about their writing? Perhaps I’m missing something, but this seems like it might be an overstep.
He also mentions that writing instructors should be clear and not offer contradictory instructions to their students—which seems obvious and yet it is an easy rabbit hole to fall into! I’ve seen a few professors, and I am sure I’ve done it too, attempt to simplify a writing task by offering additional guidance that contradicts previous instructions. I think a lot of this happens because we either don’t think enough or teach enough at the beginning of the assignment—going back to invention—and so we end up confusing our students. I’ve learned to keep my metaphors to myself particularly during workshops because they don’t always work and the risk of confusing students is simply too high.
With regard to the theories that Berlin proposes, I think the expressionists are a little too feely for me? I can see the value in what they’re attempting to do, but I like their suggestions as tools for invention rather than the end-all of writing. Does that make sense?
No comments:
Post a Comment