A bit of a risk

Okay, so I have recklessly decided not to type this in Word first--only because somehow it stifles my thoughts. Hopefully I won't lose anything, or you might see me sporting some rather large bald spots.

Unfortunately I read the selection by Kinneavy, "The Basic Aims of Discourse" before "A Brief History of Rhetoric and Composition." Why, you might ask? I had skimmed it, and figured I would really digest it when I had a chance to print out a hard copy (for some reason, I prefer not to read anything substantial on my computer screen). So anyway, I struggled through Kinneavy, took a break and proceeded to read Berlin's "Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories." Assuming my brain could use a break from theory and writing gurus, I stopped midway and read (not skimmed) "A Brief History." Should have started there first! The history lesson and background information provided a boon to my understanding--and I use that word loosely--of Kinneavy and Berlin. Because I teach speech, I gleaned a good deal of information I intend to share with my students this semester. And, I now understand why the "canon" has held such an esteemed place in high schools. Thank you, NCTE, for some common sense when it comes to teaching English!

Okay, now on to the dense scholarly stuff (where is Harry Potter when you need him?). So, did anyone else have some difficulty with Kinneavy's table and chart? The continuum makes sense, and I think I understand what HIS aim was, but it was a struggle. And, it didn't help that his triangle had four sides. Who does this??? If I wasn't confused before (trust me, I was--this is only for sake of conversation), then the four-sided triangle would have done me in. And, if for argument's sake I was still in the discourse game understanding every play, his comparison of language to a windowpane would have been the nails in the coffin. "I may use a chunk of it to chase away an intruder"? Is that a chunk of the brick or the windowpane? So, basically we need to eat a balanced diet, right?

Then we have Berlin. Again, some very dense stuff. It seems to me that I was taught writing mostly by teachers of the Current-Traditional school (I wonder if this somehow corresponds to the teacher lounge which emitted plumes of cigarette smoke with every entry and exit), but that I fall into the New Rhetoric realm. That is not to say, though, that Current-Traditional isn't alive and well in some corners of the universe. I see shades of it even in the 30-year-old teacher with whom I share a room. I saw a great deal of it in my co-op when I student taught not that long ago. But, to really be able to identify these different schools of writing instruction, I need examples--and plenty of them. Can anyone help? Can't wait to discuss this with my classmates!

This quote from James Michener and sent by Pat Donaldson of the Capital Area Writing Project to National Writing Project Fellows seems to fit Berlin's position: "Writing is an exploration. You start from nothing and learn as you go."