{"id":6700,"date":"2007-02-20T15:30:52","date_gmt":"2007-02-20T15:30:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.earthwidemoth.com\/blog\/2007\/02\/20\/carnival-trimbu\/"},"modified":"2007-02-20T15:30:52","modified_gmt":"2007-02-20T15:30:52","slug":"carnival-trimbu","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.earthwidemoth.com\/blog\/2007\/02\/20\/carnival-trimbu\/","title":{"rendered":"Carnival: Trimbur and Writing Studies"},"content":{"rendered":"\u23f3 Approximate reading time: <\/span> 3<\/span> mins<\/span><\/span>

Following Donna’s
\n
\nrenewed call<\/a> for the late February Trimbur carnival, here are a couple of
\nfloats<\/i> in response to
\n
\n"Changing the Question: Should Writing Be Studied?"<\/a> from Composition
\nStudies<\/i> 31.1 (2003). <\/p>\n

For now I’ll try to keep it to just two or three ideas. I’ve heard
\npassing mention of "writing studies" as an alternative name for the knot (bow?)
\nwhere rhetoric and composition are tied together. When I used it myself
\nonce, I think someone suggested that the "writing studies" designation is
\ntypically claimed by discourse analysts–those whose encounters with texts are
\nmeasured for pattern and (ir)regular features. Perhaps that’s only of value
\ninasmuch as it sheds light on my own baggage with the phrase: a moment of
\ncorrection, definition, and re-association. And whether this is right or not is
\nless the point, I think, than the contemplation of writing studies’ orientation
\nto particular methods and research agendas. As I read Trimbur’s article, I also
\nthought about another passing conversation with a colleague who described
\nsomeone else’s work in film this way: "[S.h]e does film studies, not production.
\nStudents who take film classes want production rather than all of the history,
\ntheory, and methodology that go along with film studies. They’re impatient
\nand even bored with film studies<\/i>." That was the gist of it, anyhow.
\nOut of this half-remembered conversation comes one question about a shift from
\nworkshop to seminar room and toward writing studies: at the cost of what?<\/i>
\nIf the answer is that we study<\/i> writing (n.) at the expense of writing (p.v.),
\nthe proposition becomes considerably messier. Of course, nobody is saying
\nthis explicitly, but to what degree is a quiet displacement of something else
\nimplied by the asking? <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

At SU, we’re in a somewhat unique situation with a standalone writing program
\nand a bona fide<\/i> writing minor (also an undergraduate major inching toward
\napproval and formalization). English majors at SU take up a program of
\nstudy in what is called "English and Textual Studies." I don’t know a
\nwhole lot about the curriculum, but the "Textual Studies" addition has always
\ngiven me pause. As a generic concept detached from actual curriculum and
\nteaching practices, it sounds an awful lot like a bridge between the work done
\nin the writing program and the English Department (even if it’s something more
\nlike the
\nK\u00f6nigsberg bridge<\/a>). Where is the slippage between "textual studies" as it
\nmatches with the work of colleagues in literature and "writing studies" as the
\nbasis for a four-year undergraduate curriculum?<\/p>\n

Finally, for this entry at least, I’m interested in the relationship among
\nthe three questions Trimbur poses: 1. Can writing be taught? 2. How can writing
\nbe learned? 3. Should writing be studied? Changing<\/i> the question suggests,
\nin a certain sense, that Trimbur treats these questions as substitutive rather
\nthan additive or accumulative. Even as the discipline has matured, the
\nstaggered development of programs and practitioners leads me to think the
\nquestions should be additive–a layered, nested and continuous flow of
\ninquiries. I mean that we mustn’t too hastily retire either of the first
\ntwo questions simply because they’ve been thought through and addressed by
\nothers before us. <\/p>\n

Related:
\nDonna’s
\n
\nBelatedly: Trimbur and "writing studies"<\/a>
\nJeff’s The Call to Write<\/a>
\nCollin’s
\nTrimbur Calling<\/a>
\nBill’s Trimbur, “Should Writing Be Studied?”<\/a>
\nJenny’s Studies of Writing (Carnival Post)<\/a>
\nJeff’s The Call to Write II: Critical Gestures<\/a>
\nAlex’s Trimbur Carnival<\/a>
\nLance’s (Carnival.) To Trimbur: Yes.<\/a>
\nNels’s “Write Me a Letter…”<\/a>
\nJeff W.’s Writing Studies I<\/a> and II<\/a><\/p>\n

Added: I couldn’t resist running Trimbur’s essay through
\nTagCrowd<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n