Myths of Authorship
I want to begin by describing a theory from another of my seminar courses this semester, and then use that to try to synthesize and generalize about the readings we did on “Constructing Effective Writing Assignments.”
In my 18th Century British Women Writers class (Marcia and Kristina are also in the class), we briefly discussed myths of authorship—that is those general metaphors that we often use to describe authors. But part of the foundation of this discussion was a question about why we even think in terms of authors at all. Certainly many things that we encounter are the work of more than one individual, and even if a text is primarily attributed to one person, the individual and cultural experiences that have informed that work are infinite. The idea is not totally new—it is the general theoretical questioning of why and how we attribute so much authority to the author.
The key idea here is the powerful position of the author, which is also what I see as central to the readings in Chapter 4. One goal of an English 1000 class is to get students to seriously consider the role of the author, both themselves as authors of their own writings and the positions of other authors.
We and the theorists have at least all agreed that the process of writing is incredibly complex. “Writing-to-learn” has been a way of describing writing that has been used over and over again. But I’m not sure it ends there. We write to figure out what we know and what we mean, but then we have to reconsider how we say what we know and mean. Structure, word choice, tone, etc. can significantly alter the same basic idea (as Kristina’s lesson plan from last time emphasized). Obviously, such considerations are meant to be addressed when we ask students to consider audience and purpose, but it isn’t always that simple. So, I guess one of the myths of authorship we want to break down is the myth that the student is not an author. Effective writing assignments convey to the student that what they have to say matters, and they have to write in such a way that considers all the implications of their authorship.
Perhaps the second myth of authorship is the myth of the disembodied author (and this draws primarily from Donald Murray’s quote that “All writing is autobiography” in the “Autobiography” essay, page 137). I think the perception often is that the author’s voice is not allowed to come into academic writing. Here, I agree with Murray and Kyburz that this is impossible; academic writing is going to reflect its author. (And I am aware that I am probably contradicting my introductory question about the nature of authorship—here’s to “wallowing in complexity.”) At some point, almost all of the assignments in Chapter 4 talk about the importance of rhetorical analysis. So, just as students should be aware of the ways in which they manipulate meaning in their writing, so should they be aware of rhetorical choices in others’ writings and not be afraid to question them.
And even before I publish the above, I want to reflect just briefly on what I’ve said.
I don’t think I’ve asked questions to stimulate class discussion for Wednesday. Perhaps we could ask “What myths of authorship exist?” and “What, if anything, should we do about them?”
I also feel that my post this week is only adding theory to more theory, and therefore not concrete like Kristin’s very helpful play-doh example. Obviously using what I have learned to create an actual writing assignment will be where I have to go next.
In my 18th Century British Women Writers class (Marcia and Kristina are also in the class), we briefly discussed myths of authorship—that is those general metaphors that we often use to describe authors. But part of the foundation of this discussion was a question about why we even think in terms of authors at all. Certainly many things that we encounter are the work of more than one individual, and even if a text is primarily attributed to one person, the individual and cultural experiences that have informed that work are infinite. The idea is not totally new—it is the general theoretical questioning of why and how we attribute so much authority to the author.
The key idea here is the powerful position of the author, which is also what I see as central to the readings in Chapter 4. One goal of an English 1000 class is to get students to seriously consider the role of the author, both themselves as authors of their own writings and the positions of other authors.
We and the theorists have at least all agreed that the process of writing is incredibly complex. “Writing-to-learn” has been a way of describing writing that has been used over and over again. But I’m not sure it ends there. We write to figure out what we know and what we mean, but then we have to reconsider how we say what we know and mean. Structure, word choice, tone, etc. can significantly alter the same basic idea (as Kristina’s lesson plan from last time emphasized). Obviously, such considerations are meant to be addressed when we ask students to consider audience and purpose, but it isn’t always that simple. So, I guess one of the myths of authorship we want to break down is the myth that the student is not an author. Effective writing assignments convey to the student that what they have to say matters, and they have to write in such a way that considers all the implications of their authorship.
Perhaps the second myth of authorship is the myth of the disembodied author (and this draws primarily from Donald Murray’s quote that “All writing is autobiography” in the “Autobiography” essay, page 137). I think the perception often is that the author’s voice is not allowed to come into academic writing. Here, I agree with Murray and Kyburz that this is impossible; academic writing is going to reflect its author. (And I am aware that I am probably contradicting my introductory question about the nature of authorship—here’s to “wallowing in complexity.”) At some point, almost all of the assignments in Chapter 4 talk about the importance of rhetorical analysis. So, just as students should be aware of the ways in which they manipulate meaning in their writing, so should they be aware of rhetorical choices in others’ writings and not be afraid to question them.
And even before I publish the above, I want to reflect just briefly on what I’ve said.
I don’t think I’ve asked questions to stimulate class discussion for Wednesday. Perhaps we could ask “What myths of authorship exist?” and “What, if anything, should we do about them?”
I also feel that my post this week is only adding theory to more theory, and therefore not concrete like Kristin’s very helpful play-doh example. Obviously using what I have learned to create an actual writing assignment will be where I have to go next.
posted by jhertlein | 5:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home