Bartholomae IWA

"Must We Mean What We Say?" David Bartholomae

Pre-reading

            I don’t have a favorite novel, so I just grabbed one that I’m currently reading, The Day of the Locust. There is a third-person narrator, who is essentially speaking for the main character- that is, the narrator has insights into the protagonist that only the protagonist would know. In novels, when the character speaks, we are taught to question what he reports. A first person narrator is an unreliable narrator. When there is a third-person narrator that has insights into the protagonist, it does seem like it is actually the author speaking, but it doesn’t necessarily affect the way I read the story. It just makes my understanding of the character better.

Summary

            In “Must We Mean What We Say?” David Bartholomae draws on his experience as a teacher of first year composition. He argues that revision is necessary for novice writers to correct and strengthen their voices. Through revision, students can enrich their voice and insert it in the text as its own character (19). In addition to revision, Bartholomae argues that student writing comes from textual context- literature (sources, poems, movies, etc.).  

            Like many of the other authors we’ve read, Bartholomae argues that reading and writing go hand in hand toward producing a successful paper. Greene, Kantz and Kleine are three writers who have argued for the importance of reading critically. Bartholomae’s piece is also similar to Kleine and Kantz in that it suggests that revision and multiple drafts are a necessary element of the writing process; multiple revisions lead to the best paper. Finally, both Bartholomae and Elbow discuss voice in writing. Bartholomae is in favor of attending to voice in texts, while he implies that adopting the author’s voice in reading (adopting his/her persona/ putting on their mask (McCloud)) is best.

QD

2. I think Bartholomae illustrates that through revision, a writer puts more of him or herself into the piece. As their paper becomes stronger, they gain more confidence, and as a result, they also insert a stronger authorial voice. I think multiple revisions allow the idea that the writer is a character or persona to come through.

           

AE

1.     In the second version of the introductory paragraph that Bartholomae presents, the student adds the first-person pronoun “I” and gives his/her opinion about the text. The writer takes the reader through initial reactions/ preconceived notions and then a change in feeling. The first paragraph sounds like a straightforward description, while the revised paragraph reads like a review of it. It is subjective, not objective. This student copied Hoagland’s tone because the prompt asked him/her to understand what Hoagland is doing in his poem.

Thoughts

     I enjoyed Bartholomae’s piece for his examples of student essays. I also liked that this piece included poetry excerpts and reinforced the importance of textual context and reading. I also like his call for papers to include irony, something that I hardly do if ever. It is hard to compare these types of essays with the kind of essays the students will be writing for project 1. Though Bartholomae shares Greene’s idea of putting ideas in conversation with the past, I’m not sure how much room for irony and voice there is in that. On the other hand, I just remembered the essay “Due Today, Due Tomorrow” which challenged a writing construct and had a very strong voice and included irony. So now I am convinced that it is possible.