What Heather Should Take (revisited)
Myles Callum
>Most of the posts suggesting Heather take 301 are arguing that it will be
>more "interesting" than 201. How so, and what difference does it make?
You're asking two questions here, but only one of them makes sense to
me. It makes sense to ask "How so." But are you really asking
"what difference" it makes if one course is more interesting than
another?
This reminds me of a recent post in which you said:
>Like all of you, I've been reading the reviews of the _The Bell Shaped
>Curve_ for the last few weeks, including the extensive excerpt that
>appeared in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago.
When I read that, I wondered why the Wall Street Journal would be
publishing an extensive excerpt of a review, rather than of a book.
You meant, surely, the book, but that's not what you said; the
referent for "including" is "reviews." You meant "and" instead of
"including."
I don't hold list notes to publishing standards, but it's
imprecise -- the sort of thing your dreaded "media pundits" do
all the time. Perhaps in 301 an instructor would help Heather
avoid that sort of error. (Yes, maybe in 201 also, who knows?)
But to your "How so" question: First, it was Heather herself who
first suggested that 301 might be more interesting:
>Now, 301 sounds more interesting, but I'm not quite sure 'xactly <what>
Then she posted the course descriptions:
> "201 Intermediate Writing- Instruction in expository writing on
> various subjects of interest to students. Exploration of various
> styles in research writing."
>
> -or-
> "301 Advanced Writing- Instruction in writing for diverse audiences
> and situations. Emphasizes language, voice, tone, and the development
> of a personal style. Development of a portfolio of
> essays and longer papers. (Competence in basic skills required)"
When I read those descriptions, I agreed with Heather that 301 sounded
more interesting, i.e., more advanced and more challenging. 201
sounds like a course in which Heather might be asked to write about
"What I Did on My Summer Vacation." Not that there's anything wrong
with that; we all know that such a paper, if written by E.B. White or
John Updike -- maybe even by Heather -- could be quite superb. No
argument.
But 301 sounds like a course in which Heather might be asked to write
that same paper three times, using different language, tones, voices
and styles each time. In short, it sounds like a course for the more
adept and skillful writer. We already know that Heather is a good
writer; we've seen her posts. We know that she loves language and has
a great sense of humor and just may be the next Erma Bombeck, unless
she decides to become the next Carol Channing instead. It seems to
me, in short, that she is already at a certain level. It was my
guess, though only a guess, that her level is probably equal to if not
already better than whatever the 301 course will offer.
>Isn't the "interesting" thing in both classes the structured opportunity
>to write and be evaluated for a semester?
No. Those constitute the basic <value> of any such course. Which is
not at all the same as what does (or doesn't) make the classes
"interesting."
>Is expository writing now deemed tedious?
Only when perpetrated by certain practitioners.
>Wouldn't 201 taught by a decent instructor be more
>interesting than 301 taught by someone who is tedious and simpleminded?
Sure. And 301 taught by a decent instructor would be more interesting
than 201 taught by someone who is tedious and simpleminded. That's an
unknown. We can't speak to it, and whichever course she decides on,
she'll be taking her chances on the quality of the instructor. She
can also find out what the buzz is for the instructors for both
classes, and that's probably a pretty good idea. Who knows, they may
be taught by the same person.
>I'm not convinced that "writing" classes per se are the best way to learn how
>to write,
Oh, why be wishy-washy? I AM convinced that writing classes are NOT
the best way to learn how to write. The best way is to write, and to
read, and to think, and maybe even to have an indulgent mother who
lets you read all the comic books you want at age 6. Most of the
great writers probably never took a "writing" class. But classes
don't hurt. Mainly they just provide more practice, which is all to
the good.
>but assuming they are, what's wrong with spending 16 weeks in
>Intermediate Writing [...]
What's wrong with drinking Bud when you can have a splendid Trappist
beer? Nothing at all, except to the extent that you might have
missed an opportunity for something rather better.
It's not as if anyone told Heather to avoid 201 like the plague, you
know. She simply asked our opinions, and we, being wise and nurturing
in all matters, duly rendered same.
Myles
Bookrat
>What's wrong with drinking Bud when you can have a splendid Trappist
>beer? Nothing at all, except to the extent that you might have
>missed an opportunity for something rather better.
Hey, what are you, some kind of snotty beer snob? :)
Ken Miller
Poetaster Emeritus
Anacreonitick Academy of Zymomusicology
boo...@bookrat.com
Marty Rosen
Yes, I am asking precisely that: what difference does it make whether one
course is more interesting than another? It's true that Heather
suggested that one might be more interesting than the other, but my
question stands. I suspect there may be multiple factors that could play
a role in deciding which class to take, one of them being the putative
"interest" of the course. Is "interest" the sole or the most important factor
to be considered in this decision? If not, what other things might be
relevant? Instructor? Class size? Time of day? Goals of the student,
long- and short-term? Experience with various kinds of academic
writing?
You're quite right with regard to my sloppy use of "including" in the
passage on _The Bell Curve," of course. I should have said "and the
extensive excerpt in the Wall Street Journal." Thanks.
I suppose it's possible that the "exploration of various styles in
research writing" could encompass an essay entitled "What I did on my
summer vacation," but it strikes me as unlikely. In any event, though, I
have to agree that multiple essays on that topic could be a very good
writing exercise.
Yes, several wise, nurturing people, in their wise, nurturing roles posted
wise, nurturing advice. Since most of them omitted to ask any of the
questions one might ask when giving wise, nurturing advice, I
was wondering how much reflection went into this wise nurturing.
Marty
On Sun, 30 Oct 1994, Myles Callum wrote:
>
> You're asking two questions here, but only one of them makes sense to
> me. It makes sense to ask "How so." But are you really asking
> "what difference" it makes if one course is more interesting than
> another?
>
> This reminds me of a recent post in which you said:
> >Like all of you, I've been reading the reviews of the _The Bell Shaped
> >Curve_ for the last few weeks, including the extensive excerpt that
> >appeared in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago.
>
> When I read that, I wondered why the Wall Street Journal would be
> publishing an extensive excerpt of a review, rather than of a book.
> You meant, surely, the book, but that's not what you said; the
> referent for "including" is "reviews." You meant "and" instead of
> "including."
>
>
> What's wrong with drinking Bud when you can have a splendid Trappist
> beer? Nothing at all, except to the extent that you might have
> missed an opportunity for something rather better.
>