another response

Lee-Ann M. Kastman Breuch’s ....“Pedagogy”.... is a counterpoint article in comparison to what we've been reading recently. Where as the 'process' that goes into composition, and how that process is taught has been the focus of our studies, Breuch's declares that this idea is reducing writing to "a series of codified phases that can be taught”. She seems to suggest that it makes writing almost automatic, a mechanized program that paradoxically inhibits the composition process. I can see where she is coming from, but for me, she didn't really transform my opinion. Her perspective seems to be from an expressionist, emphasizing a personal creativity and way of being. I myself believe that the writing process is great for composing, as long as it used as a guideline, rather than a literal interpretation. The "post- process" theory she presents is confusing because it is vague. What I do gather is that writing in this paradigm is supposed to be public, interpretive and situated. Writing is public because it is a communicative process, and I like that philosophy because it involves an audience. Writing is as well, very interpretive; some more so than others. Some writing is precise, some inspires abstract thought or entertainments. The notion that writing is situated goes without saying for me. It's a lot like saying luck is circumstantial, when of course, it is.
Over all, I like Bruesch's article because it is a different way at looking at composition, writing, and how its taught. Even if nobody agreed with her perspective, it should valued for its approach. Compositional theory, like any theoretical approach, is dependent upon such arguments to help guide writers to their eventual goals. For this reason, above all the content, I enjoyed the article.