| In
his article, "The War between Reading and
Writing--and How to End It," Peter Elbow
states that reading and writing are seen as
a complementary parts to a whole of the
understanding of literature: "We
tend to assume that reading and writing fit
naturally together: love and marriage, horse and
carriage" (270). This interconnected
juxtaposition is the problem most English
instructors and English departments come up
against when creating syllabi. Why does this have
to be such a huge argument? What is the
difference between composition classes and
literature classes? Do not most scholars and
practitioners see a correlation between the two
areas of English? Literature studies pieces of
writing through writing about the pieces and
reading what others have said about those pieces.
If reading and writing are so interconnected,
then why should we create a battle between them?
The two fields complement each other, just as
marital partners should try to complement each
other. When one thinks of
composition, one thinks of writing - lots and
lots of writing. In the typical Composition I
class, students are asked to write eight to ten
papers, two to three pages in length during the
semester. Concentration during Composition I is
put upon process, thinking that the sooner the
students begin to write and the more they write,
the better writers they will be. Types of papers
that are usually assigned in this course are persuasion, argument, comparison
and contrast, expository, narrative, descriptive, process and the
others range from different types of analysis
papers to journal
entries. Matt Landrus, Lake Land
College instructor, states that
quite often "[d]istinguishing between
mechanics and content, in many ways, is not
possible, for the way a writer says something
does influence what is said" (2). College
students, and students in general, come from too
many different cultural backgrounds
and have too many different experiences in their
life to have all of them come into a beginning
writing class and write in exactly the same style
with the same syntax, length and understanding of
how sentences, paragraphs and essays are formed.
Therefore, instructors must adapt their teaching
approach to their students' abilities, as Landrus
does. His approach to composition, overall, is to
deal with students on an individual basis,
recognizing the many different types of writers
who exist. Some of his students need to focus on
"reviewing the basic components of writing,
like topic sentences, coherency, and unity. .
." (1). If one student is weak in grammar,
concentrate on grammar issues in conferences and
in comments on that student's paper. If another
student is weak in content, concentrate on ways
to help the student brainstorm, support and
elaborate in that student's essays.
Much
of the focus is on content over grammar at this
point in the writing process. Learning grammar is
a necessity at the Composition I and Composition
II level, though, as Scott
Starbuck, Lake Land College English
instructor, tells his students:
I
concentrate my attention (time) more on
content, but students often lose more for
weak grammar/documentation than they do for
content. I describe the thesis as an engine
that drives the essay and the
grammar/documentation as the wheels. I note
that the wheels are not as expensive as the
engine but you can't drive the car very well
without them. Students seem to understand
these metaphors (3).
The
point of Composition I is to make sure that all
students meet a university and scholarly writing
ability standard, of which their content,
organization, mechanics and grammar form a large
part of the whole. To let the student know that
their content is the most important aspect of
their writing but that they must learn and focus
upon how grammar strengthens points of their
paper. This is where most composition and
rhetoric programs focus their attention, and most
English instructors would agree with Starbuck's
logic. Writers cannot express complete thoughts
and ideas clearly if their grammar is not
correct, which is the goal for students to be
able to pass on to Composition II. Notice that
Starbuck still states how important, or
expensive, the engine is as compared to the
wheels: He is clear in his statement that content
is a crucial part of the composition process.
The
Composition II class is designed to teach
students to write about pieces of literature,
although not always canonical
literature. The incorporation of
literature into the latter stage of formalized
writing classes and the incorporation of larger
writing assignments into introductory literature
courses shows the concurrent relationship between
reading and writing: ". . . normal writing
is really both-writing-and-reading" (Elbow
275). Composition II is where students are
introduced to different literary genres and
discuss, analyze, interpret and write about
literary works. The title given to this course is
misleading in that the mentioning of the word
composition leads the students to believe they
are going to take a writing course when, in fact,
they are going to take a course that studies
literature through the tool of writing. Students
read a novel, short story, or poem or watch a
movie and think through issues and themes present
in that medium. The practice of writing helps
them to physically focus and logic their way
through these issues on paper to communicate
their ideas effectively to a specified audience:
Literature is the catalyst, and writing is the
tool to higher thinking.
The
function of the literature classroom still needs
to be discussed. Introductory courses in
literature are taught by a combination of
instructors with a master's degree or a
doctorate. The fact that instructors with
doctorates are being brought into the early
stages of comprehension and interpretation of
literature shows the importance universities put
on literature. Reading literature has always been
on top in the collegiate world of English:
". . . reading has dominance over writing in
the academic or school culture" (Elbow 270).
The majority of those instructors who have
doctoral degrees have their degree in literature
rather than in composition because composition is
usually taught by instructors who have master's
degree. Instructors, especially those instructors
who are teaching multiple literature sections,
have a lot of work to complete in preparation for
their classes, including rereading novels. Some
professors may not feel as if they have the time
to grade papers in their literature classes. More
often than not, instructors see how important it
is for students to write multiple papers, usually
two or three, to fully navigate and learn from a
novel about the genre or time period the student
chooses to study. Writing in the literature
classroom is not a question in most upper
division classrooms.
The
argument between writing and literature comes
from the lack of attention composition has
received as a legitimate study in the college
curriculum, until recently. Composition was seen
as a lower art form than the study of literature,
and for years university and college departments
have not seen it as a field within English.
Papers are required at all levels in a student's
college career, but formal writing classes in the
upper divisions are in the minority. The majority
of upper level writing classes in English
departments are creative writing courses - novel
writing, short story writing and poetry
courses.
The
study of the literary works of the great authors
and thinkers of history is deemed a finer field
than is writing because it is expected that if
one can read the great works, one can write. Many
students who are in literature classes have never
been able to master the art of writing near
perfect grammar or a clearly defined process
within their essay. The assumption that students
do not need the practice or that composition is
of less importance than is literature is a
falsehood. To be understood completely in one's
writing in the literature class and to learn how
to make substantial arguments in class and on
paper, composition classes are a necessary and
important part of the English curriculum and are
possibly even needed in the upper class portion
of a student's baccalaureate education.
To
end this battle, English educators must realize
that literature and composition, reading and
writing, are intermixed.
Much
of what writers write about comes from their
reading. . . . even the way writers look at
firsthand experience is shaped by their
reading. They know how to make the personal
connection: They come to understand their own
lives better in the light of what they read.
. . . At the same time, writers read with the
writer's eye. They look at something they
read as the work of a fellow writer. . . .
Finally, good readers are thinking readers -
who pay close attention but by no means
believe everything they read. Good writers
are thinking writers - who investigate and
weigh the pro and con before they take a
stand (LaGuardia and Guth 1).
For
English departments to divide their English
programs into a writing department and a
literature department misses the sharing that
goes on within the field. It creates a division
between the two partners that is
counterproductive to furthering of the study of
English. "Reading and writing can work
productively together as equals to benefit each
other and the profession" (Elbow 270).
Works Cited
Elbow,
Peter. "The War between Reading and
Writing--and How to End It." Critical
Theory
and the Teaching of Literature: Politics,
Curriculum, Pedagogy. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1995.
LaGuardia,
Dolores and Hans P. Guth. Introduction. American
Voices: Multicultural
Literacy
and Critical Thinking. Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield Pub. Co., 1993. 1-25.
Landrus,
Matt. Email
interview. 24 March 1999.
Starbuck,
Scott. Email
interview. 22 March 1999.
|
