I think that many people would have been discouraged by the experience that Elbow had in his graduate studies. They would not have turned their negative experience into not only a teaching pedagogy, but a renowned debate and composition theory that is being used by many teachers of composition today (not to mention creative writing teachers in both high school and college settings).
I, also, liked Tim's presentation of Elbow's pedagogy, especially how it was outlined on the sheet that we were given. It was informative and also visually and aurally sound (no pun intended). What Elbow's primary idea seems to be is sort of microscopic: start big and then work your way into more narrow and focused efforts, such as starting with freewriting, moving through the "Creating and critical" processes, and then working into a final copy. Elbow also believes (and rightly so) that too much self-doubt can eliminate some good ideas ("Believing Game and Doubting Game").
The problem that I see with Elbow's pedagogy is the same as what Bartholomae sees (shocker), that Elbow's methods are more suitable for creative writing than for compositional writing. The expressive genre, in my view, is too subjective. It is, indeed, excellent for helping students find their voices, but it is not appropriate beyond freewriting and brainstorming, though I am contradicted by all of the first-person essays we have read in this class. I suppose that it has been drilled into my head for many years that "I" does not belong in essays or compositional writing. Blog, yes, creative writing, certainly, but not in something that will be published in academic journals or turned into a composition professor for credit. To me, that promotes sloppy, opinionated work. It encourages writers to focus more on themselves and their personal experiences than the text being analyzed.
I can see, again, given Elbow's experiences, why he would promote this kind of writing, but I just feel that it is not the proper way to go. Guess that makes me a snob.
I'm curious, Emily, if you don't think there is room for the writer's voice in academic writing. It seems to me that even when the writer doesn't use "I", there is still a writer there - no one writes so transparently as to not show up in his or her writing.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, Cathy! Finding one's voice plays a role in much more than expressive writing. This process of finding one's voice is also about ownership; if an author doesn't "own" what he is writing, then I'm not sure how valuable it is. One of the major commonalities between good authors of all varieties of composition is that they have all found their voice and take ownership of their work. Their voice comes out whether the genre is an academic paper, journal entry, or movie script. I know that in my own writing(whether creative or academic), I feel the best about the finished product when I feel confident about the material and the writing process.
ReplyDeleteEmily, you seem to be chiefly objecting to the use of the first person in academic writing, when that is not all Elbow is advocating. He does believe in creating an authentic voice, and as Cathy and Eric have ably pointed out, that voice is what truly makes any piece interesting and convincing. Elbow has championed for using first person in beginning comp classes to help a student develop a voice and to tap into the student’s deeply held beliefs, after which the student can shift into the more removed third person we are accustomed to in academia, but with an invigorated sense of confidence in his own writing, and a belief that he has the right and the ability to express an opinion within the academy. It does not mean that a student will forevermore use only first person.
ReplyDelete