Comments on: On Fulkerson

By: mike

mike — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:49:40 +0000

Joanna, in addition to the December 1990 “Composition in the Eighties” CCC essay he cites, Fulkerson’s other review essay that I know of is his December 1979 CCC “Four Philosophies of Composition,” where he lists “Neo-Platonic” (Macrorie and Coles), “Neo-Aristotelian” (Corbett), “New Rhetoric” (i.e., Berthoff’s approach, which he favors), and that favorite target of vilification, “Current-Traditional Rhetoric.” I think Jenny’s right that there are a number of similarities to Berlin’s work; I also think there’s a strong indication in Fulkerson’s work that the privileging of literary-text-as-object over writing-as-teachable-and-learnable-process you describe is a holdover from positivist and New Critical notions of the static text as external and objectively knowable truth.

By: joanna

joanna — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 18:24:49 +0000

I agree with you about it being possible to blend the different approaches–I do it all the time–as a creative writer/academic writer/teacher, I know it can be done in the classroom, too.

Here’s a nagging question that I’ll post here, hoping that you or anyone can answer it. Fulkerson writes that this current essay is linked (based on?) two others that he’s already written. He mentions one, but I can’t find the other unless I’ve skimmed over it.(Need bifocals!) Do you know what it is? Have I skipped right past it?

Jenny, I appreciate what you said about comp –I read an excerpt on Clancy’s blog and found myself nodding agreeably about “recreating “writing and its potentials. I think that some of the avoidance of critique of writing is descended from the belief that lit/text is privileged over writing as a thing to be taught. And the danger has always been that learning how to write gets pushed to the side or turned back to the 5 -paragraph tar pit where ideas go to die.

By: jenny

jenny — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 16:59:40 +0000

Congrats on your chapters! It’s a good feeling. And it WILL eventually be done.