1. Strasser writes that "The devices of grammar and rhetoric remain superficial skills until a writer employs them to express important and powerful feelings, thoughts, and ideas" Why? And do you agree?
2. What seems to be at issue for Strasser is creating "personally meaningful writing" in response to school assignments. Is there actually anything in Stanley Fish's advocacy of a writing course that teaches reasoning which would seem to rule out such personally meaningful writing? In other words is Strasser right to assume the Fish's insistence on writing in order to exercise one's grammar will actually lead to meaningless writing?
3. In your experience, does school create a separation of mind, body, and spirit that Strasser quotes bell hooks as identifying?
1. I agree with Strasser about what she says because without grammar it would be confusing and you wouldn't understand what the writer was trying to say. If we didn't have sentence structure wouldn't understand what people were saying.
2. To mean meaningful writing is different from something assigned. You can't really be meaningful to something you didnt think of yourself. I think that in Stanley Fish’s advocacy of a writing course that teaches reasoning there is a lot things that don't say anything about meaningful writing.
3. Yes it does. In certain subjects you use more of the other.
No comments:
Post a Comment