A Better Idea for Texting

Posted on by

     In Bad Ideas About Writing, there is an article by Christopher Justice titled Texting Ruins Literacy Skills which highlights the cons that texting has on the youth when it comes to applying themselves in a formal setting, like the classroom. According to Justice, he believes there is a significant difference between text and speech. He hates how students fail to separate the two in an educational/formal environment as it makes them come off as ignorant (Justice, 308). Furthermore, he feels like using technology in the classroom is a bad idea as it tends to incite bad recreational habits when it comes to communicating. However, as technology advances and becomes more widespread, texting should just be embraced as another form of communication because it is not going anywhere anytime soon.

     One of Justice’s central claims in his essay is that ‘text’ and ‘speech’ are different. Justice defines texting as the communicative practice of sending brief messages via technology (Justice, 308). He explains how texting also allows the sender to “grammatically pollute sentences,” and it is acceptable, whereas doing the same in day-to-day dialogue (speech) simply isn’t. However, linguist John McWhorter disagrees. McWhorter goes on to make the valid point that if speech is an ongoing innovation based upon humans “talking like they write,” then there should also be a form of communication where we “write like we talk” (McWhorter 3:10-3:21). By this, McWhorter is saying if speech is us writing how we’re supposed to talk, grammatically, then texting should be an escape for us to write like we speak with no grammatic infrastructure. Furthermore, different parts of the world maintain different dialects; therefore, when it comes to communicating via text, it may allow us to connect better with some people better as opposed to others.

     Despite ultimately claiming texting was an ineffective way to communicate, Christopher Justice did manage to point out one of the most significant benefits of texting: marketing. The marketing scene is one of the main reasons texting will not be going anywhere any time soon. With technology constantly being used at an all-time high, the world revolves around apps and social media (Justice, 311). For apps to appeal to a younger audience, they must remain ‘hip,’ and they do this through the usage of text to connect with their target audiences.

     Although Justice believes that texting is destroying the literary skills of the youth he also understands that it’s a new period of time from which he was brought up in. With Justice and McWhorter’s fondness of texting aside from speech, why is it not referred to as another form of communication? To Justice’s credit, there is a time texting and speech should be separated. However, although it is imperative that ‘speech’ and ‘text’ are differentiated amongst, they both contribute to literature in their own respective ways. Texting should not be referred to as a ‘bad idea’ but rather a new form of communication. If society continuously fails to adapt to the changes in its environment, then it’ll reach a stagnant point. The moment society peaks due to the stubbornness of innovation is the beginning of a harsh end.

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

“John McWhorter: A Surprising New Language — Texting.” Performance by John McWhorter, YouTube, YouTube, 26 June 2012,        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoF2vdLxsVQ. Accessed 16 Nov. 2021.

 

Justice, Christopher. “Texting Ruins Literacy Skills,” in Bad Ideas About Writing. Edited by Cheryl E. Ball and Drew M. Loewe,          308-314. Web. https://textbooks.lib.wvu.edu/badideas/

A Better Idea: Good Writers are not born, They are learned.

Image

Often times, people think that they are bad writers because they believe that they can’t meet or exceed the standards for writing that most professional writers can. People who are considered genius writers are thought of as having God-given talent. However, most people don’t know that some professional writers learned to write the way that they do, instead of having writing talents that was given to them by god. Instead of thinking this way people should understand that in order to become a better writer they need to take the time to practice writing effectively.

Collection of old hardcover books by Denis Vrublevski

In “Some People are Just Born Good Writers”, Jill Parrott discusses how many people believe that they are bad writers because they are not as talented as professional writers. This theory stems from “the so-called literary crisis” in the 19th century, proclaimed “that students entering American universities needed to become more familiar with their own language and coincided with a push to use our education system to build a uniquely American intellectual identity” (Parrott 71). After this claim was made, universities began including introductory writing classes into their programs, which led to the separation between good writers and bad writers. The people who were considered good writers (sometimes referred to as genius writers) were usually people “who were privileged to be of the right socioeconomic, national, or ethnic background” and were the same people who “wrote to the university’s standards” (Parrott 72).

This led to “good writers” being the “desirable students” and the “bad writers” being “less desirable students” because the bad writers didn’t write to the standards of the good writers (Parrott 72). And as the centuries went on, people started to believe that others (who created the writing standard) writing abilities were naturally gifted to them by god, Blood, Sweat, and Tears by Quinn Dombrowskibut this was not true. However, Jill Parrott did not believe that this was the only reason for people thinking that they were bad writers, nor did Jeff Goins. Dr. Parrott supposed that bad writers continued to be brought about because many writers believe that they did not have the potential to become professional writers, since they often compared their writing to genius writers work, and they gave up easily, especially when the writing became challenging. Jeff Goins author of the blog, “The Difference Between Good Writers & Bad Writers”, agrees with Parrott’s idea of what a bad writer is. He feels that no one is born a bad writer, but someone is a bad writer if: they are overly confident in their work, doesn’t try to improve their writing capabilities, lets writing challenges stop them from improving their writing, and gives up because they fear that they might fail again. Although Dr. Parrott believes that people are bad writers because of the standards that society holds writers up to, and Goins believes that it is more of the persons fault as to why they are a bad writer, they find common ground when discussing ways to become a better writer.

Jill Parrott believes that the misconception that some writers are naturally good writers is harmful because it makes already “struggling writers” think that they don’t have the potential to be good writers and they frequently become ” frustrated because they cannot force their writing to look like what they expect art to be” (Parrott 71). This is what makes struggling writers give up and don’t try to improve their writing abilities. However, Goins believes that most writers are bad writers because “they’re afraid of putting in the work and failing” (Goins) .

During her essay, Dr. Parrott stated “Sometimes when I hear colleagues complain about student writing, my response is “But isn’t that why we’re here? Is it not our job to teach them?”” (Parrott 72). This is another reason that many students (and writers in general) tend to give up on writing because they feel pressured to write to the standards of their professors and peers who are deemed good writers. And when they don’t write at the level, or as good as their peers, they are criticized and readers complain about their writing.

Both, Dr. Parrott and Goins believe that people can improve their writing by learning to write effectively and changing their mindset about their writing, if they do these things it is not guaranteed that they will become a professional writer but they will have more potential in becoming a better writer. Dr. Parrott thinks that in order to become a better writer first writers need to “debunk the deeply held idea” that “only some lucky people are good writers”. This means that people need to understand that good writers are people that were once bad writers but improved by using effective writing methods. Goins thinks that people can become better writers if they keep writing when others don’t and “go the extra mile” when others won’t (Goins). He believes that you need to do your best to continue writing even when the writing gets tough. To add on, both Dr. Parrott and Jeff Goins feel that writers should write everyday and build habits that will help their writing increase improvement. Something like writing on Social Media will not help writers write their best but having ” Good writing instruction” will.

Jeff Goins and Jill Parrott both had their own opinions about what factors makes someone a bad writer, but they were able to find a mutual understanding when discussing what writers can do to become better writers. Dr. Parrott believed that society’s writing standards was the thing that impacted the myth of good writers having god-given writing abilities the most, while Goins believed that writers themselves were at fault for being bad writers. But, they both agree that writers can learn to write effectively and change their mindset about the way that they perceive their own writing.

       Work Cited

  • Parrott, Jill. “Some People are Just Born Good Writers”, Bad Ideas About Writing, Edited by Cheryl E. Ball and Drew M. Loewe, West Virginia University Libraries Digital Publishing Institute,2017, 71-75.
  • Goins, Jeff. “The Difference Between Good Writers and Bad Writers”

 

Repeated Failure is the Path to Success

Posted on by

Many people believe that failure is bad; however, the reality might not be true. For example, in the articles, “Failure is Not an Option,” included in the book Bad Ideas about Writing, and “Silicon Valley’s Culture of Failure… and the ‘walking dead’ it leaves behind” respectively, Allison D Carr and Rory Carroll assert that failure is not an option is a negative idea because of its possibility to hinder success. As an alternative view, they mention that repeated failure as an option is a better idea. They say it is a better idea because failure creates an opportunity for success.

“Never Stop” by Fab Lentz licensed under Unsplash

Image by Raul Varzar is licensed under Unsplash

To solidify their argument, both authors gave an example of how repeated failure often leads to success. For instance, Carr gives examples of successful writers as her evidence, such as renowned journalist and public intellectual Ta-Nehisi Coates, Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist Junot Díaz, and Nobel prize winner for literature William Faulkner, whom all have testified that they failed many times as a writer to create good writing (Carr 78). This explains that to create good writing there is a process that may be filled with massive failure. Carr uses this evidence to show that success comes from one having the “mindset trained from failure”(Carr 76).

“Tesla Mobile 3D Wallpaper” by Alexander Shatov, licensed by Unsplash

Carroll in agreement with Carr provides additional evidence. In his article, Carroll said, “Failure is not only invoked, but celebrated [in Silicon Valley]. Entrepreneurs give speeches detailing their misfires. Academics laud the virtue of making mistakes. . . While the rest of the world recoils at failure, in other words, technology’s dynamic innovators enshrine it as a rite of passage en route to success” (Carroll). Carroll meant that in places where innovation is rewarded, Silicon Valley sees failure not as a mistake, but rather as a path for an opportunity. It is this culture of failure that makes Silicon Valley a successful place.

In addition, Carr mentions another evidence: “. . .  [We] use and benefit daily from innovations discovered by accident: penicillin, Corn Flakes, Post-it Notes, Corning ware, WD-40, oral contraception, and potato chips. All of these were discovered when the discoverer was working on a different puzzle” (Carr 77). This means that innovation is created by making a lot of attempts. It’s interesting that many of the things which one values today are made accidentally. Instead of valuing and expecting perfection, one should respect the reality that failure can be the way to success.

“A tornado rip” by Mick Haupt is licensed under Unsplash.

“The Tik Tok app” by Nik is licensed under Unsplash.

In support of Carr’s evidence, Carroll asserts the idea that failure is a path to success. He said the success, or the overnight success called by many people, comes from struggling, which is the result of repeated failure. Carroll believes it is this struggle or failure that paves the road to success. For example, He mentions, the company Airbnb, which started with two guys who struggled on their way but now have a billion-dollar company. Carroll provides Airbnb as his evidence to show how their failure (Struggle) opened the door for success while showing that the ones who stopped after one failure still fail. To explain further Carroll writes, “Most startups fail. However, many entrepreneurs still overestimate the chances of success – and the cost of failure” (Carroll). Carroll meant that even if there is a huge failure in Silicon Valley, they still know they will succeed after a repeated failure. Now, most entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley, even with most start-up businesses failing, have a dream to run their own company.

“Wave of glass and steel” by Etienne Boulanger is licensed under Unsplash

In conclusion, authors Allison D. Carr and Rory Carroll gather to inform an idea which is a better idea about failure. They conveyed that repeated failure does not hinder success, but rather provides the foundation of it. From this point, it is clear that writers should understand that creating good writing is not a linear process, but rather a recursive process. As a result, they should see their rough drafts as an opportunity to improve their paper.

 

 

                                               Works Cited                                                      

Carr, Allison. “Failure is Not an Option.” Bad Ideas About Writing. Edited by Cheryl E. Ball  & Drew M. Loewe, West Virginia University Libraries, 2017, pp. 76-81.

Carroll, Rory. “Silicon Valley’s culture of failure… and ‘the walking dead’ it leaves behind.” The Guardian. 28 June  2014.www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/28/silicon-valley-startup-failure-culture-success-myth.

 

 

 

                 

 

 

A Bad Idea: Some People Are Born Good Writers

Posted on by

The bad idea is that some people are born good writers, the author’s Jill Parrott and David Bartholomae present what they think a better idea is: to become a better writer, one must build skills, adapt, and have the persistence to improve. The author Jill Parrott addresses this bad idea, in the book Bad Ideas About Writing, by explaining that there are numerous ways writers can improve their writing and not be discouraged about it. David Bartholomae also addresses this bad idea in his article “Inventing the University” fixating on how students need to learn the conventions of writing to make their writing clear and understandable for the audience.

Man writing on paper

Graham, Scott. (2015). Man writing on paper- Vivid 2015. 2015 Photography by Scott Graham

 

 

In Parrott’s article “Some People Are Born Good Writers,” she explains her reasoning behind writers being made and not born in many ways. One of the most significant is that “Persistence emphasizes that experience is more powerful than unchangeable ability, and challenges help move writers forward rather than delaying their progress.” (Parrott 73). Here she is stating that for one to improve their writing, being persistent is the key. By putting in the work, constantly going overwork, and trying to improve will help the writer know what mistakes not to make in the future. The more practice they put in the better outcome they will have in their work. They also must be able to take past mistakes made in their work, whether good or bad, and build on them to keep improving. The more practice the writer puts in, the more improved progress they will see in their future work. When writers continue to be persistent, they start to build habits and a writing process making changes to it depending on if the process is helping them or needs improvement. To stray from the bad idea that “Some People Are Born Good Writers” writers must build a process that helps them best.

Man writing on paper

p_ponomareva. (2017). Sad and tired pre-teen schoolboy sitting in stress- Vivid 2017. 2017 Photography by p_ponomareva.

          When the author David Bartholomae states that college students need to start “Inventing the University” he suggests that when in an academic setting students need to adapt to speaking and writing a certain way and if they cannot adapt, they should pretend. Meaning if they wish to become a scholar and converse with other scholars that they must copy them until it becomes natural to them. Some students find it hard to develop new ways of speaking and writing in an academic setting. Bartholomae states that “These students have to appropriate (or be appropriated by) a specialized discourse, and they have to do this as though they were easily and comfortably one with their audience…”. (Bartholomae 4). He explains that students write for their professors when in fact students must understand that their professor is part of the audience they are writing for. When students are beginner writers or even after they have been writing for some time being able to learn who the audience is and what background or discourse, they come from is important. This helps them so when they are writing about a subject, they’re able to make connections to the audience and help them understand the topic and where the audience is coming from. Knowing this will help improve a writer’s work and have fewer mistakes.

       

In conclusion, the bad idea “Some People Are Born Good Writers” shouldn’t stop inexperienced writers from writing or attempting to improve their writing skills. Those who stick to the mindset of some people are just born good writers will only be discouraged from improving their work. Inexperienced writers who want to become better writers, such as new coming college students, should always seek improvements. By adapting, building writing skills, and being persistent to improve their writing will help them in staying away from this mindset. Being persistent is only part of being a good writer but figuring out a process that will help them in writing and knowing where the audience is coming from will help with the struggle of becoming a better writer. Also knowing when to voice their thoughts and feelings to catch the reader’s attention makes them more interested in their essay. Doing these things will help improve a writer’s work and aim to be an even greater writer one day. As stated by Parrott in her essay “Good writers are not born. They are learned” (Parrot 74).

 

Works Cited

  • Ball, E. Cheryl; Loewe, M. Drew. Bad Ideas About Writing. Parrott, Jill. “Some People Are Just Born Good Writers”. Pp. 71-75
  • Bartholomae, David. “Inventing The University”. Pp 4-23

Only Geniuses Can Be Writers: Finding A Better Idea

Posted on by

As first-year students make their way through college, they become exposed to new writing formats, processes, tips, and criteria. Through learning college writing skills, they begin to formulate their own ideas about what a true writer is. The bad idea that’ll be of particular focus is stated in the title of authors Dustin Edwards and Enrique Paz’s essay: “Only Geniuses Can Be Writers” in the book “Bad Ideas About Writing”. In their essay, Edwards and Paz shed light on the very well-known yet inaccurate idea that all good writers are unsociable and can write original, inspiring masterpieces with ease. They argue that this faulty idea is severely detrimental to neophyte writers and, in truth, never existed. A better idea would be that good writers cooperate to help each other compose new and better writing of their own using old ideas.

“Designer Sketching Wireframes” by Green Chameleon. Unsplash.

To come to this conclusion, the authors take a historical approach to the idea, exploring the meaning of genius authorship throughout history. They discovered that due to the expansion of readers in the 18th century, people started wanting to make a living off of their written work. Because of this demand, certain standards had to be developed to determine what a genius writer was. Namely, their ability to create rather than just write. Edwards and Paz state that “They claimed that true authors are not inspired by the outside world; they are inspired by their [own] unique selves.” (Edwards and Paz 66). To rephrase, “true” authors were required to have completely original work. If any cooperation or assistance had taken place, the quality of the writing decreased substantially. Genius writing had to be wholly by that author; inspired writing was heavily critiqued.

Consequently, upcoming authors in the 18th century struggled to succeed because of such unrealistic standards. To counter the originality-preaching argument, Edwards and Paz reason that “An even deeper [look into] history reveals a more esteemed regard for imitation”(Edwards and Paz 67). The authors assert that educational collaboration was widely practiced in ancient cultures. People would learn skills from one another, recycling old ideas to come up with even better ones. This kind of writing is what Edwards and Paz argue should be restored.

“Teamwork Makes the Dream Work” by Dylan Gillis. Unsplash.

  

One of the most pivotal sources that the authors include in their essay is Martha Woodmansee’s article “The Genius and the Copyright: Economic and Legal Conditions of the Emergence of the ‘Author’”. In her writing, Woodmansee aims to dismantle the historical notion that an author’s work must be entirely original. Her main argument is that the value of writing shouldn’t be solely based on its innovativeness. Instead, it should be based on the value of the entire new perspectives that they’ve accumulated from another writer’s idea(s). Throughout her article, Woodmansee mainly focuses on how the definition of an author evolved through the Renaissance period. One example she gives illustrates that the author was known to only receive his inspiration from within himself. Woodmansee claims that “Inspiration came to be explicated in terms of [the] original genius…”(Woodmansee 427). During the Renaissance, the attribute that seemingly defined an author was how ingenious he was, and “genius” in that era was defined as originality. Although this rule complicated things for writers, it made the lives of publishers and editors far easier. Woodmansee introduces both conflicting viewpoints about this idea. The economically logical argument: originality and creation, versus the author’s argument: growth and collaboration. However, people ultimately prioritized the freshness and originality of a piece of writing, and the opposing side received little attention. After reading Woodmansee’s article and Edwards and Paz’s essay, one begins to notice how their subject matters begin to align. Because all three authors took more of a historical approach to support their similar arguments, their ideas integrated smoothly.

               Taken by Louis Hansel. Unsplash.

 In conclusion, Dustin Edwards, Enrique Paz, and Martha Woodmansee collaborated to present a better idea and potentially eradicate a bad idea; to deliver a potential solution to an existing problem. Together, the authors introduce a better idea about writers: they collaborate to help each other create their own ideas from someone else’s. Discovering the “better idea” using different authors demonstrates the power of combined efforts, and the potential answers it could reveal. One couldn’t help but wonder, how many other unresolved questions can be cleared up with a collaboration? How impactful can academic teamwork be?

Works Cited

Edwards, Dustin and Paz, Enrique. “Only Geniuses Can Be Writers,” in Bad Ideas About Writing. Edited by Cheryl E. Ball and Drew M. Loewe, 64-70. Web

Woodmansee, Martha. “The Genius and the Copyright: Economical and Legal Conditions of the Emergence of the ‘Author’.” Eighteenth-Century Studies, vol. 17, no. 4, 1984, pp. 425-448. JSTOR    

A Better Idea About Writer’s Block by Alyssa Harris

Posted on by

            The human consciousness is like a busy city with thoughts and emotions constantly racing about. It is a chaotic slew of obligations, memories, distractions and more, but that is the very beauty of it. A healthy brain never sleeps; it is constantly thinking. The act of writing is remarkable because it allows the writer to display just a fraction of that chaotic mind on paper in a way that sounds intriguing. The writer turns on the faucet for ideas to flow onto the page. So, what really happens when that flow begins to feel clogged? In Geoffrey Carter’s “Writer’s Block Just Happens to People”, he debunks the entire idea of writer’s block. Describing where the term originated, Carter explains that the source is not exactly liable. He then uses the term slacker to define the ideal person who could effortlessly overcome this anomaly. A better idea would be that writer’s block doesn’t exist at all because the mind is never actually empty. Instead of focusing on what isn’t there, rather say what is there.

            Now let’s begin with the origin of writer’s block. It was a term coined by Edmund Bergler. Bergler was an assistant of the famous neurologist, Sigmund Freud. During his career he made a whole bunch of bizarre psychological claims that only he alleged to know how to cure; writer’s block being one of them. After digging through research, Carter finally found an anecdote describing one of Bergler’s patients stating that “the patient said he “unlocked his [own] literary resources” by playing with his psychiatrist’s name: Bergler” (Carter 101). In doing this the patient was able to create something out of what he was already thinking about. The point here is that Bergler didn’t do anything catastrophic to help his patients. He just invented a false phrase and then asserted himself to fix something that was never broken.

“White Printer Paper” by Toa Heftiba. Unsplash. “a little space to be creative”. 

           Why did this term stick though? It was clearly created by a borderline delusional psychoanalyst. It must have gained popularity by the comfort it creates. It allows one to think that because they cannot write, something must be wrong with them thus creating an excuse to not write. Carter brings an article to our attention called “The Unsuccessful Self-Treatment of a Case of Writer’s Block” by Dennis Upper where he tells that “the article (no joke) is a blank page with a footnote that was “published without revision” (Carter 100). This article was rather humorous in that it reads nothing but says everything it needs to. Upper’s work was a published and highly regarded piece of literature. This is so simply because it was unexpected, unique, and relatable.

           The art of writing takes a certain amount of creativity in which all minds have the natural capacity to do. In Mike Rose’s When a Writer Can’t Write (The Guilford Press), he introduces three key concepts “(1) creativity is self-expression (2) creativity is doing something new or unique and (3) creativity is using old things in new ways” (Rose 149). All three of those ideas are methods to spark inspiration for writing. This becomes most complicated for students who don’t consider themselves to be creative thinkers. They need to feel confident that their ideas are good ones. 

           At the end, Carter saves the best for last in his allusion to Richard Linklater’s movie Slacker to which he calls a “masterpiece of the mundane” (Carter 102). The 1991 film is a compilation of random moments that are oddly entertaining. It didn’t require any amount difficult thought or effort. It just embodies the quirky, awkward moments that make up everyday life. Perhaps that is the secret; to be a slacker. In other words, to embrace one’s mind for what it is saying even when it sounds completely insignificant. A better idea is that writer’s block is a myth and instead of daunting the blank page, view it as an amazing place where just about anything can happen.

magical book

Open book and magical glowing letters.

Work Cited 

Carter, Geoffrey V. “Writer’s Block Just Happens to People” Bad Ideas About Writing, edited              

            by Cheryl E. Ball (pp. 99-103). essay.

Rose, Mike. When a Writer Can’t Write: Studies in Writer’s Block and Other Composing-Process Problems. The Guilford Press, 1985.

Upper, Dennis “The Unsuccessful Self-Treatment of a Case of Writer’s Block” Journal of

            Applied Behavior, Fall 1974, (pp. 497)

First Year Composition Should Be Skipped

Posted on by

  Research Project

                  The topic I have chosen to do my research on is “ First-Year Composition Should Be Skipped” by Paul G. Cook. The author in this essay is basically trying to explain the pros and cons on why first year composition is important or not important for students to take and what parents think regarding if their child should take the class or not. First Year Composition is the first college English class for students to take. It basically goes over everything you were taught in high school for students to refresh their writing skills and be prepared for other college classes.

                  Cook briefly explains in his essay about First year composition and is the class worth taking it and putting your time and effort in it. He also talks about the questions he has got from parents regarding if the class is worth spending their money on and their kids’ time. Cook also tells us about “Most institutions offer incoming students a way to skip or test out of FYC if they perform well enough on a placement exam.” Meaning that if they do well on the placement test they don’t have to take the class and waste their own money or their parents on it. First year composition classes are not cheap to pay for so this is a great advantage for students who can’t afford to pay that much for the class. Cook also explains that “Students in FYC also receive one-on-one coaching that they are not likely to get in other classes.” Which means the professor is putting more focus on the student to help them do better, which won’t be the case in other college classes. FYC also helps students get familiar with college classes and what to expect for future classes that they are going to have to take.

                       In conclusion, this class worth taking will depend on the students if They think they are not ready for college and just want to get familiar with them then this is an amazing option. If they can’t afford to spend money, a placement test would be the best way for them. Overall Cook gives good details on how the class can be important for students to take and what ways it could help the student.

Bad Ideas About Writing-The Myth About Writers

Image

Magical, drunk and weird are some of the labels attached to writers, but we never hear how brilliant, intelligent and bright they are.  Authors Holbrook, Teri and Hundley, Melanie in “WRITERS ARE MYTHICAL, MAGICAL, AND DAMAGED” BAD IDEAS ABOUT WRITING  make the argument that these are all myths.  The Authors believe that Writers are regular people with a career in writing. The creator Marlowe, Andrew W. of Television Series Castle also, believes that writers are normal people in his depiction of a career novelist with regular family issues.  

 Writers don’t slay dragons or use magic potions to create stories.  Some readers think they are magical because they create such great stories. Writer have the ability to take the minds on a journey and makes the reader think outside the box. As the writer open up the imagination with such well put together words one may think this has to me magic.  Unfortunately, that is far from

magical book

Open book and magical glowing letters.

the truth. “Absent is what Stephen King calls the grunt work, which happens when authors wrestle with the page”. (p53) Weather it’s an article like the one mentioned above or a 500-page book, writing is a process that is not done overnight. A process that takes small Ideas and put them on paper.  From rewriting of a small paragraph to crossing out words. Starting completely over is sometimes needed to get it right. 

 Once the writing has been completed, then the critiquing process begins. The proofreading, the editing and all of the revisions. This can be a stressful process for a writer and can be seen as a form of rejection. So much so, it can lead to anxiety and a loss in confidence in their craft. Every writer handles stress differently and, in some cases, alcohol is the calm to the storm. Does this make all writers alcoholics?  Absolutely not. Some writers don’t drink at all. Just because there are several writers that were known for being alcoholics does not speak for them all. 

Drunk Guy

Guy stressed and results to drinking to much

In the television series Castle , the main character Richard is a famous mystery novelist that decides to assisting the NYPD. They have a copycat murderer that is recreating murders scenes from his book. After every case he has a drink while writing is his journal. He has a drink while having dinner with his family. The creator portrays him as a drinker but not an alcoholic. He’s a regular single father that just so happens to be a writer and a drinker.  Writers are regular people with regular lives that have a savvy way of putting great ideas to paper. Its not magic, its their job. 

 

Citation: 

    1.Holbrook, Teri and Hundley, Melanie, “Writers Are Mythical, Magical, and Damaged,” in Bad Ideals About Writing. Edited by Cheryl E.Ball

     and Drew M. Loewe, 53-59. Web.  

 

  1. Marlowe, Andrew W., creator.Castle(TV Series 2009-2016)  Season 1, ABC Studios, Marth 9th,2009, Episode 1-3 

 

 

Texting Ruins Students’ Grammar

Posted on by

From generation to generation, educators have been blaming technology for ruining students’ grammar. In “Texting Ruins Students’ Grammar Skills,” Scott Warnock argues that theirs is no actual proof that digital writing ruins students’ grammar and that people who voiced their opinions all have different meanings of grammar. While in “Why Johnny Can’t Write,” Merrill Sheils argues that television and classroom creativity is the reason students don’t have any writing skills. Even though both writings take place in different time frames, they do have common solutions which are to help rediscover what grammar is. Educators need to reconsider what grammar means and how to pass it on to students because each person has their own perception of how to write, this may mean going back to the basics.

Grammar between teachers and students can be classified as different things. In “Texting Ruins Students’ Grammar Skills,” Warnock quotes Robin Zeff, which says his students only see writing as something they do for class, and anything else are modes for talking (Warnock, 306). Educators can start with coming to common grounds with what grammar is and how to properly teach it. With everyone’s different ideas of what grammar is, it can be hard to teach without hindering a student’s learning process. English professors Kenneth Lindblom and Patricia from Warnock’s essay and Linguist Suzette Elgin from Sheils article all agree that teaching “right from wrong” in English can leave traces of bad habits in students’ English, especially when there is no agreement upon what is “right.” It will be damaging in the long run to have all these misconstrued ideas about what English is.

In his essay, Warnock doesn’t really give the effects of not getting taught English properly, but Sheils does. From the very beginning of her article, she tells her readers that whatever grade a child is in, they will go to the next grade less likely to write ordinary, including college graduates. Back in 1975 writing skills were needed for a job just as much as they are needed now. Michigan State University considered that they would need a test for undergraduates to make sure they had literacy skills because these students would soon become teachers and such. Researchers had discovered that more than 50 percent of secondary English school teachers did not specialize in English during their college years (Sheils, 3). It was imperative then, and now, that English teachers—or others that fall into the subject—make sure their students leave their classrooms with a full grasp of what they have learned. Although today it doesn’t seem like students don’t have a hard time transitioning from digital writing and formal writing in school.

It would be like code-switching for students today when they go from texting to writing. As much as certain people who think texting interferes with students’ grammar, there has been no proof whatsoever. Warnock uses writing researcher Michaela Cullington’s research on the matter to prove this point, “texting is not interfering with students’ use of standard written English,” (Warnock, 305). The same people who think it’s texting that is ruining students’ grammar are just unfamiliar with how they text, so they immediately go into a mode where they think it’s a problem. Warnock suggests that in reality this new generation of “screenagers,” may be the most literate and that instead of trying to patronize this generation for their shortcut texting, criticizing people should embrace how humans adapt to a new reality.

As much as old generations want to accuse technology of tarnishing the new generation of students’ grammar it will always be false. The problem starts with blaming the forms of technology, and it is damaging to students when taught as such. A lot has improved since the 1975 Newsweek article “Why Johnny Can’t Write,” because of teachers making better curriculums since then. Current educators should have no worry about how good students’ grammar is, but rather get on the same page about what grammar is and teach it in unison.

 

Works Cited

Warnock, Scott “Texting Ruins Students’ Grammar Skills” Bad Ideas About Writing. Edited by Cheryl E. Ball and Drew M. Loewe, West Virginia University Libraries, 2017, pgs. 301-307 https://textbooks.lib.wvu.edu/badideas/badideasaboutwriting-book.pdf 

 Sheils, Merrill. “Why Johnny Can’t Write.” Newsweek, 8 Dec. 1975, https://www.leetorda.com/uploads/2/3/2/5/23256940/why_johnny_cant_write__newsweek_1975___1_.pdf