Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Week Four Q & R: "Inventing. . ." and Ch. 1, Acts of Rev.
Gererate your own question/comment concerning the article(s)--feel free to write about connections between the articles, things from Graff/Birkenstein that relate to the articles, or a question you have about an issue raised by the authors. Just make sure you stay within the subjects of the texts and that you make textual citations. And, finally, respond to another post.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Cameron Miller
ReplyDeleteDr. Chalaire
English 1301.20
February 10, 2010
Q&R “Acts of Revision” and “Inventing the University”
Both of these articles have purposes of informing whether its students or professors. Each one of them came from a textbook on writing aids. I have noticed something about both of these. Each mention a writer’s safety zone and he needs to get out of there. I wonder why is that? Why must a writer get out of the safety zone in order to produce good work?
If a writer is naturally good at writing about life’s troubles for instance. Does it mean he needs to get away from that or he needs to be less descriptive? What do the writers of these articles mean when they say to get out of their comfort zone. Should a writer try something he has never tried before? Or what it is really trying to say is they need to shake things up a bit? Add different punctuation, make the story take a curve no one was expecting, or mix the words around to make it more climactic? Are they trying to get writers to leave their zone and go to a different one? One they have never been in before. Are they just wanting them to rearrange their zone, paint it a different color? Would that be good enough or would they need to forget the usual common way of writing and go find a new way still with the means of the writer himself?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteQ&R “Acts of Revision” and “Inventing the University”
ReplyDeleteIn bartholomae’s article he explains the problem is students try to take the part of authority, giving advice rather than an academic analysis. In dethier’s article he is basically saying in writing and revision, attitude is everything. I have noticed a similarity between the two. Both of these articles address the matter of unskilled writes and their common mistakes and how their mistakes came to be. I am puzzled why both of the articles suggests trying something new? All my academic life I have been taught to improve my current way of writing and now these two authors change my prospective? Writing with a sense of authority is a bad idea, unless your good at it. But what about if that’s all you were taught, and you suck at it? Should one try to improve, or try something new? When it comes to revising am I suppose to take comments so personal? I say no take them as suggestions rather than instructions or orders. Are they trying to get us out of our comfort zone to experience new ways of writing with in conclusion might be better off than our instinctive way of writing? If a so-called good starts telling a personal story is he not to be descriptive because his discourse may not associate with his audience, professors, even though his public discourse does? Then, will cause him failure?
Christian Morin
ReplyDeleteDr. Chalaire
English 1301.20
Q&R "Acts of Revision" and "Inventing the University"
Both of these articles are made to inform the reader about good and improving writing. This articles entertain the reader by suggesting that everyone should try something new, something different of what are usually used to write. My question is, how does a good writer come about? some text now are printed more than once, some people go back and re-write their ideas and come up with a hole different idea. Does being a good writer means YOU HAVE TO go back every time in order to make a composition better? I don't think so, for me you don't have to go back and re-write anything, you just have to make sure you used good spelling and punctuation. It also depends on the person, some people write great work and they don't even go back to check anything.
Q&R for "Inventing the Univ." and "Ch.1 Acts..."
ReplyDeleteDavid Bartholomae believes he and other scholar's are above the student, referring to them as if they didn't belong. "he has to learn to speak our language, to speak as we do, to try on the peculiar ways of knowing, selecting, evaluating, reporting, concluding, and arguing that define the discourse of our community."(1). He mocks the student for his attempt to "show authority", "It is very hard for them to take on the role- the voice, the person- of an authority whose authority is rooted in scholarship, analysis, or research."(3). David Bartholomae has a lot of pride in his education and expresses it often through out the article. I however, do like how he gives an example of a students writing and points out good efforts and where improvements are needed. Brock Dethier tells you your reason for your writing attitude and informs you how to change. "That willingness will keep you from getting hung up and blocked, as often happens to writers who feel they must start with the perfect first paragraph."(6). He wants you to identify your attitude and be able to change it for the best.
Cynthia E. Mtz.
ReplyDeleteDr. Chalaire
Eng. 1301.20
Q&R “Inventing the University” and “Acts of Revision.”
“Inventing the University” by David Bartholomae is an article about how students every time that they sit down to write something for the university (teachers, school members, staff and maybe some other students.) they have to “invent the university.” This is because they have to use more sophisticated vocabulary in order to be able to write for an audience of a high rank like if they were members of the academy of historians, or anthropologists of economists, and also to take the role of being the authority or teacher instead of the student. In the other hand the article “Acts of Revision” by Wendy Bishop talks about the importance of revising and editing your work before presenting or printing it. It is very important to do this because if you revise your work, you can fix so many things that can be helpful to your paper in order for this to get better. Also if other people revise your work and make some comments about it, you can take them as suggestions and may be apply them to your paper.
What these two articles have in common is that the authors talk about revising your work. To be more specific they both said that teaching students to revise for readers, then, will better prepare them to write initially with a reader in mind. Another thing that these articles have in common is that they are made to inform the reader about good and improving writing. They encourage the audience to try something new and different, and also to get out of the safety zone where they are. In conclusion, these are the things that I like the most and that the articles have in common, that’s why I agree with the authors.
Maria Rangel
ReplyDeleteDr. Chalaire
English 1301.20
3/10/2010
Q&R “Inventing the University” and “Acts of Revision.”
Q: Both of these articles talk about how students can improve their writing skills. The difference between them is that Bartholomae is writing about how students just write because they have to. Dethier is talking about revision. I do believe that Dethier is right about revision and how he says that "you already are a reviser" (1) But my question is, Why do we have to revise? If we believe that the paper we have written is good and doesn't need any corrections. Why should we have to change our whole paper just to please one person? What if somebody thinks we should've done it another way? I believe in believing in your work and as long as your happy with what you have achieved, that's all that should matter.
R: I'm going to give my answer(or at least what I think it is) to what Cameron asked in his Q&R. I think, that the reason Bartholomae writes that we have to get out of our comfort zone, is because when we write, that's all we do... write. I believe he wants us to believe in what we are writing. "to get into a position of privelage" (407) He wants us to imagine what it is we are going to write about. For us to not only by the writer but also the audience. We have to keep in mind who we are directing to and what it is we are trying to get across to them. In order to do that we have to get out of our comfort zone. We are so used to just writing and not thinking of who is going to read it?, if they are going to understand it?, does it make sense to them or only to me?.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“Acts of revision” and “Inventing the University”
ReplyDeleteThe Acts of revision and inventing the university articles fairly talk about the same thing informing students and their writing but no entirely in the same way. Bartholomae article talks about the students writing giving examples of their work and what he thinks about them. He talks a lot about creativity and the different ways a student can express their creativity. How they should think about the readers reaction to their paper before hand, how they should think differently as if there were in the shoes of another person writing from another point of view. To be unique and not afraid to cross ones comfort zone. While Dethier article talks about revision and how really important it is to do for everyone one, even the greatest writhers have to revise. He mentions that revision might seem like a drag to do and is a waste of time but he stresses that if a person does not look at it like it as a drag, they might actually find the process faster and make them proud of the end result.
“Creativity is indeed a tool which has to exist, or our world will not succeed into the future and progress like it should”. I found Bartholomae part of creativity interesting but not everyone is creative it’s so hard now a days to be creative and unique when virtually everything has been said and done already. So finding a new way of writing or anything is something hard and I applause the people who are able to cross over the high fence of everything that has been done and said already and be able to open new door and new ideas. Bartholomea talks about students essay one about the clay model and white shoes. Different in many ways but all have creativity in common ones more than others but it’s there. Now the “white shoes”, which Bartholomew sees it as playing it to safe, I as well think the same I personally didn’t find it creative but I can see where the guy is coming from when he talks about creative. Even though it has been done before by others, it was not being done at the time of that game or by that team. So I guess he could feel the way he did because he did something that had not been done. I Found his paper so safe and playing it safe is not always good like at the end of the article he talks about the clay model which was a great paper that didn’t play it safe like white shoes, clay model was able to be at a level where the reader (professors) were no longer professors but students and that’s what they want. To be able to connected with the reader.
I agree with Dethier Revision is a must in order to have a great paper, but it really can be a drag for many people. I actually hate it, but hating it is not going to get me anywhere its actually going to prolong the writing process making it like your writing for eternity, but just by changing your attitude about revision it can change the whole outlook of revision making the process much shorter like Dethier mentions in his article. He talks a lot about ways to help improve a person’s attitude about revision and mentions how little stories about students who encountered a revision that has helped them in the future with their own work. I really found his article interesting and very helpful. It has opened my eyes to revision and has changed my attitude towards it. Well somewhat a person has to take it step by step like dethier say on his last paragraph “Writers will begin to see revision not as another tedious burden but as the writers best friend."
JoAnn Granados
ReplyDeleteDr. Mary A. Chalaire
English 1301.20
Inventing the University I found was not one of my favorite articles, mostly because of the way that Bartholomae talks about student writers, and insists that students should not take authority in their writing. Mostly because he feels that they do not have the knowledge needed to take such authority as writers, I understand that Barhtolomae’s concern that each student needs to learn to “speak the language” prior to speaking it, or in this case writing it. It’s his way of stating his position in the matter that I don’t necessarily agree with. On Acts of Revision rather than criticize student writers it in turn teaches how to become better writers, by showing us what we can do to correct our writing skills. Bartholomae does have some valid points in his article that students are asked to write about topics they have minor knowledge about, it makes it difficult for the student to succeed at writing such an article. I found some of Bartholomae’s comments to be a bit confusing, for example one particular statement made that I was unsure about was, “To speak with authority student writers have not only to speak in author’s voice but through another’s “code”; and they not only have to do this, they have to speak in the voice and through the codes of those of us with power and wisdom, and they not only have to do this, they have to do it before they know what they are doing, before they have a project to participate in and before, at least in terms of our disciplines, they have anything to say.” I found myself reading over this part of the article several times and am still uncertain of exactly what it was he was trying to say. I understand that Bartholomae is trying to inform us about what errors students make as writers, and how we need to invent university every time we asked to write about something we lack knowledge in, but with statements like this that are a bit confusing, how are we suppose to fully understand his point? I personally found that Acts of Revision was more informative to students, and connects on a better level with its audience.