Formless Ramblings, Free Associations, and Stream of Conscious Writings on A&P

Part I
First Impression: I get it! Please, you don’t need to extend this comparison beyond a direct reference to the idea that architecture limits the natural, or something like that. I get the impression that the author wants us to see that writing for specific form is not natural and opposes the fluid nature of communication and art; however, this impression is after reading through the first three pages of the blah blah blah of “arche text” speak. I have to agree with this to a certain extent.

I am all for conventions and rules and forms with writing, but I am also for challenging the fixed forms if it assists in use and development of creativity, innovation, original thinking, and challenging commentary and observation. I am currently attending a Hip Hop Spoken Word Teacher Institute here at the U, and I am seeing many parallels with how language and form is used as a way of expression as well as a way of separating and stratifying. Just as I have been able to see the value of Alexie’s Prose Poetry, or Capote’s Nonfiction Novel, or even E.E. Cummings insane poetry, I also see the value of Hip Hop and Spoken Word as a legitimate form of artistic expression and social commentary. We can’t read many novels, short stories, and “traditional” poetry without coming to some conclusion as to purpose, theme, social commentary, etc. I like this form of expression because it adds to our ability to place our voice into different forms for different venues. Because of these comparisons, I am beginning to think of some great things to use in my class to enhance student engagement and skills.

Part II
I am loving this article. The idea of challenging and changing current forms along with the changing times and environment appeals to the subversive nature in me. When someone tells me what to do and how to think, I want to push back and challenge and change that approach: I want to fight the system. However, common sense tells me that the “old school” or “…academic…continuum” will always be around and we have to navigate through this world with that in mind as we grow and change within ourselves. So, know both. Learn the conventions and how to communicate using those conventions, but also learn that we can experiment with our writing, because our technology, attitudes, influences, and population demand that we go with the flow.

I am impressed somewhat with the framework of the argument and the word choice of the author. Using Humanity in reference to writing and its content is very thought provoking. The use of the word itself connotes that we are simply making thoughtless followers and machines out of our students. The notation of separation of student and teacher also contribute to this impression. Why can’t teachers simply teach and facilitate. We have the experience and world view to assist our students in their endeavors to learn and understand our world. We must also recognize that through experience we learn. So, can we tell our students that they are not writers, and do we have to stress that they must either “…think like a student or thinking like a writer.” This is an awful sentiment and must be addressed. No wonder we have people bucking the system continually, because the nature of the academy is to beat people down and take away their individuality in order to simply regurgitate acquired knowledge, or so it seems. Alex mentioned that it wasn’t until his junior or senior year at the university that he was told to come up with something original. This is extreme, but I get his point. Why are we not taught, or encouraged to teach, original thinking all along the way? I have to say that my experiences in college and as a teacher are that of encouraged original thinking and innovation in looking at our world ( I didn’t get this in high school as a student). But if some people are experiencing this undue pressure to conform completely, then we need to look at it as a systemic entity. It seems many of us current educators are torn between following the standards and preparing our students for the real world and encouraging original form, voice, and thought. Why can’t we do both? This article is packed and causes lots of questions to be asked.

Part III
The email interactions, like cell phone texting has its place, and could be seen, to some degree, as a legitimate Form for writing. We fight this constantly with our students who transfer this form to academic writing. We then question whether good communication and insight is happening with this alternative form. We further wonder if valid and solid arguments are transpiring. I was reminded of the evolving nature of writing and text when I saw a wonderful poem written in “textise” by a student who was criticized later by his teacher for writing poorly. The content of the poem was powerful and astute. The poet included new words, slang, and creative spelling, not because he was making a point, but because texting only allows for 160 characters in which to convey his thoughts. He explained the nature of the language as well, describing the meaning of new spellings. For example, the use of the “PH” in phat instead of fat. Easily explained and therefore understood in the context. How can we take that away when words like “interface”, “database”, and “emailing” are used extensively because of our ever-changing vocabulary. I have seen new words introduced by Webster every year, and some are pretty ridiculous if you put too much thought into it. So, what do we do as teachers of writing? I say we acknowledge and learn the canonical forms as well as consider and accept the dynamic nature of language and writing.

This all sounds well and good, but it puts a heavy burden on our shoulders while we try to do the best we can for our students amidst the constantly changing expectations of our district, state, and nation.

I will have to reread this article and try to muddle through the ultra detail and the metaphor of the A&P parking lot.

Are we trying to challenge the long standing forms that look for the subtlety instead of the in-your-face-this-is –what-we-like-want-need mentality of the Las Vegas, Cell Phone, MTV, Computer Game, and Television generation? Even if something such as gaudy or formless or simply ugly and utilitarian architecture or writing offends my sensibilities, I still have to give it to the person for having the audacity and temerity to challenge the status quo…”Viva la Revolucion!” I am generally a realist and a conformist in certain situation with an attitude that sometimes I just don’t give a damn, and I buck the system. That is the beauty of my school. We get a lot of freedom as teachers, but if we overtly challenge the system, we might catch it. However, if we do it subtly, then cool things happen. We can do both: slightly influence the system with change in perception of good “academic” writing, and, HOPEFULLY, introduce new standards and acceptable forms of writing and thinking for others to conform to…At the risk of redundancy…BALANCE and DUALITY and PLURALITY and so on, and so on.

I had fun writing this blog. I am sure at some point I might appear to contradict myself, but to paraphrase Walt Whitman…I will not even try, but he acknowledged that we are full of contradiction and that it is part of being human, so I can embrace this and run with it.
Peace