What is the "war" between reading and writing? Work your way through the conflicts and the ways that reading is privileged over writing. Why, according to Elbow, would it be good to end the privileging of reading over writing? What are Lindemann's arguments against teaching literature in first-year writing courses?
This seems to be a recurring issue from the Brandt and Yancey articles, but Elbow's angle was more specific on what the consequences have been on prioritizing reading skills over writing skills in education, and the result has been a war over textual ownership. The New Critics, a literary perspective that says the reader alone creates meaning from a text, have dominated educational pedagogy for decades, taken the pen out of students hands and instead gave them a book.
ReplyDeleteThis is an off-balanced approach, in Elbow's view, and prevents several benefits that a combined writing/reading emphasis offers, all of which relate to one another. 1)Writing promotes collaborative thinking; 2) Writing is a more engaging activity and works better as a model for learning; 3)It encourages instructors to become more informed in the writing practices of other departments and create more practical assignments.
But Lindemann doesn't like the idea of reading, at least from literature, as being a part of a first-year writing course at all. She is of the opinion that writing itself should be brought to the forefront and not as a result of assigned readings from plays, novels, or creative literature. In fact, it is literature itself which needs to be removed from the writing class, because it is distracting and unnecessary.
Her solution is to better link freshman writing courses with multiple writing disciplines, which will best inform a student on the number of ways they may learn to enter into an academic conversation, since different disciplines use different conventions to achieve this. In this way, the student will not simply be taught to write English papers and will more likely leave the class with skills pertinent to their future field of study.
Leif the Unlucky did a great job at summarizing these articles. I also agree that Lindemann doesn't want literature to be a big part of first year writing courses. She says it's easy to cling to what makes us comfortable. We know literature, know what to say about it but it causes us to do little writing. Elbow agrees that reading has dominance over writing, like we read in previous articles, and he says we tend to give authors too much "power and authority." The conflicts he points out are 1.The conflict of interest between reading and writing 2. Conflict between the relationship between language and knowledge and brings up the much debated: If you can't say it, you don't know it argument. The third conflict is whether to trust language. He also mentions "invisible writing." Elbow favors writing over reading and says that it's the manner in which learning is initiated by the writer. Talking or writing about a text as opposed to responding to it helps us learn and formulate original ideas of our own. He says we should stop favoring passivity (reading) over activity (writing)--especially in the classrooms where students tend to doze off. A simple break requiring a writing assignment may bring that student out of the passive stance he's entered.
ReplyDeleteAs Rosa pointed out, Lindermann does not believe Literature should be “transported” into writing classes. According to Lindermann reading encourages students to focus on the text become consumed in the text, when students should really be encouraged to produce the text. Given this, Elbow states that sometimes writers needed to forget about the readers, so they are not too preoccupied with the teacher/grade, in order to produce better work. Elbow encourages free writing and little (ungraded) assignments to encourage students to write.
ReplyDeleteI don’t know if calling the conflict between reading and writing a 'war,' is accurate. It's more like a battle between siblings except ‘reading’ is the older, much more athletic, brother. And ‘writing’ is the sickly nerdy kid who gets picked last in gym class. He is still necessary to complete the team and play the game, but he's really not acknowledged. Writing is “neglected” and when it is used it’s as a response to a reading assignment. Elbow argues that this treatment of writing is understandable considering our “conception of what it is to learn” involves “input” not “output.” Listen and learn is the credo of the education system.
ReplyDeleteElbow’s idea of putting the reader in the writing seat (and leveling the playing field between reading and writing) not only ensures that the student will appreciate reading further, but will help them find their own voice. Hopefully they’ll stop writing essays inspired by Family Guy. They’ll be creative, informed, and will have a better understanding of what it’s like to give back to the books, the articles and most of all society. The ability to write well will also help the students in their other subjects. A Bio major who does not understand why he has to take composition will quickly realize its value after the first written assignment is graded.
Lindemann argues that by including literature into a first-year writing course you take away from the actual purpose of the course. Let literature be thought in other classes like: Intro to lit, survey to American lit, survey to British lit, and so on. He says that writing will not be the main focus if literature is present because “students do not write literature; they write about it or respond to it.” He also argues towards preparing students in literature and writing so that when they graduate they’ll be set to teach both. Unless the literature introduced in the class is specifically aimed at each of the student’s ideas, culture, background, beliefs, etc… (of course this is impossible) students are not going to imitate something like Beowulf. We write what we know and fighting a monster while wearing nothing but a tan is not a familiar experience.
The war between reading and writing seems to have been a fairly one sided fight, as far as education is concerned, for quite some time now. Reading, according to both Elbow and Lindemann has “dominance” over writing in the school setting, and I would have to say that I completely agree. Reading seems to be viewed as a more essential life-skill, (than writing) and as such, it is made a priority. Sort of along the lines of the argument Brandt and Yancey proposed.
ReplyDeleteElbow argues that ending reading’s reign over writing is essential to creating a student that thinks more critically as they learn how a text is “actively created and negotiated,” (14) instead of simply being a chunk of truth found within the pages of a piece of literature.
Something I found interesting is Elbow’s idea of writing being a “leveler.” (14) I feel that creating a bond between student and teacher is important to promote learning, and the idea of the learner and the learned coming together in order to overcome a shared struggle, by gaining an understanding of the writing process, and thus transforming a piece of writing from its “raw, crummy state,” into a well-thought-out final product should be the goal for a writing teacher.
Or maybe that’s a little naïve?
According to Elbow it would be good to end the "privilege of reading over writing" because in many cases, writing is usually handled in a way that is an uncomfortable experience or even as a punishment. As teachers we need to glamorize writing a little bit, maybe find ways to get their works published. Lindemann argues that literature shoukd not be emphasized so much in the first year because it takes away from writing production.
ReplyDeleteI think the “war” between reading and writing is not so much a “war” as it is like the hands on a person; the dominant one is always a bit stronger than the other. But on the same token, if you work out that weak hand, it too will become strong. To me, Elbow’s view of ending the privileging of reading over writing is just like that. Making what’s weak stronger. Lindemann argues that Lit-based courses focus on consuming texts, not producing them, thus making the point in which Rosa mentioned earlier, “it is tempting to cling to what makes us comfortable”. We know literature, but it causes us to do little writing. It only makes one side stronger and the other weaker. Both Lindemann and Elbow rally for more writing in first year courses so as to become more “comfortable” or stronger as I say in something we are weak in.
ReplyDeleteThe war between reading and writing arises because of the discrepancy that is found between the two with regards to time spent in classrooms. Reading is quite simply an easier task to do; writing is often times seen as tedious and time consuming for both the writer and the grader. Ending the war between these two entities would be beneficial to all parties because writing and reading feed off of one another. It was also mentioned that professors need to structure/develop assignments that will allow students to be successful in their other fields of study. One of the biggest factors for this problem, which is gradually being addressed in our nation's universities, is the value of teaching writing in the college classroom. In Elbow's article, he mentioned that writing professors do not have tenure and are often unsure of whether they will be working in a given semester. This is a problem because the message that writing is not valued is being sent. In Lindermann's article, she mentions that if a focus on literature is made in first year writing courses, then the course will become all about the readings and not necessarily about writing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Richard because I too have experienced the dominance of reading over writing. In my experience in school (not college) reading was encouraged, and writing, if done at all, was supplemental. I also agree that the teacher and student must share an important bond in order to encourage the learning of the writing process. In my experience, if the student feels he/she shares a connection with the teacher than he/she is more likely to strive to produce better work.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with Manuel that reading is easier than writing. That's a misconception that is a symptom of a reading privilaged pedegogical system that has de-emphasized writing. It's simply a matter of relativity which skill is more or less demanding because different things are easier or harder to read or write about, and even that depends largely on a person's level of understanding on the topic.
ReplyDeleteAs a graduate student, I've found it very difficult to increase my writing ability to what is required from graduate level work, and it has been tough to meet the assigned reading demands of all my classes. But if you write often, for example in a blog, you find out that in fact you can learn to swim, as Elbow says. It just takes a balance - to reach your "aim."
I agree with Sarah that it is very encouraging when there to a teacher-student bond. When students feel that immediacy, they are more likely to not only want to perform at their full potential, but they will be inclined to want to encourage others. I come from a family where neither reading nor writing were encouraged. Elementary, highschool and first year college were the same. For me it wasn't until my years here at UT-Pan Am that I have had professors give importance to reading and writing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Leif and Sarah have said so far. I never had as much technical writing as I did the first years of school. My professors drilled me on how to write a certain way, “their” way. As I kept moving up, my courses seemed to shift from that style and I began to have a choice on how I wanted to write. I had gone from one spectrum to another and was rather quite lost. I had to re-learn how to write. In the first years of college writing took a back seat ride to reading then it switched then it leveled out to a fifty-fifty.
ReplyDeleteGetting a little sentimental there are you Richard. Only kidding. Your not naive. I think that your students will respect and appreciate you more because your not this tall computer anymore with all the witty answers who gets daily downloads on information to torture the kids with all your knowledge. Your one of them now. An ordinary human being that struggles to write something of worth. You might just win them over.
ReplyDeleteYour point is duly noted Leif. I guess I was speaking from what I have experienced in my high school classroom. Many of my students have an easier time reading, but experience difficulties with writing both in regards to clearly expressing their ideas and in writing to the different modes. They are stuck in writing narratives and even that they have difficulties with.
ReplyDeleteThe war between reading and writing is one of privilege: which skill is more often assigned and employed, and in what contexts?
ReplyDeleteElbow and Lindemann (like Brandt and Yancey) argue that reading is the privileged skill. Elbow, however, points out that this was not always so -- "authors were the source of 'author'-ity" (5). We have ragged on teachers of literature, that is, reading, for excluding writing from the English or interdisciplinary curriculum. But we should acknowledge that, really, the tables have merely turned. That's why the relationship between reading and writing is war. Brandt, Yancey, and Lindemann advocate re-placing writing at the forefront of a writing-strong curriculum. Duh--no wonder it's hard to get wide-ranging acceptance of such ideas. Few people feel comfortable with writing (because they lack confidence, doubt the ability of their own writing to be "expert," shy away from the sheer workload, whatever).
Actually, Brandt, Yancey, and Lindemann ask for more writing courses that are strictly (or mostly) focused on writing. I don't think this does anything to end the war. It merely says, "We're done playing this game so we're heading over to the tetherballs." It's privileging writing, again, by divorcing it from reading. If writing is an output, that implies a consumer to receive the input (*even* if the consumer and producer are the same individual).
Elbow's approach seems more workable. He wants "both processes" to "reinforce each other as equals" (23). I think devoting concerted time to each skill is more likely to be accepted as a modification to the curriculum. Although, I will admit that Lindemann's description of the perfect class in the first paragraph of page 313 sounded wonderful: it's my dream course to teach.
=====
There were a few nitpicky things that I have slight disagreements with. I doubt I'll go into all of them; they're more suited to a class discussion anyway.
Lindemann was against literature. But what she meant was fiction; Elbow calls it "imaginative writing." The OED's definition of literature does not support Lindemann's narrow view, and I do not believe that composition is without imagination. In fact, the MFA program offers nonfiction workshops and accepts nonfiction theses for graduation. It's semantic, I'm sure, but as we've all been told, "Diction matters."
Elbow urges teachers to assign and accept imaginative writing work from students, during the semester. However, he feels ill-equipped to assign grades or marks or even Good-OK-Weak ratings to the work, presumably because imaginative writing (and reading!) has such massive objective overtones to it. Poppycock! I tell this to my students every year (anticipating their disapproval of some of my reading choices for the semester): "You don't have to like everything we read in class -- in fact, it's more interesting if you don't -- but I do require you to learn how to recognize and appreciate *good writing.*"
I agree with your comments Rosa; I do believe that invisible writing is an interesting way to promote creative writing in the classroom. And yes, literature should not be the main focus in first year writing courses because the courses themselves are designed to offer a variety of writing experiences to our students. If literature is the main focus then writing is pushed off to the side and that's a real tragedy. I also like the idea of having these writing classes expose the students to writing projects that reach across all academic fields and not just English.
ReplyDeleteManuel, I'm glad you brought up what Elbow said about professors, tenure and finding out last minute if they were going to teach a writing course or not. When I read that, I thought it was very discouraging and it clearly shows how much some colleges/universities value reading literature over writing. Is this the reason TA's are hired to teach freshmen composition? Are certain professors no longer interested? I'm sure salary plays a major role but nonetheless, it is sad when this game is played with college courses. Correct me if I'm wrong.
ReplyDeleteFrom my understanding, you're correct Rosa.
ReplyDeleteThank you, rtijerinazy.
ReplyDeleteThe war between reading and writing is more of a struggle in which reading has taken predominace for quite some time and that can be seen in the disregard some readers have for an author's intent and this may due to the emphasis English teachers have placed on inferring meaning from literature. Most students only have experience speaking about literature or writing about literature and then the writing is only critiqued in context of the meaning taken from the literature. Students do not experience being writers and when the attempt is made, then the writing has to fit a specific audience. As Elbow states, writers need a sense of ownership and the ability to write for themselves and not necessarily an audience out there. As for Lindemann, teaching literature takes away from the process of engaging in academic converstaion and the making of knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI am going ahead and jump on that whole ivisible writing idea. I have never thought of it before, though it seems to make plenty of sense to me, and I think it would be interesting to see how it plays out. In fact, I think I am going to run a little experiment on my students. We have a shortened day tomorrow, (only an hour and half shorter) so why not assign them a "low-stakes" writing assignment, that can hopefully increase their "trust" in language, and expose them to an engaging way to approach writing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Richard's statement about how more emphasis should be given to developing the student-teacher relationship, especially when it comes to writing. Students are already pressured by state exams to create specific written products, so they should not feel that pressure from the teacher for the entire year. If students know their teacher values meaning and expression over form then maybe they would be more willing to break away from the requirements of rubric which make for artificial writing.
ReplyDeleteGo Richard! Then tell us how it went!
ReplyDeleteRichard, the New Jersey Writing Project does this when it trains teachers; I got to do it once. It feels really weird.
ReplyDeleteLots of luck!
I tried it once with a magic marker and it worked for a few lines.
ReplyDeleteWow! Great posts! I just want to comment on something Leif and Manuel brought up. Reading is easier than writing because reading is a gateway to writing, just like listening is a gateway to speaking. Writing is a process that occurs after learning new information from guess where: reading (for the most part). So in that sense, I would have to agree with Manuel that ultimately, reading is easier for students than writing not because it is ignored, but because it is a step beyond the initial interaction of reading text.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree. The articles specifically say that writing does not follow reading. We teach like it does, and they advocate for changing that. Elbow goes so far as to cite research that suggests children are, in fact, writers first. Further, they argue that writing needs to be used as the method of learning rather than a reflection of it.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the “war” between reading and writing?
ReplyDeleteElbow says that “reading has dominance over writing in the academic or school culture.” (5) “the imbalance is unnecessary. Reading and writing can work productively together as equals to benefit each other…” (5) A better balance and relationship between both by giving more emphasis to writing in teaching and curricular structures and using writing in more imaginative ways. (5) He states that the most problematic conflict is that of reading and writing—between literature and composition. The most specific conflict is over authority—who gets authority over the meaning of a text—the writer or the reader. Writers can often fail to be clear in their text leading to “intentional fallacy”, but in the end, the reader has the privilege to decide or “decode” based on knowledge. “Invisible writing” writing, he states is another conflict, that is, “when you can’t see what you are writing, you are almost automatically forced into a much greater focus of attention and energy on what you are trying to say…” (10) With “invisible writing” the writer does not have the privilege to go back and read what he has written, instead, he is forced to do nothing but writing. Elbow states that reading is privileged over writing because reading is more central in most school and college courses. Writing is assigned in many of the courses—but these assignments are limited to short answers, such as “summarizing, interpreting, or explaining.” (10) For first year students, writing courses are usually limited to one and that is in the English Department. “In every other course in the university reading is privileged, and writing, when used at all, is used to serve reading.” (10)
Lindemann's argument against literature suggest that writing is avoided. It presupposes that a professor imposes his given view or text upon the student. This does occur, but it is not necessarily the norm. In fact, I remember that more often at the high school level than at English courses at UTPA. Several postings here suggest that the word "war" is inappropriate. Yet, I do not agree with their definitions. When the words war or battle are used, a looser is inevitable. That is my main concern. Why should there be a "top" or any hierarchy? Neither reading or writing is important (nor the order in which I wrote them). Skills in reading and/or writing are by far more important than the actual emphasis of the given professor. A student will always be college material if he/she is a strong reader or writer. The only way in which a student will be "betrayed" is if he is not exposed to either one at all.
ReplyDelete