If you haven't seen it, check out Alex Reid's post Learning to Write (on Digital Digs). He raises provocative questions about to what degree one's own writing practices do (or should) influence how one teaches writing. In particular, is the writing-to-discover model that we humanists so often favor not a useful model for FYC? My first instinct is to jump to defend WTD, but then I step back to (re)consider...
And from Malcolm Gladwell's introduction to his new book What the Dog Saw: "Good writing does not succeed or fail on the strength of its ability to persuade. Not the kind you'll find in this book, anyway. It succeeds or fails on the strength of its ability to engage you, to make you think." Is that a heretical position in the FYC world? Should it be? Why is it so appealing to me?
Recent Comments