I was surprised by how lucidly June explained usually elusive concepts like when to use a comma, semicolon, and colon. Maybe it's because she did it so matter-of-factly, but I honestly can't remember reading better explanations. Of course, I'm almost to the point where I skip the first couple pages of every chapter because I know it's going to be some poorly done anecdote of why grammar snobs are great big meanies. I'm not really crazy about her sense of humour. Maybe I just am not quite on the same wavelength, but her jokes don't make me laugh. I found myself zoning out for the pages that she was writing comical fluff, and then reawakening a couple minutes later when she started in on the technical section.
It just seems absurdly formulaic.
part 1) 2-4 pages of not funny fluff
part 2)talk shop about grammar
Can't she mix it up a bit?
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
1/28/08
Grammar Snobs Are Great Big Meanies has one of the better intros in a book that I've read recently. She starts it with two letters of complaint from her readers, who seem to have a grievance with her newspaper column's diction. In this case, the readers arrogantly inform Mrs. Casagrande that wrong is not an adverb! The writers of both letters are so convinced and self-satisfied with their correction, you can just tell.
But then Casagrande includes her response to both readers, saying simply to look the word up, and that they should find a small "adv." after its uses as an adjective. It's so glorious. Maybe I'm particularly susceptible to thwarting erudite grammar snobs, but I just love it. I love the fact that there is a certain type of person who requires a set-in-stone procedure for writing, but more importantly I love the fact that our author had the privelage of correcting two of those people!
It's refreshing to read these books where the authors are all about making writing your own; to not be afraid of it.
But then Casagrande includes her response to both readers, saying simply to look the word up, and that they should find a small "adv." after its uses as an adjective. It's so glorious. Maybe I'm particularly susceptible to thwarting erudite grammar snobs, but I just love it. I love the fact that there is a certain type of person who requires a set-in-stone procedure for writing, but more importantly I love the fact that our author had the privelage of correcting two of those people!
It's refreshing to read these books where the authors are all about making writing your own; to not be afraid of it.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Wouldn't it be nice...
It must be pretty nice to have it all figured out. I'm actually considering emailing Dr. Pipher so she can inform me of the outcome of Superbowl XLII. I'm sure she would have a succinct, revelatory insight for me there.
Haha, but honestly...I think the charm of her assertive tone has run its course. Thank god we started at chapter six and not from the beginning! I think when Dr. Pipher explicates the virtues of humble writing, she is doing so from a distance. This woman does not have a humble bone in her body, and after chapter 8, frankly I was tired of being informed of how things should be done. Her writing has perspicuity (yeah that's right!), if only I could make out what she's saying from way down here on the ground, walking amongst mere mortals. She needs to calm down on the authoritative voice, and if only a couple times per page, she needs to concede some flaws. It becomes a bit much.
Based on the succinctness of her writing, she is an expert at revision, but I wish she emphasized that more in her chapter on process. It seems that her writing is emulating William Zinser's style as presented in On Writing Well. but I've seen no reference to his writing. Maybe I missed it, but it seems odd to set out on writing an instructional book on direct, succinct writing and not pay tribute to Zinser.
edit: as I'm sure it's painfully obvious, I wrote the paragraph on revision after reading chapters 9 and 10, but before reading chapter 10 (or even glancing at the title). It won't happen again Dr. Mckinney, I promise! :P
Haha, but honestly...I think the charm of her assertive tone has run its course. Thank god we started at chapter six and not from the beginning! I think when Dr. Pipher explicates the virtues of humble writing, she is doing so from a distance. This woman does not have a humble bone in her body, and after chapter 8, frankly I was tired of being informed of how things should be done. Her writing has perspicuity (yeah that's right!), if only I could make out what she's saying from way down here on the ground, walking amongst mere mortals. She needs to calm down on the authoritative voice, and if only a couple times per page, she needs to concede some flaws. It becomes a bit much.
Based on the succinctness of her writing, she is an expert at revision, but I wish she emphasized that more in her chapter on process. It seems that her writing is emulating William Zinser's style as presented in On Writing Well. but I've seen no reference to his writing. Maybe I missed it, but it seems odd to set out on writing an instructional book on direct, succinct writing and not pay tribute to Zinser.
edit: as I'm sure it's painfully obvious, I wrote the paragraph on revision after reading chapters 9 and 10, but before reading chapter 10 (or even glancing at the title). It won't happen again Dr. Mckinney, I promise! :P
Monday, January 21, 2008
MLK entry
Wow. "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" is absolutely awesome. This was my first time reading it and...wow.
Where to start? The man was a rhetorical genius. His arguments seem unquestionably logical and founded in reason. He relates his points to other great thinkers like Socrates, the apostle Paul, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and the list goes on. How amazingly brilliant to ground your argument in Christian thought when your opposition claims to be ardently Christian (in this case fellow clergymen objecting to King's methods). The section where King explains just and unjust laws stands out in my mind. He differentiates between breaking a just law and an unjust law, and even says that those who break unjust law lovingly and in the open do so with a heightened respect for the law itself. It's a great way to frame civil rights protests. The fact that King had to actually justify why he objected to such widespread cultural notions never really occurred to me. I know that sounds silly, but I'd always pictured people actually knew what was up, they just were kind of hesitant to do anything about it. But no, unsurprisingly King lays out his argument for why unjust laws should be opposed through non-violent means and of course grounds it in biblical reference. Completely awesome.
The voice he uses in his paper is so calm and objective, yet injected with impassioned sections as well. He maintains his integrity and rationale without losing his passion. For example, his descriptions of how black citizens were treated in Birmingham. Probably the most poignant description for me was King having to tell his daughter why they can't go to an amusement park, and seeing the change in her; the resentment of whites forming and the "scarring" of her personality. It exploits with razor-sharp precision that protective instinct I, and I'd like to think most people, have with regard to a child's welfare.
Good stuff, to say the least.
Where to start? The man was a rhetorical genius. His arguments seem unquestionably logical and founded in reason. He relates his points to other great thinkers like Socrates, the apostle Paul, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and the list goes on. How amazingly brilliant to ground your argument in Christian thought when your opposition claims to be ardently Christian (in this case fellow clergymen objecting to King's methods). The section where King explains just and unjust laws stands out in my mind. He differentiates between breaking a just law and an unjust law, and even says that those who break unjust law lovingly and in the open do so with a heightened respect for the law itself. It's a great way to frame civil rights protests. The fact that King had to actually justify why he objected to such widespread cultural notions never really occurred to me. I know that sounds silly, but I'd always pictured people actually knew what was up, they just were kind of hesitant to do anything about it. But no, unsurprisingly King lays out his argument for why unjust laws should be opposed through non-violent means and of course grounds it in biblical reference. Completely awesome.
The voice he uses in his paper is so calm and objective, yet injected with impassioned sections as well. He maintains his integrity and rationale without losing his passion. For example, his descriptions of how black citizens were treated in Birmingham. Probably the most poignant description for me was King having to tell his daughter why they can't go to an amusement park, and seeing the change in her; the resentment of whites forming and the "scarring" of her personality. It exploits with razor-sharp precision that protective instinct I, and I'd like to think most people, have with regard to a child's welfare.
Good stuff, to say the least.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Wow!
I like this author! Her prose is honest, assertive, and relaxing. It's nice to read someone who isn't afraid to put their opinions out there in crystal clear terms, opposed to hiding behind other's words and opaque language.
There were a couple parts in the reading that really jumped out at me. The first part was when she said, and I paraphrase, that most writers should be able to endure poverty, loneliness, and anguish. It's something we hear all the time, that the life of a writer is a horrible, lonely experience that often times goes without any recognition. But the way she said it, so bluntly and direct, really made me believe her words. She voice comes off as nothing but honest. Now admittedly that's a blanket statement as there is quite a wide range on kinds of writing and the experiences those writers have, but nonetheless she grabbed hold of me with that.
The other thing was when she talked about being steadfast, thick-skinned, and persevering. It's so true! Being only a fledgling writer (she urges us to refer to ourselves as writers, which is something I usually avoid), I can already recognize that this is not the kind of thing one can learn overnight. There is a certain innate talent that some are born with, but good writers are slowly hammered and tempered over many, many years and thousands of hours of writing. It's kind of comforting to realize we don't need to get there right away.
scooter
There were a couple parts in the reading that really jumped out at me. The first part was when she said, and I paraphrase, that most writers should be able to endure poverty, loneliness, and anguish. It's something we hear all the time, that the life of a writer is a horrible, lonely experience that often times goes without any recognition. But the way she said it, so bluntly and direct, really made me believe her words. She voice comes off as nothing but honest. Now admittedly that's a blanket statement as there is quite a wide range on kinds of writing and the experiences those writers have, but nonetheless she grabbed hold of me with that.
The other thing was when she talked about being steadfast, thick-skinned, and persevering. It's so true! Being only a fledgling writer (she urges us to refer to ourselves as writers, which is something I usually avoid), I can already recognize that this is not the kind of thing one can learn overnight. There is a certain innate talent that some are born with, but good writers are slowly hammered and tempered over many, many years and thousands of hours of writing. It's kind of comforting to realize we don't need to get there right away.
scooter
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
1/15/08
So I forgot the weekend prompt relating to the whaling paper. Whoops!
In its place though, I'd like to talk a bit about monday's class topics. We spent the majority of the time analyzing different paper rubrics in pairs, and trying to decide which educational ideology they subscribed to most. It didn't come as a huge surprise that every one was a medley of at least two. It's like with the current traditionalist model, you can't really escape it. A teacher needs to enforce some rules of syntax and grammar or a paper could be incoherent and still be technically okay according to the rubric.
So that was pretty enjoyable, and I came out deciding that I enjoyed the rubric emphasizing rhetorical awareness of audience, author, culture, and general context of a work--all things that form the rhetorician's playground.
In its place though, I'd like to talk a bit about monday's class topics. We spent the majority of the time analyzing different paper rubrics in pairs, and trying to decide which educational ideology they subscribed to most. It didn't come as a huge surprise that every one was a medley of at least two. It's like with the current traditionalist model, you can't really escape it. A teacher needs to enforce some rules of syntax and grammar or a paper could be incoherent and still be technically okay according to the rubric.
So that was pretty enjoyable, and I came out deciding that I enjoyed the rubric emphasizing rhetorical awareness of audience, author, culture, and general context of a work--all things that form the rhetorician's playground.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Aaaaaand again
Well, having forgotten that our first blog was supposed to be about me as a writer, and not wanting to erase my first post, welcome to a second entry!
If I could describe my writing in one word it would be scatterbrained. I tend towards disjointed thoughts haphazardly organized . I can understand how this could become tedious for those unfortunate souls who find themselves mired in a piece of my writing, it's just that at my most natural, relaxed state, I'm completely scattered and crazy.
It must be odd, from the outside looking in, that a half-apart writer decided on writing as his primary focus in college. On this point I must say it's just as odd on the inside (Ba Dum Dum Chhh!!). I find writing a well-organized, cohesive research paper to be a serious challenge, whereas I know many other English students think it's a breeze. The only thing that lets me know I haven't made a grievous error in my vocational judgement is that I enjoy writing. It's relaxing and keeps me self-aware.
If I could describe my writing in one word it would be scatterbrained. I tend towards disjointed thoughts haphazardly organized . I can understand how this could become tedious for those unfortunate souls who find themselves mired in a piece of my writing, it's just that at my most natural, relaxed state, I'm completely scattered and crazy.
It must be odd, from the outside looking in, that a half-apart writer decided on writing as his primary focus in college. On this point I must say it's just as odd on the inside (Ba Dum Dum Chhh!!). I find writing a well-organized, cohesive research paper to be a serious challenge, whereas I know many other English students think it's a breeze. The only thing that lets me know I haven't made a grievous error in my vocational judgement is that I enjoy writing. It's relaxing and keeps me self-aware.
Inaugural Post
Here I am. I am making my first post for English 435!
The first class went well. I enjoyed the exercise Professor McKinney prepared for us. It made me ponder not only the practical requirements of what a tutor is, but also the theoretical boundaries that every tutor must feel out on their own. How much should a tutor know about the paper's subject? Is it up to a tutor to check out the facts a paper presents, or is a certain level of trust and academic integrity given as benefit to the author?
Where does the line stop between writing tutor and co-author? It was something I'd never given any thought.
I'm going to be honest here: I didn't expect to enjoy this class. I never enjoyed the idea of critiquing other people's writing as I feel that writing is oftentimes a very personal, private affair. But...well...I think I am going to enjoy this class.
One might ask, "Scott, is it really possible to know how you feel after just one class?" Well yeah, I think so. I know it's a hasty arrival, but I generally don't arrive in any other fashion.
-scooter
The first class went well. I enjoyed the exercise Professor McKinney prepared for us. It made me ponder not only the practical requirements of what a tutor is, but also the theoretical boundaries that every tutor must feel out on their own. How much should a tutor know about the paper's subject? Is it up to a tutor to check out the facts a paper presents, or is a certain level of trust and academic integrity given as benefit to the author?
Where does the line stop between writing tutor and co-author? It was something I'd never given any thought.
I'm going to be honest here: I didn't expect to enjoy this class. I never enjoyed the idea of critiquing other people's writing as I feel that writing is oftentimes a very personal, private affair. But...well...I think I am going to enjoy this class.
One might ask, "Scott, is it really possible to know how you feel after just one class?" Well yeah, I think so. I know it's a hasty arrival, but I generally don't arrive in any other fashion.
-scooter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)