It's alchemical. It creates new knowledge, and dispels superstition. It sharpens how you think. It sharpens how you talk. And obviously, it sharpens how you write.
The freshmen comp students I've taught over the years were amazed (or, more honestly, incredulous) when I told them this, because for them, writing was a totally pointless exercise. Well, *almost* totally pointless. Writing had one point: to get a passing grade so that the student could advance to other subjects.
12/
I'm not surprised by this, nor do I think it's merely because some of us are born to write and others will never get the knack (I've taught too many writers to think that anyone can guess who will find meaning in writing). It's because we don't generally teach writing this way until the most senior levels - the last year or two of undergrad, or, more likely, grad school (and then only if that grad program is an MFA).
13/
I'm not surprised by this, nor do I think it's merely because some of us are born to write and others will never get the knack (I've taught too many writers to think that anyone can guess who will find meaning in writing). It's because we don't generally teach writing this way until the most senior levels - the last year or two of undergrad, or, more likely, grad school (and then only if that grad program is an MFA).
13/
Writing instruction at lower levels, particularly in US high schools, is organized around standardized assessment. Students are trained to turn out the world's worst literary form: the five-paragraph essay:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3749
The five-paragraph essay is so rigid that *any* attempt to enliven it is actually *punished* during the grading process. One cannot deviate from the structure, on penalty of academic censure.
14/
@pluralistic man that SMBC hits *hard* for me
Nearly every time I read a great article somewhere, I notice how it's structured nothing like what was drilled into me from fifth grade onward, and it frustrates me that I was never taught how to write so effectively
It's got all the structural constraints of a sonnet, and all the poetry of a car crusher.
The five-paragraph essay is so terrible that a large part of the job of a freshman comp teacher is to teach students to *stop* writing them. But even after this is done, much of the freshman comp curriculum is also formulaic (albeit with additional flexibility). That's unavoidable: freshman comp classes are typically *massive*, since so many of the incoming students have to take it.
15/
When you're assessing 100-2,000 students, you necessarily fall back on formula.
Which brings me back to that faculty discussion at Cornell, where we learned first that students want to learn, but are afraid of failure; and then heard from the freshman comp teacher, who told us that virtually all of their students cheated on their assignments, getting chatbots to shit out their papers.
16/
And that's what I've been thinking about since September. Because of *course* those students cheat on their writing assignments - they are being taught to hit mechanical marks with their writing, improving their sentence structure, spelling and punctuation. What they're *not* learning is how to use writing to order and hone their thoughts, or to improve their ability to express those thoughts. They're being asked to write *like* a chatbot - why *wouldn't* they use a chatbot?
17/
@pluralistic
One thing that really stuck out to me when I was in school: a lot of people seem to not get the *point* of sentence structure, spelling, or punctuation. They think that such things exist purely as hoops to jump through to stave off the wrath of a teacher, rather than as legibility aids. When they don't perfectly map to the spoken word, they're seen as even more arbitrary.
Writing good dialogue involves learning how to make legible text that still sounds like real speech.
You can't teach students to write - not merely to create formally correct sentences, but to *write* - through formal, easily graded assignments. Teaching writing is a *relational* practice. It requires that students interact extensively with one another's work, and with one another's criticism. It requires structure, sure - but the structure is in how you proceed through the critiques and subsequent discussion - not in the work itself.
18/
