Sharon Crowley (pages 333-346)

Sharon Crowley (pages 333-346)

The Evolution of Invention in Current-Traditional Rhetoric: 1850-1970

Sharon Crowley’s research into the evolution of invention intensely focuses on the ideas of H.N. Day and John Franklin Genung. Day formulates a process that there must be a proposition that unites with the writer, and then the writer can analyze the topic if there is a solid proposition (335).  Whereas Genung’s invention seems more in-depth or an expanded version of Day’s that “involves preparation, deducing a theme from a subject, stating the theme, creating a title, planning, and amplification” (337).  I found the various “steps” for producing writing as a good history lesson, even if it is a bit repetitive, but the most interesting section lies in the “Conclusions and a Rant” that ties all of these past inventions into what the present holds for teaching composition.  There are a few comments from the last section that I would like to highlight and discuss.

Crowley states that “Language literally re-presents thought, which in turn represents the author’s perception of reality” (343).  I love this idea and hate it at the same time.  This quote makes complete sense when you think about writing.  What is composition?  When we write, we are “re-presenting” ideas and thoughts studied in order to express what that means to us.  An “author’s perception of reality” can be the tricky part that disheartens me as a teacher.  I struggle with thoughts about assessing students’ writings and their “perceptions of reality.”  I might grade a paper differently than another instructor, and I think about how all of our perceptions are different—from student to student, instructor to instructor, student to instructor, etc.  Composition is difficult to be black and white (not that it has to be black and white) when there are so many “gray” areas involved with thoughts and reality.

The last paragraph discusses the typical five-paragraph essay formula used as a template to teach the writing process.  I can most likely say that we all are not too fond of this template.  As Crowley even criticizes that “we are teaching students a writing process and a set of assumptions about discourse which have nothing to do either with how writing gets done or with contemporary thinking about the relation of language to thought” (344).  If we teach students a formula or template for all writing processes, they will not have thought process that writing is really all about.  That probably sounds confusing, but students and writers have to think and formulate thoughts before they can write.  If we all follow a systematic process as if punching numbers into a calculator for an answer, then we lose the originality and joy of the thought process involved with writing. 

I think there is still a lot of work to be done with how we teach composition.  I am always searching for new ideas, answers, and questions.  Writing is complicated, but we must continue to seek out new methods and ways to teach this important skill (and yes, I am using the word skill here).  Sometimes I think about how writers must learn the “rules,” so that they can turn around and break them.