Reading Response 5

Brandt writes, "It is interesting to note how a cultural ideal that could have derived from literary reading--the romantic writer as natural genius--plays out in parents' hands-off attitude toward children's writing development" (158).

I’ve noticed recurring the issue of identity and writing in our course readings and discussion. The quote above brings to my mind a topic that we often returned to during my first time in 7050—the lonely writer in the garret. Frankly, I’m both fascinated and stunned that people still maintain the image of a writer detached from his world, committing his genius to paper for the little to read in awe. Looking at testimonies from Brandt clearly dispels this myth.

However, it still exists in our cultural imagination and typically in a negative way. Think back to books, movies, or TV shows—basically any popular media—and bring to mind how writers or literary types are portrayed. You might recall some aloof and sensitive loner type figure, who senses deep meaning in life’s precious, fleeting moments. Often in college hijinx movies, like Animal House, these figures are usually social degenerates who waste their time smoking pot on the job and sleeping with their students. While that is an extreme example, writers as represented in popular culture seem to always be on the outside looking in, with an occasional revelation worth imparting to the average person.

Brandt shows us that idea of a writer is mostly fiction, yet the misconception that ordinary people can’t write still exists. Mostly everyone writes, but their writing isn’t “belle lettres” or literary material. And even then, a close look at the lives of most literary writers show people—with a few exceptions—deeply involved in discourses of their times. They weren’t removed but drawn to their cultures, whither by fascination, disgust, or something in between is relative to the writer.

I imagine that our students have the idea of good writing as literary writing produced by the lonely writer in the garret. As a writing teacher, I think it’s helpful to confront that fiction and tear it apart. While the lonely writer will stay in our cultural imagination, he has no real place in the classroom.

Still, as I think about Brandt’s glimpse into the literate lives of everyday people, I can’t help but think of Berlin’s Marxist agenda where composition and rhetoric are trying to take down the oppressive grip of literary studies. Although I enjoy following these testimonials and challenging the man to a certain extent, I remain somewhat suspicion of what writerly identities these theorists are trying to conceive and produce. If history holds true, the identities of writers have been too far constrained, and we have some way to go before people comfortably identify as writers.

Executive Summary 5: Chapter 5 of Deborah Brandt's Literacy in American Lives

In this chapter, Brandt describes how reading has been culturally valued and writing disdained. Currently, we are seeing a new focus put onto writing as it has gained value in our commercial market.

Brandt indicates reading is associated with pleasant memories and social interaction. Families gather together and read texts aloud. By extension, these people were taught to revere printed materials. While relations to reading varied among families, public schools—and to some extent the church—focused on reading instruction because it was easier to monitor and control than writing.

On the other hand, Brandt’s subjects trace their writing histories with more difficulty than their reading history. Memories of writing invoked thoughts of isolation, ridicule, and hard labor. Parents were far less involved—if involved at all—in their children’s writerly education. Some subjects remarked that writing hardly ever took place at home, but their notion of writing was directly connected with “belle lettres” and not quotidian writing practices like balancing a checkbook.

People also shared a conflicted relationship with writing for school. Although a written document could bring praise from authority figures, often school writing caused anxiety brought from bad grades and noisy peers. Moreover, writing was also used to criticize or satirized those same authority figures in the subjects’ lives.

Brandt ends by addressing the “sacredness” of reading and the “profanity” of writing. Protestant churches, Brandt explains in the beginning, promoted reading so the faithful could understand the Bible, but writing was viewed with suspicion because writing was a socially stratified practice. This idea, of course, has changed. Brandt seems to suggest that today writing is valued as commercial product and output, and this idea is changing what we consider as literacy.

Quotes

148: "The new literacy is often characterized as an ability to go beyond rote skills of deciphering text into the more mentally challenging levels of interpretation and critical reasoning."

148: "Writing is the productive member of the pair, and with literacy now a key productive force in the information economy, writing not only documents work but also increasingly comprises the work that many people do."

151: "Nevertheless, reading and the teaching of reading were widely considered as a normal part of responsible care of young children in many households. The heavy hand of mothers in organizing book-based activities indicates the close association between reading and child rearing."

153: "There was a reverence expressed for books and their value and sometimes a connection between reading and refinement or good breeding."

154: "Compared to reading, writing seemed to have a less coherent status in collective family life, and much early writing was remembered as occurring in lonely, secret, or rebellious circumstances."

157: "For Ames's grandmother, writing was just a necessity for her job and not thought of as a separate activity or skill to be passed along for its own sake."

158: "It is interesting to note how a cultural ideal that could have derived from literary reading--the romantic writer as natural genius--plays out in parents' hands-off attitude toward children's writing development."

162: "[Writing as a purge or vent] tended to occur at times of crisis: death, divorce, romantic loss, incarceration, war.

166: "If writing in school was more associated than reading with emotional conflict, surveillance, and punishment, it also could be associated with sharper pride and individual accomplishment."

166: "Sub rosa writing was used to comment on school authority."

167: "Though parents do not hesitate to endorse and promote reading, their involvement with children's writing seems more restricted and circumspect."