About fun and pleasure (and pain and expense): I find both and often in a
confused/fugue state when I practice theoria (seeing, spectaclizing) in
pedagogical situations. And yet, lest I confuse in a nonproductive way us
away from the direction I would like this conversation to go in ... for
the moment ... I would not make a distinction between theorizing and
teaching. In many ways people/colleagues are often shocked or
disappointed or scandalized to see how incredibly 'practical' I mostly am in
the classroom. But not always. It depends on the situation, on what's
happening or not happening, on the moment! on what is being called
mer, Hi! As you may not know and most, if not all, people here, I used to
be a jazz musician also. I was a jazz drummer for a long time and studied
"composition" at various schools. When in Boston I studied the
Ellington manuscripts, which had a tremendous impact on me. And I studied
transcriptions of Bird's solos. I studied Bach four-part harmony, etc. I
wrote pieces that, on the one hand, were played by big jazz bands and, on
the other hand, were written for and played as a duet on piano and viola.
So like you, I have kind of background in composition that I cannot not
bring to my own writing and to teaching (theorizing) of writing. There is
music to be taught for all occasions .)>= right?
For me (the drummer, percussionist), if I have to choose between rhythm
and meaning (clarity), I tend to go with the rhythm of the prose instead
of the meaning. (Perhaps that might explain some things .)>= ) When I
finished my recent book, I wanted to list on a separate page all the
different music (i.e., CDs) that I played while writing particular
sections or chapters of the book over a five year period. What I was
listening to (and of course what I was reading, as cited in the
bibliography) had an impact on not only what I said but *how* I said it at
the level of pacing and rhythm. Some sections of the book are feirce and
upbeat tempos; others just mosey along .)>= . But I could not have a
discography along with a bibliography .)>= So it goes.
On Wed, 24 Jul
1996, Albert Rouzie wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> >In our classrooms we have to act. We're paid to act and no
> >amount of postmodern irony will suffice to replace what we're paid to do,
> >what we've taken out loans and other indentures against to do. So our
> >radical angst gets tempered and put to some less idealistic use.
> >Especially since we're stuck coming up with an ideal we can name, because
> >once named and defined, someone'll deconstruct it on us.
> >So maybe this is a good beginning, a good place to begin. How do we
> >act? How do we balance our politics and ethos? What do we teach when we
> >teach writing?
> I am struck by Nick and Victor's seeming separation of what goes on here,
> the theorizing about writing and what we do and classroom practice, not
> there's no difference. But Victor wrote that the play and fun part is this,
> not the teaching, and Nick notes that our own deconstructions have to stop
> in order to teach. Why not turn the question "what is writing?," so suited
> to exploration in electronic discourse, to the students and let them share
> in the fun? Or am I (inevitably) misreading an undercurrent? The
> proposal behind my "why not" is related to Eric and others' idea of linking
> an anti-text to a student site.
> Albert Rouzie
> University of Texas at Austin
> e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Soon to be at: Ohio University, Dept of English, Athens, OH. 45701
> (614) 593-2838
> Home: 386 Rolling Hills Drive, Athens, OH 45701
> (614) 592-6059 (effective 8/12)
> "O for a muse of fire,
> that would ascend the brightest heaven of Invention...."
> Da Bard