Hey Heller:
Sorry I had a delay on my blogging. It's hard to get a moment free. This weeks reading was a load, but I would have to say that Engaging Ideas was the nicest flowing read for me. I particularly liked pages 60 and 61. Bean says "...we should note that much of what constitutes "error" really involves stylistic choices- issues of rhetorical effectiveness and grace rather than right-or-wrong adherence rules. For purposes of definition, we might label as an error any unintentional violation of a stable convention of standard edited English, such as a wrong pronoun case, comma splice, or an awkwardly dangling participle. However, it is less helpful to think of wordiness or choppy sentences or excessive use of the passive voice errors in the same sense. Yet many teachers lump all violations of their own stylistic pet peeves into the "error" category." (Bean 61) I found this section on errors a bit funny. As teachers and writers, we tend to categorize what is an error in students writing, if we particularly don't happen to like their style. Although we may be a little vain and consider or way to be the best, we should keep an open mind as to what the student feels comfortable with. Do you know what I am saying? Of course error is involved with the necessities in writing, but we should not judge on the style and automatically call it an error, as I have seen cases like that.
In WACFNM (pg 167) it says "'writing to learn' doesn't go far enough, doesn't historicize our conceptions of language and knowing..." Do you agree with the explanation? How do you feel about this and what are your thoughts? I feel that's always going to be true- we can only keep trying to reach that goal to infinity.
See you in class! Don't be mad at me for posting late!
~Laura~
No comments:
Post a Comment