After determining writing to be a dynamic muscle that can be trained in contrast to an ability to be gained or unlocked all at once; Dryer, Duffy, Brooke, and Grabill expound on the dynamic components and skills that must be continuously studied, learned, and practiced in order to become a talented and skillful writer.
Collin Brooke and Jeffrey T. Grabill describe writing as “a Technology Through Which Writers Create and Recreate Meaning”, supporting much of our conversation from last week’s readings and the discussion of how language is not only centripetal in education but also a progressive and dynamic skill. Brooke and Grabill assert that “meaning doesn’t just happen” and that it takes extreme intentionality and a relationship to writing in order to accomplish producing it. This meaning lies in the connection the writer can create with the reader.
In Dryer’s “Words Get Their Meaning From Other Words,” Dryer explains that the shifting relationship between words and their meaning proves a great value in the skill of lacing words together in order to create proper context. This is especially the case amongst simultaneously shifting social contexts that change the meanings of words and in which words, in turn, shift social contexts. Duffy solidifies this mounting pressure on a writer by describing writing as a choice in how you would like to be perceived and portraying it as the sole definition of your relationship with the reader.
As to address Michael Carter on his piece “The Idea of Expertise: An Exploration of Cognitive and Social Dimension of Writing”, I would like to know under what pretense Carter claims to write an exploration of what it means to be an “expert writer”. Carter seems to pontificate on matters in which he fails to demonstrate. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.”
Leave a Reply