1. Fulkerson and the WPA Outcomes Statement both emphasize rhetorical axiology as the fundamental purpose of writing--that it is, in fact, as the WPA Outcomes Statement puts it, "the basis of composing" (1). This idea that we always write for an audience informs the rest of each text's discussion. I'm just wondering...does everyone agree wholeheartedly with this assumption? Perhaps this is a generally accepted premise now (at least Fulkerson makes it seem so), but I must confess (at the risk of seeming naive and idealistic) that I still cling to the expressionist axiology--that at least on some level we write for ourselves as well--and not just in creative writing but even, sometimes, in academic papers. What do you think?
2. I found Bartholomae's work intriguing. I do have two questions though. First of all, what is an unauthorized writer? Maybe I just missed it, but I didn't locate an actual definition of what he means by this term. Secondly, Bartholomae pushes for teaching writing in a particular fashion that he calls "practical criticism" (28). He challenges us to be willing to make a comparison between an established writer like Toulmin and a freshman in college. I agree with Bartholomae that we should treat students as serious writers and challenge them to look carefully (not carelessly!) at their work and revise it at a foundational level. At the same time, do you think there needs to be a balance between doing this and also not expecting too much from someone who is perhaps writing real research papers (e.g. being exposed to citation rules, learning what a motive is) for the first time? What could this look like?
No comments:
Post a Comment