We are a reading group composed of graduate students in the Masters of Fine Arts program at The University of Texas Pan American and are discussing "(Re)writing Craft" by Tim Mayers for our Composition Techniques 6325 course with Dr. Jonikka Charlton. We hope to find a connection between RhetComp Studies and Creative Writing.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Chapter 3. Writing, Reading, Thinking, and the Question Concerning Craft
This chapter describes the role in which Heidegger's thought may open up a space through which composition studies and creative writing can join together.
Heidegger's notion that Western metaphysics, that is, the underlying principles by which we think about ourselves and the world, generally rely upon thinking in terms of objects and how to manipulate them, rather than attempting to establish relationships between entities in order to open a space for truth to reveal itself.
Mayers isn't concerned so much with what Heidgger has to say, though he seems appreciative of it, but he rather wants to consider how various writers have adopted Heideggerian themes and ideas in which to consider writing.
The essence of technology is the "standing reserve," which presents both a danger and a saving power. The danger is that we will eventually become the standing reserve, that is, mere objects to be manipulated ourselves through our progression toward a more technical - specialized and compartmentalized - society. The saving power comes from poiesis, the artistic impulse that can open up a space and allow truth to reveal itself.
Mayers notes, through the fact that composition theorists as well as craft critics treat similar issues, and both camps draw upon Heidegger in order to understand that writing instruction is not a means through which to "solve problems" or acquire a universally applicable skill-set. Instead, writing allows us to create a space in which we can uncover what is hidden within us.
In this chapter, I was getting lost in the whole Heidegger section at first. Probably because I was getting interupted often while reading. But after I finally finished it, it did start making sense. Josh summarized it very well, about technology and poetry/poiesis as a way of 'unconcealing' things and ourselves if only in part, perhaps a part that someone has never seen or thought of before and is therefore a very good thing.
Mayers seems to building slowly to his point about the common ground craft criticism and composition should occupy, but that is ok, because with these little stops along the way to view things in context, especially for people like me who have never thought about things with his particular perception, it works to include us in the thought process that will eventually lead us to his conclusion without just telling us what to think. (I am getting very metaphysical/metacognitive/meta-everything at this point. I'm so proud of myself!)
I took a class on Heidegger years ago, so even though I never went past undergraduate study in philosophy, I know a little bit more than the average bear about the topic. I really enjoyed this chapter, I have to say, precisely because of the focus on "The Question Concerning Technology," perhaps my favorite Heidegger essay.
This is the one I referenced in one class, when we were talking about cell phones and how many toys people add on to them.
I'm putting something together as we write here, which I will send to you as soon as I finish, so that you can let me know where you think changes or whatever are needed. In this case, I guess more technology might be a better thing.
I didn't really understand why scholars were so against "learning how to be a writer" as opposed to natural talent. Chapter 3 sheds some light for me because scholars criticize the commercialization of writing- which I do realize creates formulaic writers.
I did find all the Heidegger stuff interesting and I learned a new perspective on poetry (As Josh and Lori mentioned- the unveiling of truth.) As I've gone through the creative writing classes, it has been my desire to become a wordsmith; able to manipulate language and create something good. This chapter triggers some new thoughts. It's not about manipulating language-- maybe it's more about letting language unfold itself? Still working it out in my head.
Another interesting point is argument against writing what you know. I don't completely agree with not writing what you know because I think writing what you know is a good starting point, but I DO agree that we can discover as we're writing.
I also liked Anne Lauterbach's comment on racial identity and writing. It's paradoxical because minority writers feel compelled to write about racial identity and this can stifle the desire to break free as an individual in our writing. This is definitely something I have to explore for my thesis. Although I identify as a chicana, I often feel the need for my very own label because I am different from other chican@s.
Still can't see the connection with comp studies and creative writing, but I still have 2 chapters to go. :)
This chapter describes the role in which Heidegger's thought may open up a space through which composition studies and creative writing can join together.
ReplyDeleteHeidegger's notion that Western metaphysics, that is, the underlying principles by which we think about ourselves and the world, generally rely upon thinking in terms of objects and how to manipulate them, rather than attempting to establish relationships between entities in order to open a space for truth to reveal itself.
Mayers isn't concerned so much with what Heidgger has to say, though he seems appreciative of it, but he rather wants to consider how various writers have adopted Heideggerian themes and ideas in which to consider writing.
The essence of technology is the "standing reserve," which presents both a danger and a saving power. The danger is that we will eventually become the standing reserve, that is, mere objects to be manipulated ourselves through our progression toward a more technical - specialized and compartmentalized - society. The saving power comes from poiesis, the artistic impulse that can open up a space and allow truth to reveal itself.
Mayers notes, through the fact that composition theorists as well as craft critics treat similar issues, and both camps draw upon Heidegger in order to understand that writing instruction is not a means through which to "solve problems" or acquire a universally applicable skill-set. Instead, writing allows us to create a space in which we can uncover what is hidden within us.
ReplyDeleteIn this chapter, I was getting lost in the whole Heidegger section at first. Probably because I was getting interupted often while reading. But after I finally finished it, it did start making sense. Josh summarized it very well, about technology and poetry/poiesis as a way of 'unconcealing' things and ourselves if only in part, perhaps a part that someone has never seen or thought of before and is therefore a very good thing.
ReplyDeleteMayers seems to building slowly to his point about the common ground craft criticism and composition should occupy, but that is ok, because with these little stops along the way to view things in context, especially for people like me who have never thought about things with his particular perception, it works to include us in the thought process that will eventually lead us to his conclusion without just telling us what to think. (I am getting very metaphysical/metacognitive/meta-everything at this point. I'm so proud of myself!)
I took a class on Heidegger years ago, so even though I never went past undergraduate study in philosophy, I know a little bit more than the average bear about the topic. I really enjoyed this chapter, I have to say, precisely because of the focus on "The Question Concerning Technology," perhaps my favorite Heidegger essay.
ReplyDeleteThis is the one I referenced in one class, when we were talking about cell phones and how many toys people add on to them.
And here I am wishing I had an Iphone! Arrg! LOL
ReplyDeleteI'm putting something together as we write here, which I will send to you as soon as I finish, so that you can let me know where you think changes or whatever are needed. In this case, I guess more technology might be a better thing.
ReplyDeleteI didn't really understand why scholars were so against "learning how to be a writer" as opposed to natural talent. Chapter 3 sheds some light for me because scholars criticize the commercialization of writing- which I do realize creates formulaic writers.
ReplyDeleteI did find all the Heidegger stuff interesting and I learned a new perspective on poetry (As Josh and Lori mentioned- the unveiling of truth.) As I've gone through the creative writing classes, it has been my desire to become a wordsmith; able to manipulate language and create something good. This chapter triggers some new thoughts. It's not about manipulating language-- maybe it's more about letting language unfold itself? Still working it out in my head.
Another interesting point is argument against writing what you know. I don't completely agree with not writing what you know because I think writing what you know is a good starting point, but I DO agree that we can discover as we're writing.
I also liked Anne Lauterbach's comment on racial identity and writing. It's paradoxical because minority writers feel compelled to write about racial identity and this can stifle the desire to break free as an individual in our writing. This is definitely something I have to explore for my thesis. Although I identify as a chicana, I often feel the need for my very own label because I am different from other chican@s.
Still can't see the connection with comp studies and creative writing, but I still have 2 chapters to go. :)