so many theories...

Hey All,

I am sort of flying blind here. I left my book in my truck, so bear with me if I seem to stray off topic just a little bit. I did the reading, but it was a few days ago.

Anyway, I think that, from a philosophical perspective, it's interesting that there seem to be so many theories in regard to reading, writing, and rhetoric floating around. I was surprised to learn that lately (if I am recalling this correctly based on the reading) there has actually been little, or maybe less, emphasis placed on rhetoricism in the schools today. Also, why all the conflict between the literature purists and the rhetoriticians? I found this whole thing to be a bit confusing. Also, I found myself wondering how I, as a future English teacher, could devise lesson plans what incorporate both of these topics. Is this even encouraged in schools today? I haven't the foggiest idea, but I guess it depends on the particular district in which you are employed.

I suppose that cutting out topics such as rhetoric is just a reflection of the overall movement to reduce the study of the humanities in general in our school system. If this is the case, and I believe it is in many schools, then is this being done is response to the increased demands of standardized testing? I would assume so, although I am sure that there are many other factors to consider as well. Also, this isn't to suggest that this is taking place at every school, just that it's a trend right now.

I like the fact that Williams uses the phrase writing to learn, probably because that seems to be what writing is really about, at least for me. Before I started this blog, I didn’t know where it was going to take me. Now, I’ve sort of ventured off the beaten path and gotten into things that I never planned to discuss in the first place. It's like writing enables you to purge your mind of all the stuff that floats around up there, even if you didn't know that it existed there in the first place.

Next, I’ll get into deconstruction, which I have found to be absolutely exhausting at times. I think that, as a theory, it kind of turns everything that you’ve been taught to expect, at least regarding language, on its head. Basically, things are upside down. To say that language has no meaning, well, to me, that just appears to promote chaos, but I guess that's what the whole deconstruction movement is all about. To undo the meaning of the text, or to say that it has no meaning, is a very difficult thing for me to grasp as a reader. I think that this is something that you’ve got to learn to gradually ease yourself into over time. I don’t find it easy to slip into this mindset. But I guess people like Derrida would suggest that that is because I have been programmed not to do so.

Bye.