Stewart's "History for Comp Teachers" - Badovinac

Comparing comp/rhet back in the 80's to the new methods was the same argument that has been made over the last century (or more), debating whether grammar/syntax or content are more important (135). My reaction to this argument in Stewart's "Some History" is the same as it has been in the other postings. I wonder what the problem is in teaching both at the same time. I learned how to write well by paying attention to the editing marks that were given to me on my papers in high school. Why does there have to be this constant fight between rhetoric and mechanics, especially with "micro-computers which can do the things they do more efficiently and with less resistance from students" (136). Stewart had no idea how quickly this concept of word process correction would become a reality on every home computer in the country. Now we have green squiggles under our sentences if it is improperly formed, and a red line under misspelled words. While this is not a perfect system, students also have access to writing centers, peer reviews/workshopping, and many professors offer the option of a second or third draft as well.

The main argument that I have for these authors that we have read over this last week is the idea that old and new ideas are incompatible, and the only way to make things "right" is to overhaul the entire system. Stewart suggests chucking the entire 5-paragraph system, and even, partially the 3-piece essay structure (137). While these are good solutions for seasoned composition writers, basic principals must be learned by students before they will be able to be comfortable enough to experiment.

Stewart also offers a different grammar option ("Grammar B") that I thought would not be acceptable to most academic courses, and most departments would not want to accept this "radical" idea of sentence fragments and grammatical inconsistencies (142-43). The only way to accept Grammar B is to not have any sort of scales to measure by. Writing would become lazy and chaotic and, perhaps, incomprehensible. Last semester I took the Beat writing course, and some of the writing was so far outside of the accepted norm that it was nearly impossible to follow. While there is a certain popularity amongst bad grammar in emails and text messages, academia has always been on a different par than hand-written or typed letters from one friend to another, and certainly a difference between Dickens and a telegram from a woman in Toledo to her sister in Los Angeles. These inconsistencies in communication outside of academia have always been around, but we have not accepted them into our learning or composition practices, and I do not see the need to begin doing it now.

Additionally, what is there to be gained by over-hauling the entire system? Acceptance of new ways does not make a person necessarily progressive--just accepting, and if we can learn anything from history it is that it is folly to discard all that has come before in favor for what is acceptable and popular now. The English language has survived with basic composition for hundreds of years. I don't mean let's not change it, but what is the necessity for changing it entirely. I, personally, do not see any, except to make things easier on our students, which I think is also folly.