Tony's presentation and Murray's demeanor seemed well-linked as far as congeniality and intentions go. In fact, most of the ideas presented seemed well thought out by both parties, but there is one point, in general with which I disagree. Murray's biggest contribution seems to be with the writing process, the whole beginning, middle and end thing, and I agree with the latter two, just not the first. Yes, every project has a beginning, every piece of writing had an origin, but usually the muses do not come down and bless us when it comes to our term papers. The topic idea, then, must be arrived at somehow, either through assignment or through searching (and this idea of the "brain surge" is all that kept Murray's ideas from being completely logical).
I can see a sort of pattern with these composition gurus. They seem to come up with ideas based on their past experiences, which is not unusual or unexpected. The problem is that they seem to think that their way is the best way (also not unusual or unexpected, especially amongst the academic elite). Murray spent a lot of time trying to get others to see the way that he did. Despite the fact that he may have had a process for writing well and finding a voice, writing--as he discovered with his own revisions--is blood, sweat and tears, especially with "pre-university" and early university students.
Another way that Murray was like his peers was in his diagrams of ideas to help the writing process. Because the presentation was the expedited version, I am not certain what the 8 signals was all about, but it seemed to fit in with the other writers we have studied.
I like that Murray worked really closely with the teachers who would have to deliver his ideas to a classroom full of hesitant writers, and I like that he worked so hard throughout his career to make a difference in the academic world.
Tony's delivery of his findings about Murray was the most enjoyable part of the presentation. It was nice that he asked us to get involved in order to prove his point that the writing process cannot be forced or rigid, it must have some boundaries, of course, but not an electric fence with military people in all corners.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I see what you mean about Murray coming off like a guru, but I don’t think I did him any favors by speed talking. While he was definitely in to giving advice, one of his strongest attributes was his willingness to listen to others and mold his teaching strategies around them. Even still, I must agree that anyone who writes about writing sounds a little nutty. Murray’s prewriting is the most nutty-sounding part of his theory, but it is also my favorite. After reading you post, I had to think for a while about why I liked this part of his theory and why others might not; what I decided was that I liked his idea because I relate to it so strongly. When I receive a writing topic, I truly do put it off and just think. As several students in our class have said, along with Murray himself, this feels like procrastination, but while I am waiting, I honestly have an internal discussion. I don’t mean like all the way in the back of my mind in the deep, dark recesses, but right in front. After a while, lines begin to develop that I know will form the backbone of my augment. Now here is the really crazy part; the sentences come out fully written, and usually they appear already attached to partial or complete quotes from research I have done or just past readings.
ReplyDeleteOh, and not to be left out, the signals were as close as Murray came to diagramming his theory. What the signals were was less of a diagram and more of a list of possibilities. Murray believed that after the mind ran through its dialogue and was ready to write, it would send the writer some form of signal that said, “Start writing.” However, the signal is different for different people. For me, it has always been the concrete formation of my major points in sentence form. When I can see the sentences in my head, I know it is time to write.
Side Note: because I’m pretty sure few people will read this, I’ll also say, to my embarrassment, that I know it’s time to write when lame jokes come fully formed within the writing. While I know I can never write them in paper, they are a nice alarm clock to let me know it’s time to begin.
Emily, I agree with what you said about the writers and theorists basing their work on their own experience. A couple weeks ago, Klayton wrote about the Myers-Briggs test and his type. Mine is almost exactly opposite his, and there are several other types of people, according to the indicator, not to mention the variances as people fall near one end or the other within each type. And, yet, somehow we think we will light upon ONE best way to teach composition in every classroom? It doesn’t seem likely. I have to remind myself include activities and assignments that might appeal to people with different learning styles. Just because I hate it doesn’t mean it won’t be just right for someone else, and vice versa.
ReplyDeleteI also like that Murray worked closely with teachers, getting a feel for what works and what doesn’t., and I especially appreciate his efforts to improve writing at primary and secondary schools.
Tony, I laughed when I read your post. I do a lot of composing in my head, and I create fully developed sentences that I frequently utter aloud as I work in the garden or laundry. I know it’s time to start writing when I begin veering toward the melodramatic. It’s a sure sign that I have drifted off topic and am writing soap operas or bodice rippers instead. Time to get to the keyboard.