Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    I'm not entirely sure what you mean by composition.  I studied
    composition in high school (especially a senior class to prepare
    for the AP English test).  First you look at paragraph structure.
    Then you look at the structure of a paper, which, in many ways,
    is just a large-scale paragraph.  Figure out the big point (thesis
    or topic paragraph).  Then figure out the arguments you're going
    to make.  For me, the essential part of any paper is the outline.
    Once I have that, I can fill in the spaces.  It's kind of like a
    map.  You know where you're going and how to get there.
    
    Developing good outlines comes with practice, though.  The 'filling
    in' part takes practice, too.  That gets into sentence structure
    (syntax) and diction.  That gets into techniques for linking sentences.
    There are actually rules and guidelines for these things, so they
    can be learned through practice.
    
    I think it's entirely possible to learn how to write a clear and
    focused composition simply through practice.  If the professor wants
    something more than that, the students with an aptitude for language
    are going to have an advantage.

    
    	>Because I read so much that I wrote so well.
    
    	Bingo!
    
    	Joe Jas

    My parents always encouraged me to read - they read to me, I read
    to them, I read alone...
    
    I think a love of reading and writing is learned (or not-learned)
    very early on.
    
    I helped a good friend through her college composition courses.
    She had gotten a 320 on her verbal SAT's (800 math, though...).
    
    She hated to read.  She couldn't even string together a book report.
    But I worked with her for a couple of nights a week for a semester,
    and now she doesn't hate to read (she even read "The Thorn Birds"
    just for fun!), and she can write pretty well.  Of course, she helped
    me out with calculous in return ;)....
    
    So it's possible, but it takes time and effort and the kind of
    attention you don't get in a class of 50 people.
    
    -Jody
    

    Writing is not the same as talking.  Writing is, in a way, like
    learning a foreign language.  The structure is not the same as
    spoken language - just listen, really listen, to speech someday!
    You'll hear a lot of things that, because of inflection, gesture,
    or expression are understood.  Yet they're not as sensible if you
    record them and play them back.  If you transcribe the recording,
    you're worse off yet.
    
    You learn written language by practice and by exposure to masters
    (or at least practitioners) of the art.  Reading a lot is like
    learning language by immersion.  I agree with Jody that love of
    the written language, perhaps it's *fluency* in the written language,
    is learned early on.  It's somewhat like having several cradle
    languages.
    
    	Even if you *do* learn written language later on, nothing
    can replace that early childhood immersion.  Nothing can give as
    easy a mastery.  Some folks will be able to pick writing up later
    in life, just as some adults easily attain fluency in foreign
    languages.  But most folks will always be thinking of the structure,
    of the grammar, of the tenses, while the "native speakers" will
    put it right just because it's *right* that way.

    --Louise

    One thing my English Comp. prof did, was to require a weekly paper.
    10 weeks in a quarter, 10 papers, including one research paper.
    The difference between his style and other professors was that we
    had to read essays and discuss "modern" topics, but you could write
    your paper on ANYTHING.  I mean anything from how your first dog
    ran away to what it was like driving your first car.
    
    Of course the advantage of this was that the students wanted to
    write papers, and the prof took the time to go over the mechanics
    and structure of the paper.  Also, if the paper was NOT satisfactory,
    (i.e. too many spelling errors, run-on sentences, etc.) the paper
    had to be rewritten.
    
    The disadvantage was that there was no incentive (other than self
    motivation) to read any of the required material.  You were never
    tested on it, and none of the papers had to contain it.
    
    -Larry

    
    One of my English Comp instructors gave us this hint on writing
    papers...  
    
    he said, "Your paper should be like a woman's skirt.... 
                 short enough to keep the interest, yet
              long enough to cover the subject."   8*)
    
     
    
    I really enjoy writing and can do it well, although I didn't enjoy 
    reading until adulthood.  I read too slowly to comprehend and would
    backtrack, making it an endless process.... Now, however, I read
    much faster and can write even better.  I agree, though, that there
    is a connection between the desire to read and the capability of
    writing.                                                        
    
    Mary Beth

    No, I really don't think that you can study to improve a composition
    grade.  I guess it's just like a drawing course (I'm an Art student),
    practice makes perfect.  When I took the required writing a couple
    years ago, I aced them with no studying.  I had friends that didn't
    have such luck.  Most of these friends excelled in math/science
    related courses.  I had to study my a** off for those courses. 
    Some people can write better than others.  My roommate blows me
    away in writing.  He's an English major.  Me, I'm not talented like
    he is, but I have no problems writing a good paper if I put my mind
    to it.  Dedication is all it takes.  I also found it helpful, to
    keep a dictionary, thesarus (I need the dictionary right now ;-))
    and a grammer notebook close by. 
    
    Bill
    
    (P.S.  Don't take this as a sample of my writing,  I just wrote
    what I would say if I was talking.  This would flunk any writing
    assignment!!!!8-{)
    

    Can composition be taught?  I submit that the mechanics can be taught,
    but the whole point is communication, which requires having something
    to communicate.  I think *that* can be taught, but usually isn't. 
    
    To this point, of the replies which have mentioned any details,
    most have dealt with the mechanics of composition.  Several have
    pointed out the correlation between significant amounts of reading
    and the ability to write well.  None have yet dealt with what was
    (for me) the most difficult part of successful writing: figuring
    out what I wanted to say.
    
    I had all of these great tools; knowledge of the mechanics, structure,
    spelling, reference works, and a good reading background.  Yet these
    tools were useless until I had something to say.  I knew I wrote
    boring but technically correct papers.
    
    My first college composition instructor showed me what the problem
    was by a simple experiment.  We all wrote papers about Kafka's
    book, _The Metamorphosis_.  He read the best paper out loud, to
    show us what is possible to find in a work like that, what sorts
    of meanings the writer can suggest, and to indicate the level of 
    thought he wanted to see in our writing.  Once I understood that
    the *POINT* of writing was *TO SAY SOMETHING* then I had the last
    piece of the puzzle.
    
    DougO

    
    I envy all of you who can read and write with ease.  I am dyslexic,
    and because of this, I have not read as much as I would like. Because
    of dyslexia, my reading and writing skills suffered greatly through
    college.  I made C's in all of my English Composition courses. But,
    the ironic twist to this is that when I took an American Literture
    course, I got an "A".  The professor was into poetry.  So, my
    grammatical/spelling error carried less weight in the exams.  Maybe
    I abused my poetic license during this course.  But, it gave me
    great confidence in myself.  In that course, I was graded in the
    content of my writing, not the syntax and the spelling (I get enough
    hassles on syntax from the computer).  Anyways, I think that you
    people who can read easily and have good eyesight should be grateful,
    for there are other in the world who are not as fortunate.
    
    _Mike_8-)

    Meigs,

    There are two things in your note. The first is whether composition
    can be "taught." The second is whether it's easier for a science-type
    to learn the arts or an arty-type to learn sciences.

    To a certain extent, yes, composition can be taught. But only to a
    point. Like all art forms, the craft can be taught, but not the art.
    You can teach people to string words into sentences, sentences into
    paragraphs, and paragraphs into missives in such a way that people who
    read what they write will understand what they say. But that's not
    *writing*, it's merely composition. Composition can be taught, writing
    has to be learned. 
    
    The second question is also interesting. I think it's really a matter
    of flexibility. I know plenty of engineers who know the difference
    between MOVL and MOVAL and would never ever confuse them, but can't
    tell the difference between "principle" and "principal." Similarly, I
    know people who can diagram sentences, know the circle of fifths, and
    can transpose music in their heads, but can't understand hexadecimal. 
    
    In our society, it is more acceptible to confess ignorance of the
    sciences than the arts. There is a stigma to so-called "illiteracy"
    that is not attached to "innumeracy." But both limit one's options. I
    consider it to be as important to be able to add in your head (at least
    in approximations) as it is to be able to pick your way through badly
    phrased words. 
    
    Back in the days when Issac Asimov a writer (before he became a natural
    resource), he wrote about this problem and muttered that while it was
    perfectly acceptable for a professor of literature to look up from his
    Shakespeare and say, "I couldn't add a column of numbers to save my
    life," it is *not* acceptable for a professor of chemistry to look up
    from pouring a beaker to say, "Literature? I don't like the stuff. I
    can't read anything but comic books." 
    
    Now I'm not saying that this bias our society has towards the arts is
    bad, in fact, I think it's good. These days, most toasters can add a
    column of numbers. It's no big deal. But what makes people human seems
    to boil down to what we call the arts.
    
    Getting back to the point here, I don't think it's true that the
    average non-physics mind can get an A in physics ten times easier than
    the physics buff can get an A in composition. I think that a flexible
    mind learns both easily, but an inflexible mind gets caught in an arty
    framework or a scientific framework and incapable of functioning in a
    different framework. 
    
    	Jon

I agree with the idea that reading a lot tends to help in learning to write, but
only up to a point.

Learning to "communicate" is the key for me...

I read *LOTS*, but I have long since past the point where that has helped me
communicate, and actually hinders my communication.  The mass of information in
my brain (if you will) seems to confuse my communication because I have too much
to say. 

When I was in college, I spent a great deal of time with a circle of friends
with whom only about one or two words of a sentence had to be spoken, and only a
couple sentences out of a paragraph.  Part of that was because we knew each
other well enough to use a shorthand.  Part of it was that we could expand and
extrapolate the consequences of one statement into several corallaries and
negations.

It's quite difficult to readapt to a more normal mode of comunication.  Also
boring and tedious.  I've been in a lot of situations where I neglected to
mention a corallary or two, and got in trouble because the other person didn't
realize something that I thought was intuitively obvious.

As a consequence, I often find myself needed to explain an idea to death to make
sure that I am getting my point across.  It's not obvious to me, at what point
the reader would have gotten to idea, and I should leave off, but it seems
preferable to the situation that results from leaving a corallary off and saying
too little. 

Then again, to me, written English seems very ambigious.  In college, I could
take advantage of that ambiguousity, and say two (or more) things in the same
sentence, taking the same sentence two different ways.  Here and Now, it seems
that I must explicitly state that I mean one meaning of a sentence, and
explicitly state that I don't mean the other possible meanings of the sentence
to get my point across.  Dull....  Boring...

English grammar and sentence structure also has considerable redundancy. It's
very easy for me to write run-on sentences because to seperate each thought
would require replicating half of the sentenceinto six sentences. 

When I know a lot about a subject, or even if I don't know a lot about a
subject, but have a lot of questions or theories, it's very easy for me to
rattle off a hundred lines on any given subject.  I may start to write a short
note, and think of a dozen more things to say before I can finish the note.  By
the time I write those things, I have thought of still more ... ... ... 

Also, any given subject can be approached on a dozen different levels, modes, or
angles, how do you pick which is appropriate?  Use them all to make your point!
:-)  I'd fit in real good at the Word Market in Dictionopolis, where they
use as many words as possible to same as little as possible. :-)

Got any suggestions? :-)

Jim.

       The difference here is one of technique vs elegance. Sooner or
       later anybody can learn the technique. The elegance is what makes
       some writers worth reading.

       im a rabib ee
				cummings fan and

       he
			rarely use
       s	any correct


						syntax


       liesl

    re .13, Jim-
    
    You certainly have described your own writing style correctly.
    If I may be permitted to offer my observations...
    
> Then again, to me, written English seems very ambigious.
    
    It can be.  Jim, written English is a tool.  The tool's purpose is
    communication.  If the writer is careless or sloppy enough to leave
    ambiguities in the written text, the tool has been used improperly.
    Any complex tool can be used improperly; it behooves the user to
    be careful.
    
> When I know a lot about a subject, or even if I don't know a lot about a
> subject, but have a lot of questions or theories, it's very easy for me to
> rattle off a hundred lines on any given subject.  I may start to write a short
> note, and think of a dozen more things to say before I can finish thenote. By
> the time I write those things, I have thought of still more ... ... ... 
                                                       
    You are not describing composition, nor communication, nor careful
    writing.  You are describing a written version of run-on-at-the-mouth
    disease.  Sharing my rambling and disorganized thought processes is 
    *not* an effective way to get my ideas across the ether, and I
    strongly recommend against the practice.  I find that my writing is 
    more effective and my meanings are better understood, if I organize 
    my thoughts before I begin, and stick to the point.

    DougO

    I came to this country 8 years ago.  English is my second language.
      I went to a university in Virginia for my undergraduate education.
    I had to take a year of freshman English.  
    The first quarter the teaching assistant picked on my grammar spelling
      and all the other rules and regulations in the language.  I worked 
      real hard and was awarded a D.  
    The second quarter the subject was on making research and I did 
      mine in Reaganomics.  The teaching assistant picked on my grammar,
      spelling and the way I did my bibliography....  I worked very hard,
      and was awarded a D+.  
    The third quarter, I decided to go with a professor.  English 
      literature was the subject.  I was praised on my originality and
      clarity of thought.  I worked real hard and was awarded an A-.  
    Then junior year came, Technical Writing was the game.  The 
      instructor picked on my grammar, spelling and thousands of other
      rules and regulations.  I worked real hard, but barely made a
      B+ largely because of a final multiple choices.  
                         
    :-) :-) :-).
    
    
    Almost all the scientists I personally know are talented in art
    and literature, and so do half of the engineers I know.  As to the
    prominant figures.  I name Issac Asimov (Ph.D in Chemistry), Steven
    Hawking (Do I need to say more?), Richard Feynman (I recommend reading
    _Surely You Must be Joking, Mr. Feynman_).  On the other hand, I
    hardly know anyone in English department who still knows/remembers
    calculus....   On the other hand, there are people in between...
    like Louis Carrol (sp?).
    
    Eugene

    re: .17/UVa.
    
    Wahoo!  And just think - not only do you have all that education,
    but you're also a "gentleman" (assuming the tradition lingers on).
    
    Steve
    

    Wrong part of the state, Steve!  Take I-64 West to I-81 South to
    US 460 South to Hokietown.
    
    	- Jerry

    re .18, .19
    Thanks Jerry. Yep, we were the Hokies.  I wasn't that clear in .17
    (I thought everyone knows that VPI was the only one using the quarter
    system as recent as 3 years ago :-) ).  VPI and UVa are big rivals
    in Virginia.  When I was in VPI, I did not understand why the students
    went crazy when we beat the wahoos (with a small w :-)) in football.
    Not until I left VPI, had I caught up some of this fever :-).  From
    our perspectives, the wahoos are a bunch of snobs (They call
    themselves The University).  There are many UVa joke in VPI and
    more VPI jokes in UVa.  All in all, it was fun and healthy :-).
    UVa is a typical prep school.  As to becoming a gentleman....
    I did pick up a lot of good ol' boy talks like "Hi ye all", and "Ye
    don't know noth'n".  As a matter of fact, I can talk quite southern
    (not that I can fool any real good ol' boys or even Yankees, but
    good enough for the folks who come over sea.  They would say: "Oh,
    your English is so good".  See, to those folks, your English must
    be real good if you can talk like that.  At first they will try
    to correct your grammar.  Then you tell them "It ain't so.  It ain't
    so." and they will begin to think you are a great guy :-) :-)).  
    Incidentally, it also provides a good laugh during parties (not
    that people would laugh at any real southern accent rather they
    will laugh at my twisted southern accent :-).
          
    Eugene
                                                                         
    P.S.  Could someone tell me what a honky-tonk is?  I asked a lot
          people in VPI (including some real good ol' boys), but none
          of them seemed to be sure what exactly this thing is (some
          said it is a bar, but other said it is a kinda dance).

       A honky-tonk (not sure how to spell that) is a dancing bar. (hmm,
       not to be confused with a dancing bear). Though the Rolling
       Stones discuss honky-tonk women I have to believe the definitive
       honky tonk songs are by C/W singers such as Hank Williams. liesl

    re: .20
    
    Oops - sorry about the misread. . .
    
    
    "When I was in VPI, I did not understand why the students
    went crazy when we beat the wahoos (with a small w :-)) in football."
    
    I couldn't understand it (the opposing team's fan's celebrations) 
    either. . .in those days, most high school second string junior
    varsity teams could've done the same. . .  And, I always thought
    it was pretty appropriate that "wahoo" and "Yahoo" (as in Swift's
    "Gulliver's Travels") we're so nearly the same.
    
    Then too, to our everlasting shame, in '67 or so we failed to
    be voted the "biggest party school" by some national magazine's
    editors. . .
    
    Still, there were some good things to say about "the University".
    F'rinstance, the Charlottesville area is truly beautiful (pricey,
    but beautiful) and D.C. isn't too far away. . .
    
    Steve
    

    re .22
    >Still, there were some good things to say about "the University".
    >F'rinstance, the Charlottesville area is truly beautiful (pricey,
    >but beautiful) and D.C. isn't too far away. . .
 
    I doubt any campus in U.S. is more beautiful than VPI's (with the
    possible exception of the Cornell University).  On the other hand,
    D.C. is about 5 hours drive from Blacksburg though.
    
    Eugene
    

    
    
    re .22,.23:
    >>Still, there were some good things to say about "the University".
    >>F'rinstance, the Charlottesville area is truly beautiful (pricey,
    >>but beautiful) and D.C. isn't too far away. . .
    >
    >I doubt any campus in U.S. is more beautiful than VPI's (with the
    >possible exception of the Cornell University). 
    
    You guys are hitting close to home!  Lots of my best friends went
    to VPI, many also went to "The University" (my sister did, I almost
    did...) but Eugene, your last thought is truest: Cornell beats 'em
    all.  And, by the way, the further away from DC the better...

    <--(.0)
    
    At UMinn in the early '70s, my department (Psych) did a study of
    freshman comp at the behest of the English Department.  The E.D.
    wanted to know how to improve the program since it was causing so
    much agony to all the students who were forced to take it as part
    of distribution.
    
    The study was carried out in a methodologically-sound way and then
    promptly suppressed, also at the request of the E.D.  
    
    The only conclusion anyone could reach given the data was that Frosh
    Comp should be abolished because there were no objective criteria by
    which student success could be measured.  The only thing that the TAs
    (themselves doctoral students) could agree on consistently was very bad
    writing; if one TA judged some piece to be _really_ bad, that judgement
    would typically be validated by 90% of the other TAs.  For anything
    else, though, all bets were off: the same composition would receive
    widely contradictory evaluations when submitted to the various TAs;
    even when the same composition, modified according to a TA's
    instruction, was re-submitted to the _same_ TA, further criticism would
    be generated unless the TA knew it was the second time through for the
    work!  The faculty with much sighing and mutterings of regret concluded
    that it must be a problem with the TAs, but our investigators had
    foresightfully already collected data on the E. faculty, too, who as
    you might suppose were quite embarrassed to learn that their judgement
    was no more consistent than that of the TAs.  And some of these folks
    were Pulitzer laureates too, btw, not just your average failed
    journalist. 
    
    Since it would have been political suicide to abolish Frosh Comp,
    nature took its course and the whole charade was made over into a case
    study for cynical psych doctoral students. 
                      
    						=maggie

re -1 by RAINBO::TARBET 

Maggie, Great Story. Thanks for posting it.

In the early 70's I was a paid 'writing-coach' for fellow
undergraduates.  The hundreds of marked up compositions I
saw fall in with UMinn study ... perfectly organized papers
given a D for "bad organiztion," etc. etc.

Tough job. I'm still haunted by one sentence:

   The art of sewing is an economic activity.

I read the sentence out loud, paused while I wondered how such
an ugly sentence came to be, and the student said, "I hate that
sentence. My teacher wrote it and said it should be my theme 
statement." Poor child.  And what could I tell her?  Your 
writing teacher can't write? 

By the way, my friend who is taking comp received a D on her 
first paper ... and just got an A on the second.  She deserved it.
She revised the second paper at least four times before submitting
it, plus she asked people to read it and give her feedback.  
She also spent a lot of time thinking about what she was trying to 
say.  Atta Girl, HP!

	"If you can not say what you mean, you probably do not mean
	what you say".

From 'The Last Emperor'.

    <--(.27)
    
    This may be a hint as to why he was deposed:  people worked out that
    his "wisdom" consisted only of tautologies. 
    
    ;')                                         =maggie

    <--(.28)


Actually, that platitude is attributed to his British teacher. He 
was deposed for other, even more valid, reasons :-).

-- Ron