On Andrea Lunsford's "Who Gets to Say What's 'In Style'?"
We, the ones with the power & privilege to talk about style, to critique its patterns and unspokenness, to bite the stylistic hand that writes us -- will not (perhaps) suffer from trying to resist, oppose, or parody.
As a Writing Centre instructor, I have also noted how stylistic "preferences" vary from prof. to prof., not only from one discipline to another. So the question arises: do our (academic) stylistic preferences reflect the stylistic of our disciplines or vice versa? What is their relationship? If what we perceive as the norms do not mesh with our preferences, how do we reconcile these? (For example -- by appealing to a different authority, one who agrees with us?)
Writing Centre as an opposing for to the academic convention that necessitated the Writing Centre.
When does resistance become a "problem"? When does "resistance style" become poor writing? Aren't we assuming that resistance is always a good thing? When does resistance become (for the teacher) laudable and "academic writing" become "problematic"
I think students recognize the parody / resistance issues around academic writing - but still are unable to negotiate them, unless they master them first - then demonstrate their achievement so that they can transgress.
I very much like the distinctions among resistance, revolution, and opposition - very helpful. But if opposition is invisible & local (often individual even), how can it create social change?
Why do we not permit ESL students as much freedom as non-ESL in terms of style and structure . . . "For their own good"--? are they communicating or just assimilating?
How does process become part of style? What is the relationship between invention and process?
Why is this "deep archeology of style" so pervasive & yet, so often unmarked?
A colleague tells his students - First Nations students - master language so it won't master you.
Genre, perhaps, is the key constraining force on style, and ethos a major element of change and resistance.
I'm very excited to consider the opening that Andrea's ideas regarding style make for activity theory,
We now know that "acceptable" styles are not superior to "unacceptable" ones (e.g., Labov's study), but we think they are.
I am curious about how a "wild style" that is unnameable (it seems that naming a style tames it) and pedagogy to together.
On Gloria Borrows, Fay Hyndman and Nadeane Trowse's "Reading the Oppositional in the Writing Center"
Even the most naive writer (or reader) can sense the distance between raw encoding and the permissible psychological representation it needs.
Let's see, it's like this: we read as opposition what really isn't because it's more respectful to read it as opposition than to dismiss it an incompetent or inexpert or student work, or a failure to maintain a style or form of discourse. . . . We read what might 20 years ago have been dismissed as"bad" student writing, and to avoid that kind of destructive dismissal, we over-read the writing as resistant or parodic -- but that is, I think, almost as bad as under-reading it as just incompetent.
I think the ??? of "good writing" make the implacable power or "invisible standard" of academic style so relentless in sorting
Re: carnivalesque "disruptions". If we imposed a hegemony, a "style" on student writers, & then classify their disruptions as evidence that there is "oppositional discourses," haven't we begged the question? It's the original hegemony that defines the disruptions; therefore the disruptions serve to re-inscribe the hegemony.
When does it become an unconscious reaction to a situation? When is
the irony of parody forgotten.