"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping Ryan and fill him with a somewhat neutral resolve."

(Twenty points to whomever gets the reference above. I've been watching some old movies lately.)

Good afternoon. Or morning. Probably evening, though. I have a feeling that's when most of this stuff gets done, if not typed up during class. This blog thing gets me confused sometimes (I warned you all in post #1 that I hated these things). Anyway, you'll probably be seeing a few more entries from me the next few days with the papers I turned in but didn't upload. That or I can organize them in one big post a la Deanna. So yeah, lots of previous posts. That and the massive catch-up frenzy sparked by a nicely organized check-off list given to us in class on Tuesday. I think it's safe to expect that from everyone. You all know who you are (I is).

Anyway, I'm getting Comcast in the shiny new apartment today, hopefully. So I'll have constant Interwebs no matter where I go, and hence little excuse to not keep up with my schoolwork. YouTube is a great distraction, however...

Right. Enough pointing out foibles. Time to gettin' respondin'.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When it comes to teaching good writing, revising, and editing habits, Donald Murray has the market cornered. Not literally. I doubt there's an actual literal Moroccan bazaar where literary techniques are lavishly displayed, the lowest prices haggled by toothless merchants, and Murray literally surrounds the literary bazaar with literal tanks and literally carpet-bombs the place. That probably doesn't happen. But figuratively it may.

What I am suggesting is the hold of these fancy-schmancy techniques perpetuated and promulgated by the academic machine. They want to make us better writers through the use of these techniques and, in my opinion, the pursuit of better writing and communicative skills is a goal worth the effort. These are techniques "tried and true": discovery drafts, picking the right context, editing and reediting, etc., yuh-huh, yuh-huh, we get it.

You're just waiting for the "but", right? Isn't that the impression I kinda give off? The slinking snakish rogue long-black-sleeved stranger brooding in the corner (not quite), relishing the opportunity to strike? Blood and venom! Hsss! No? Oh well, that would be cool, at any rate.

Well, this time, there really isn't a "but". Nuh-uh. Not that I totally agree with Murray's methods; I and my compadre David are currently suffering/digesting A Writer Teaches Writing for your presentation-listening pleasure next Tuesday. I'd like to say that we drew the short straw, though, as this book is aimed at the composition teacher rather than the writing consultant or the student.

Anyway, the lack of "but". Well, that's not totally true. For the purposes of Murray's supposed audience, he teaches some worthy (be they tired) techniques. The freewriting session that Deanna had us do awakened the sleeping giant (points to title), and my brain was on the rest of the class period. It's the exact same technique I use when I need to get going on any piece of writing, be it academic or creative (and at this point, I should be scoffing that I am still separating the two. *Scoff*). Sure, it may have not yielded anything "conflicting" or any new "tension" (it was a list, after all), but the very process shook up my lack-of-sleep-addled brainpan-can and the pop top popped: *fiiiiizzzz*.

So, I took off. My fingers, anyway. My notes were much more interesting than they would have been otherwise. I had war stories, tales of intrigue, fighters and bombers (Tora tora tora! - It slipped), politics, sex, drugs (but no rock and roll), and a new, disturbing slogan for everyone's favorite sports drink: Gatorade - Drive the Voices from your head.

The point? No point, really. Other than that all of these notes, while obviously the product of a diseased mind, all focused back to the topic at hand. It wasn't "for" anyone, I didn't have to "hand" it in to anyone, no one was grading "me" "on" "anything"; but the response that this little exercise generated allowed me to hold on to the information I need to take away from Murray. So really: point.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that even if we're following the conventions of the day, we don't have to be constrained by the methods with which they are taught, nor the expected ways in which we should be enacting these certain techniques. Flow charts don't help me; they waste paper. Margin notes don't help me; half the time I can't make them out. What does help me is the link I can make back to my high-falutin' fantasy novel in my ENG 487 class notes about gender roles, and how that'll all fit into my personal concept of the Pleroma and syzygy and all those other Gnostic concepts that you should probably Wikipedia if you have time.

It wasn't the technique itself that got me to think/remember/write better, it was the emotional investment in the time the information was encountered. The writer is, of course, nearly 100% responsible for getting engaged in the work, whether it's being an active listener (taking notes), responding politely, or finishing up a first draft. We've all had experiences with "critical" papers that lack any investment in the text; these are the most boring papers to have to read. The lack here is that investment-claim that the writer is supposed to stake; otherwise, someone will jump him/her and someone will be out of a river in which to pan for gold (prospective metaphors will never go out of style).

Really, while I salute Murray for his left-brained and logically-minded ideas, they just won't work for me on the same level. I can understand how if you need an outline, of course you should make one. If it ain't broke, one should not engage in repair. It's a common concern we have with our clients: organization. This organization of thought seems to be his overriding concern with all these "left-brained" (now it's in "quoties") techniques that Murray espouses [Espoused, he's dead. -Ed.], and I suppose we should thank him for putting them all in one place for others to consume. Not like there aren't myraid other works on the same things out there already.

I'm not sour about being taught these techniques, of course, but each one won't work for a select person. It's why I'd rather read a book of koans than fables or moral tales - I'm just not Western enough, I suppose. In this academic discourse, we only have so much that we can teach, and our students are already programmed to think in a certain way: it would be mathematically foolhardy to start teaching comp classes with the desks in a circle than facing the blackboard; you can't fit all those desks in a circle, creativity and equal footing for all be damned! There will be an established front and you vilt all lizten to me! Mach schnell!

Anyway, this all goes back an overriding concern with the American academic discourse that's been bubbling up inside me since Day One. Well, more like Day Five. I can't critique (read: won't critique, I'm sure it's possible) the entire collegiate discourse in one sitting. My fingers are too sore for that right now.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ouch. Well, there it is. Have fun with that, guys; I'm off to my Heidegger class to go encounter some philosophical objects.