LE: Chs. 7 & 16 Responses

Chapter 7 (Perl)

I am in full agreement with Perl’s assessment that writing is not linear, so I thought I should expand and very mildly dispute her argument. With her retrospective and projective structuring, Perl still keeps herself tied to the linear system. She has only expanded the linear system from one that moves in one direction on the Writing Continuum to one that moves in both directions. I pose the idea that the writing process should be seen more as an explosion of interconnected thoughts. The thoughts may be networked on purpose (that is, they are connected through rules, synonyms, practiced templates, etc.), or they may be networked in ways of which the writer is not cognizant (that is, the surroundings—social, political, etc.—shape the thoughts). However the process is networked, it shapes the ideas on the page in a manner that is as unique as the individual’s DNA. In fact, DNA is an excellent parallel to the writing process, although I suppose that such a comparison implies slightly more order than an explosion. Our DNA contains a complex interaction of known elements (rules and politics), and the complex interconnected elements do create an ordered structure (our individual process). Though there is order and shape to the structure, the slightest alteration to any element will completely change the structure’s makeup. Thus, just as one alteration in our DNA creates a wholly different human being, one alteration (to our knowledge, experience, politics, social surroundings, etc.) in our writing process will alter the entire process and thus alter our entire product. Mapping our DNA and learning its intricacies has proven an enormously challenging task, and I think that this same notion is applicable to our inability to map the writing process. Just think, if our society designated the same amount of money and interest to the complete understanding of our writing processes as it designated to the understanding of DNA, we might be able to learn some remarkable things.

Chapter 16 (Runciman)
I think that Runciman has a very likable and optimistic view of writing in his desire to share an appreciation for the rewarding capacities of writing. However, I thnk that his view is rather unattainable—at least from the standpoint of a high school teacher. Yes, we may tell our students that pleasure can be found from the successful translation of our ideas into language. But, just as Runciman said, people find pleasure in different kinds of writing (technical, creative, essay, poetic, etc.), and most do not find pleasure in all genres. Yet state/federal mandates will require that our students produce a research paper, a poem, and a biographical “essay.” The best ability to instill pleasure into each of these forms is to share what we may find pleasurable in fulfilling these written tasks. Others may find other aspects of the assignments enjoyable, but we cannot share these, as we are unaware. It is possible that we hold a classroom discussion when the assignment is complete and discuss the parts of the process that the students found fun. However, this assumes that a process exists for these students. What if they do not have a process? We come to what so many of the recent essays have discussed. Do we pass on our own methods of succeeding? We cannot because we have chosen these methods based on what brings us pleasure, not others. As I stated earlier, everyone has her own specific process for writing; thus, everyone has her own method for finding pleasure.