Blog 2

I did an author study on James Britton for Julie either last semester or last fall. I had never heard of him and in the end, was glad I chose him. I wondered how it was I had never heard of him at that point in my educational career, but perhaps I would not have appreciated his contributions quite as much had I learned about him prior to entering the writing certification program. It means more at this point. As for this article, he searches for some grounding in commonalities in literature, more specifically in poetry. And it’s at this point that I feel he goes so back and forth between theorists, that I can’t quite tell what the hell he is agreeing with, or why he thinks everyone needs to agree on what constitutes poetry. (152-154) What I am gathering as I read the remainder of the article is that he tried to find theory that supported his preference and belief for the more informal, narrative, “gossip” type of writing…experience-laden writing. Expressive writing. Writing that is not learned. Writing that is written from the heart. Writing that speaks what the minds eye saw, without “formality”. And I like that. There’s nothing more contrived than, well, contrived writing. You can tell when you read it. It sounds fake. Voiceless. Just like in longer writing, when you can put yourself into a poet’s writing—his or her experience—they’ve done their job as a writer/poet.

Oh here we go. Grammar. You know, the one thing I find with grammar is that once the concept is taught it is best retained by allowing kids to see it--and their mistakes--in their own writing. Constant light bulbs going off in their heads. But grammar is like a double-edged sword when it comes to writing. On one hand, it really needs to be correct in order for a reader to truly get what the writer wants them to get. But you don’t want to stop the creative process by saying…OH….no comma? Kids will shut down if they’ve come to you with what they think is a great piece and you’re only concern is that there’s no apostrophe in “you’re”.

There’s a teacher where I work that teaches it in isolation and makes a point of telling the kids that’s she’s traditional and boring and this is how she teaches it. I can’t for the life of me understand how she enjoys her job. If she doesn’t enjoy her job, how can the kids enjoy their own job of learning? Of course, research supports neither my way or her way (206-207) In fact, formal instruction didn’t even improve writing. But this is where I have to ask how grammar improves writing. Isn’t it style and voice that make writing worth reading? Sure, using the English language correctly makes for easier reading, but does it make for better reading? I had a kid in class whose hilarious poem began “My X, My Box” and it went on to describe his Xbox like a first love, how it called to him, grey and smooth, the voice calling from a distant room. I laughed until I couldn’t even talk to anyone. I think he was missing a comma or two in it. …but is this what Hardwell refers to as stylistic writing?(225) Enhances awareness of language and that “verbal clay” he talks about? Not everybody would have liked this kids poem…they would have thought the quality was lacking. I say it is experience in writing, no matter how grammatically incorrect. That has to be worth something. I gave him a 60/60.