I grew up in the New Critic age and was schooled from such a critical lens. Despite the criticism that New Criticism has received I believe that it does still have some redeeming elements. For example, I quite like the concept of the fallibility of affect. I used to think that poems could have an infinite variety of interpretations based on the reader’s affect. As Ortega y Gassett claims in the “dehumanization of art” it could have a unique interpretation for each observer. However, in the minds of the New Critics, this would create complete subjectivism, relativism, and therefore render a piece “non-universal.” I believe that there can be universalism in both form and content, maybe not one single, unalterable interpretation, but certainly a general explanation that everyone might be able to discuss. Otherwise interpretation of writing would become completely “chaotic,” in the words of Lois Tyson. As far as writing from a New Critic perspective, I think it is an easy way to approach writing as form; and for the New Critic form is of paramount importance. It’s like a formula that one follows incorporating, paradox, irony, ambiguity, and tension. Of course, certain genres lend themselves better than others to form (and perhaps I’m almost writing myself out of the perspective by saying that that places product over process in a mathematically precise way). Poetry, as exampled in Tyson’s text, is a good illustration. I could write a poem that included formal elements with the intention of conveying a single theme. New Critics could thus interpret an intention (but do we really know what the intention of the author was/is without talking to him/her?). I agree with Tyson that author information and a historical perspective are important lenses to accompany a new critical translation of a piece. It does matter that Lucille Clifton, author of “There is a Girl Inside,” is African-American. The images and symbols that she uses take on new meaning given that specific information. To conclude this part of my blog, I often think that there are “camps” that exclude one another’s points of view. I don’t see them as being mutually exclusive.
On another note, I attended the OCTELA conference yesterday in Columbus. Kudos to Karen Tollafield for a seemingly flawless operation. As well, she recruited two wonderful storytellers as keynote speakers. One of the sessions that I attended dealt with the teaching of writing to undergraduate students. The three presenters were graduate students who were charged with writing syllabi for freshman. One generated assignment asked students to write from a theological and psychological lens, “We will also look at why people do or do not believe in God and what psychological processes affected this belief or lack thereof.” The one thing that all three syllabi had in common was that the students would be writing for an authentic audience rather than just the “teacher.” Research does indicate that writing for an authentic audience motivates students more and helps them to see a purpose for a college writing class when the common claim is “When am I ever going to have to write like this in my career?” In one instance the students were to write for a scholarly journal in their discipline, in another assignment they were to write a letter to an editor, and in a third paper they were to write an autoethnography for themselves. The designers of these syllabi had yet to implement them, but I’d love to read some of the products coming out of that process.
In that particular session, one of the questions posed at the end was, “What can we do as high school teachers to make your job easier as college writing teachers? In other words, what are you pet peeves?” Not surprisingly, one woman commented that her freshman arrived with the 5-paragraph essay mastered, but little else. Two comments really surprised me given all that we’ve talked about in our Theory of Writing. One person said that she was appalled at the mechanics or lack thereof. Another said that her students didn’t know the parts of speech. It seemed as though they were all talking about product over process. One teacher did defend students saying that they had been taught “to the test” and that they were always under a time limit. It was hard to teach process when product was what was expected on “the test.”
Wow, skipping a week really made me verbose.
I also attended the OCTELA conference. Your description of the session where graduate students shared their syllabi sounded very much like a session I attended Saturday afternoon. Three master's students from the University of Dayton were presenting syllabi they had written as part of a course requirement. One was for a community college class, one for creative writing, and the third class had an environmental focus. At the end of the session, a high school teacher asked the same question you heard about what high school teachers can do to prepare students for college. I wonder if it was the same woman in both of our sessions and if both sets of presenters came out of the University of Dayton program.
ReplyDeleteIn the Saturday session I attended, one of the graduate students responded to the high school teacher's question ("What can I do as a high school teacher to make your job easier?") by saying high school teachers can help students see that they will use writing in all career fields.
This comment was followed by a story from another high school teacher in the audience. She said during a career day, when asked about the role of writing in his profession, a physician answered. "You don't really have to write as a doctor. I just say everything into a dictaphone and someone else types it up."
In the words of Homer Simpson, "Doh!"
Th