Spectator Role and the Beginnings of Writing

This was a very interesting article. I previewed the article before I read it and thought that I might not enjoy a discussion about literary and nonliterary discourses. However, upon completion I felt very enlightened and armed with new knowledge about the composition theories presented in Britton's article.
I really enjoyed James Britton's commentary on Harding's discussion about the way students "do" literature when they participate in it during the day. Later they become spectators when they recount the gossip (156). How fascinating! I've never really thought about gossip on such an intellectual level since I read a book called 'Main Street' by Sinclair Lewis. I read this book quite some time ago, and subsequently wrote a critical analysis about the institution of gossip among the middle class. "Main Street" was published just prior to Harding's book covering the same topic. We can make connections between fiction (literary) and gossip (nonliterary) through a consideration of readings from the past!

Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar

Interestingly enough, I enjoyed Britton's article more than Hartwell's long-winded article concerning grammar. I suppose I like to remain neutral in the face of academic debate, but at the same time some academics might say that I'm not an academic at all unless I take a firm stand on issues such as those presented in our readings. Either way, I'll continue to consider these debates with an open mind.
I've always been interested in grammar, spelling, and how the cultural collisions of time's past formed our extraordinary language. As such, I don't understand why grammar is not a very "interesting area of inquiry" according to Hartwell (228). Why did he write this article in the first place if it's not an interesting topic? His research certainly moved me to think about the issues behind the teaching of grammar, and it certainly didn't encourage me to "move on"(228). He makes many valid points throughout his discussion, but his message seems to be contradictory in nature. He fails to present a refined argument based on solid (up-to-date) facts. For example, he presents us with a study (from1976) about high school students in New Zealand and attempts to support his arguments based on its outcomes. Finally, his use of Grammar 1, Grammar 2, etc., is redundant and confusing at the least.
Hartwell's article is very useful, but his argument is not very convincing.

Contemporary Composition

While attempting to make connections among our readings, I noticed a few interesting points worthy of discussion in James A. Berlin's "Contemporary Composition" and "The Bedford Bibliography for Teachers of Writing."During his discussion about new logic, Berlin references George Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric. Here, Campbell describes how the relationship between language and thought "are made to correspond, and the qualities of one exactly to cooperate with those of the other" (Berlin 206). These thoughts almost directly tie in with Bedford's discussion about the debate between traditional scholars and scholars of rhetoric. The former building their argument on the assumption that "one first finds knowledge and then puts it into words," while the latter argues that "knowledge is actually created by words" (Bedford Bibliography).
I can make sense out of both arguments, but agree with Campbell's idea that language and thought must work together. As such, both traditional scholars and historians of rhetoric might find common ground by meeting in the middle of both arguments. We might agree with both sides to avoid this ongoing academic debate but, in all honesty, the only way to peace is by finding some form of common ground. Certainly we need knowledge to put something into words and, further, attain a different kind of knowledge through the creation of words. Perhaps a lot of this debate has to do with semantics?

History of Rhetoric and Composition

I'm not sure if we are required to post a blog about the "brief" history of rhetoric, but I figured it wouldn't hurt in any case. I would like to quickly consider the social and historical approaches to rhetoric and their exclusion of women's issues throughout history. As the article points out, in the 1980s "composition scholars focused on the social nature of writing" (The Bedford Bibliography). Finally we see a time when rhetoricians gave a voice to many groups previously excluded from the mainstream discourse. For many years the voices of women remained silent as academics focused on traditional facts and their "ability" to preserve our nation's history. Now, however, women's studies and gender studies discourses break the silence about inequalities between (and among) the genders, while challenging gender bias in the English language and in the field of composition studies.

The Basic Aims of Discourse

James L. Kinneavy discusses "affective fallacy" under the section of reading called "The Determination of the Aims of Discourse" (Kinneavy 130). I couldn't agree more with the idea that we must avoid making the assumption that "what the author says he is trying to do is actually what the work really accomplishes" (130). Certainly as readers, we all process information differently when we attempt to make sense of it through the use of our own prior knowledge. Our reactions might vary to the point that one reader's understanding of the basic aims of a particular discourse might completely disagree with what the author is trying to accomplish. Still, while we must consider the importance and relevance of the readers' reactions, we also need to keep in mind that they should not be the only focus of analysis when determining the basic aims of discourse. Instead, we should use the readers' reactions as "markers that can point to significant evidence in the discourse" (131).

Why Chicken and Mushrooms?

This blog is called chicken and mushrooms for a very simple reason. I had so many things on my mind while preparing for the spring semester, including what to have for dinner. One night I found an appetizing recipe for chicken and mushrooms as I was filing through my recipe cards. Consequently, I decided to kill two birds with one stone by using the name of the recipe for my blog. No, I'm not trying to be droll or make an inside joke. The title of my blog was inspired by a dinner recipe. Now it's time to take my creativity out of the kitchen and use it when commenting on our course readings!