Scholarly Writing

Lucia Torres
English 201- Online
September 26, 2010
Scholarly Writing

When I entered my first English class at UWM I was concerned with the idea of what a “good enough” paper would be. It took me several essays and probably until my second year at UWM to understand what writing a good paper really should be. My understanding came to me more clearly after reading Kitchen Tables and rented rooms: The extra curriculum of composition by Anne Ruggles Gere and Bullshit by Eubanks & Schaeffer. Gere constantly brings up groups like the “Tenderloin Women’s Workshop” and how these poverty level women come together to write about their life’s instances; they collectively read and revise each other’s work. Yet it seems as if Gere is almost saying that these types of workshops are more helpful than actual courses given in a school classroom. In many ways I can a agree that not merely enough discussion, peer editing, or self expression comes out school writing courses, but where will we get a sense of unified writing. How will future writers learn how to distinguish their style of writing to the next? Yes I do think that series of critical analysis is necessary to have full comprehension of writing, but to say that the school system is not doing a good enough job. To whom would that be? Writing in many ways is abstract, It’s either you get it, or you need help getting there. All I can really do is agree to disagree, because I do believe that students spend more time focusing on the mechanics of writing more than they spend on how to “actually write.” Though Unconvinced of her argument I may sound the quote on page 81 seems to catch my eye, “A Help to Young Writers, a self guide published in 1836, found fault with the rapid subjects” assigned by teachers and tendency with the schools to teach composition as though it bore no relationship to good conversation.” I always knew writing papers in high school was of no relation to me if it was dealing with books like How to kill a mocking bird, or Romeo and Juliet, but now after reading this article I am not so sure if I am actually to blame. I distinctively remember having to write several responses and short discussion papers for anything that we would read, yet I vaguely remember ever talking about the importance it had in relation to me. Maybe I might just sound like a high school hater, but it wasn’t until I entered college that I realized that mostly everything that is read in this world can have some sort of connection to me other than a mechanically organized essay. So, I guess now I can assume that Gere has me convinced on her theory of literate disconnect in our school systems. Though I find it difficult to realize that there is some sort of solution to this problem; students have to learn how to write a paper mechanically, and what a better location, school. The understandings of how to form a paper is important, but how does a teacher connect the student with what they are writing on a required piece. When should a student learn how to write a conversation within their very own essay?
“First, the writing style of composition research risks being called bullshit because it often has the timbre of abstruse literary criticism or of social science. Second, Composition has taken up disciplinary writing as an important area of study and thus implicitly endorses it. It probably does not help that writing studies has often focused its attention on the rhetoric of science; that simply enlarges the number of suspect academic texts. Third, one major consequence of studying disciplinary writing has been the abandonment of the abstract ideal once called “good writing” (Eubanks & Schaeffer 374). This passage it makes sense why academic writing can be skewed to a more research based composition; thus losing “good writing”. This reminds me of what the Gere article was saying about how academic writing isn’t formulated to create a situation where literary criticism does not exist. It makes sense why academic writing can be skewed to a more research based composition; thus losing “good writing”. This reminds me of what the Gere article was saying about how academic writing isn’t formulated to create a situation where literary criticism does not exist. Under my impression both articles are stating that “correct” writing is almost impossible to accomplish, yet “bad” writing is easily judged and accomplished because it is the way “we’ve” taught it.
After reading Kitchen Tables and rented rooms: The extra curriculum of composition by Anne Ruggles Gere I came to the conclusion that her main argument is not in what one writes, but how one gets to the process of writing. I believe that this piece for the most part is directed towards educators and towards people that make any efforts in teaching “how to write”. I can tell that she is directing this piece towards educators because she repeatedly talks about “how well” we are teaching students how to write. Which brings me to a quote from Eubanks and Schaeffer’s article; “First, the writing style of composition research risks being called bullshit because it often has the timbre of abstruse literary criticism or of social science. Second, Composition has taken up disciplinary writing as an important area of study and thus implicitly endorses it. It probably does not help that writing studies has often focused its attention on the rhetoric of science; that simply enlarges the number of suspect academic texts. Third, one major consequence of studying disciplinary writing has been the abandonment of the abstract ideal once called “good writing” ( Eubanks and Schaeffer 374). This really makes me realize how much academics have skewed my view on academic writing throughout my entire experience in high school. Yet now that I am in college I have really realized that my understanding in allowing voice into my papers has been solely on college instructors explaining to me how, and why I should care about the things I write about, because it is my own thoughts and feelings that makes the paper work.