Mind Drain...

That is how I feel as the quarter comes to a close, and I look for thoughtful thing to express. I agree with Cushman and Terese on the need reposition ourselves when attempting to act as ethnographers. We have to commit ourselves to the daunting task of displacing ourselves from our work. This is the only way to ensure an accurate representation of those we write about. If we fail in this endeavour, then what we write moves from the worthy into the unworthy. I feel I'm now rambling, and speaking nonsense. I shall now close and go work on my other papers. Sorry, for producing what has been coined monkey poo.

Worthy, or Not?

I think Seitz makes a worthy claim that discourse is a reflection of individual socio-political, gender, religious, ethic, and cultural embodiments. This is reflected nicely in the samples of Lilia, Diana, and Mike’s rhetoric. Seitz shows how individual’s components transfer into their compositional discourse. This is important because as instructors we must attempt to strive to know and understand our students, in order to help advance their abilities as writers. On the other hand, this could be an unworthy and ridiculous claim, for how does one person achieve this feat in a ten week time span; sixteen if one’s lucky?

Civil War?

Warren quotes Dana J. Nelson, claiming that Whites benefit from the institutionalization of racism, and they must take responsibility to eliminate it (Nicholls 255). This is a very true but problematic claim. Individuals can stand up and oppose something, but it takes greater action to topple an institution.

Such an example would be the Civil War and Slavery. Personally, does today's institution disgust me; yes. Is a Civil War prominent; not in this day in age, the government would wipe out the resistance in seconds. It is a very unjust world we live in and technology has secured such institutions on a military level. Furthermore, the "Whites" that really benefit, have the large sums of cash, and can lobby forever and a day if these practices were attacked.

I sound like a conspirator, but what can Joe Shmoe do to ensure the demise of unjust institutions? A civil war is not realistic, and I really wonder if the country could survive another 60's. I point to the protest of today as evidence, for while people disagree about the war in Iraq, it has strangely managed not to rise to the level of societal chaos seen 40 years ago.

We're not Worthy!!!

Thomas Mann is definitely the MAN!

Okay, this maybe a little juvenile; however, the chapter, "Locating Material in Other Libraries," totally tripped me out. I didn't know that libraries were linked and access to their vast information could be obtained via the Internet. Why is this information not introduced at the 101 level, it could greatly benefit students throughout their tenure as an undergrad?

Anyway, this does create a dichotomy of sorts. Mann contributes a chapter to why regular libraries are better than virtual libraries. This argument centers on the concept of why books are more useful than on screen text; however, the discussion never led into libraries being linked at such a magnitude. I like books, and real libraries, with real people, but man, this is totally awesome.

I feel as if I should close with some Wayne's World, or Bill and Ted idiom, but I'll spare my readers. NOT!

Justice

Is it just to label the university, or composition a middle class enterprise? Lynn Bloom once made this statement, as she noted that the enterprise leaves little room for the minority student (Chiang 150). Unfortunately, I have to agree with this analysis. The injustice of the middle class enterprise is a burden that affects minorities, but it also takes it toll on the general student population. As Bartholomae suggests, with each subject students must learn to write like a professional of the field; in short, they must reinvent the university (see his article, "Reinventing the University").

This creates a dichotomy. What is the purpose of composition? Is it a service course, which strips everyone of their identity, and drives them to write in one ideal style of Edited American English? Is it a course, which teaches students to think as individuals, and then compose such thoughts in a clear and concise manner? Scholars can take sides on either side of the debate, but is there a middle ground?


The problem is people want to have their cake and eat it too. Unfortunately, some crumbs are are going to fall to the waste side. If composition is middle class, while it burdens all students, those who fall like crumbs, and fail to achieve elitism, more than likely will be minorities.

Similarity

As I read McGann's, "Interpretation," I began to reflect on fairytale translation. Stories can be looked at from many different views, for example, Frankenstein, could be seen from a feminist critic, or a critique of the historical period's reckless attitude with science and technology. McGann also notes other forms of interpretation: New Criticism, Hermeneutics, Narrative, Queer, Psycho-analytic, and so forth (164).

If two individuals can read a piece of writing and have two different interpretations, does this not also affect any possible translations of the piece between languages; especially, if there is some arbitrariness occurring?

I think the two may go hand in hand; hence, instead of also having to deal with the issues within language barriers, we have to consider the issues of our own interpretations. I wonder if this dichotomy has every been researched?

Circumstances

Professor Pilinovsky spoke on the problems of translations as they relate to fairy tales. Having time to sit back and reflect on the possible explanations to why so many version exist of one fable, I have come to the conclusion that the circumstances of the past will also spawn new life, and be the same explanations for the versions in the future.

As the good professor said, the first problem with translation is that they were oral tales, that eventually were scribed to paper; however, I think this is even more complicated. Scribes and translators must figure out words and historical context, but how do you translate odd sayings. For example, 'he had a sore stomach,' to some cultures is the same as a sore heart, but to others this could be taken as a stomach ache. Furthermore, how are stories written in other cultures? Are they linear, or do they follow the same discourse pattern as the language of the given society. If we have trouble understanding individuals because of discourse patterns, does this mean that scribes reworded material, or left things out, due to the inability to follow?

(Where was my brain, yesterday?)

These are the same questions future generations will ask, in reagrds to the fables of today. To complicate the issue even more, we also love to produce slang, which seems to be developing at a much rapid rate with technological growth. Better yet, the phenomenon of abbreviations, now that should throw a new twist on, The Three Little Pigs.

"Like OMG, there is one fury BMF, 'bout to cap my #@#!"

Howard

Howard's piece reignites a long feeling of hopelessness, which I find myself trying to avoid, but always seem to get sucked back into; why composition? Unfortunately, composition has played step-child to the field of literature ever since writing made its way into the University hierarchical structure, and Howard's comment that some writing programs include no composition scholars at all, doesn't help the situation (62). This perception of composition leads to the assumptions that writing courses are service driven, which anybody can do; hence, the continuous lack of respect and horrible working conditions of the instructors rolling around in the trenches, struggling to get by.

It makes me wonder why literature is so highly respected, and composition not. Howard makes the point that the audience for composition studies are teachers/scholars, students, and the public; however, this is the case for every field (60). Scholars do research, which in turn teacher take into the classroom to their students, whom then take such knowledge into the public. The only thing that I can see, which makes literature better then composition is the immediate benefits/results of instruction carried into the public.

I say this because literature makes an individual read material from a variety of perceptions, which emphasizes critical thinking; a very beneficial tool in the public sector, or within other courses during the undergraduate years. Writing also involves critical thinking, but the problem is how to instruct it. Most of the writing done in college is geared toward essay writing. This is a great genre, for developing organizational skills, but not every aspect of writing across the curriculum falls within an essay, nor does this happen in the real world. Essentially, composition teaches organization and clarity, but it needs to expand into genres of real world applications to be truly beneficial for the public.

All in all, the situation is very disturbing; especially considering the economy. Why composition? People need to know how to write, but as the economy slowly crumbles and universities slowly become elitist institutes, because of budget restraints, what's the trickle-down affect? When individuals can't find employment at the four year institutes, does this mean the PhDs push out the MAs at within the two year institutes? I don't know why composition studies. I don't know if there is an excellent, clear-cut, answer to this question, or any of the others. It just maybe a a case of making a bad career choice.