[A]
Teaching a Metalanguage for Writing
Session H39: Explicit Teaching Why It Works and Why It Fails
CCCC, Louisville, KY, March 2010
W8: Extending Rewriting
Please read the introduction and first three chapters of Rewriting (pp. 1-72).
In Rewriting, I describe a set of moves that writers make in using the work of others: coming
to terms, forwarding, countering, taking an approach. In this assignment, I'd like you to add
to or revise that list of writerly moves.
Find a passage from the most recent issue of Deliberations in which a writer makes what
seems to you a particularly interesting or effective use of another text. You might ask: What
makes a move particularly interesting or effective? I'd reply: When a writer uses a text in a
way that is not well described by the terms offered in my book, that puts a new spin on
coming to terms or forwarding or countering—or that does something altogether different.
In a sense, then, I am asking you to extend my project in Rewriting, to take my approach and
make it your own. Your task is to write an essay in which you point to a way of using texts
that I have not described. There are a number of challenges embedded in this task: You need
to identify a clear example of an interesting move made by a writer in Deliberations, you need
to give that move a name, and you need to show how this new move adds to what I have to
say in Rewriting.
Good luck! I look forward to seeing how you push my work!
Form: Critical essay, about 750-1000 words
Deadline: etc., etc.
—Joseph Harris
Duke University
jdharris@duke.edu
http://www.duke.edu/~jdharris
[B]
Teaching a Metalanguage for Writing
Session H39: Explicit Teaching Why It Works and Why It Fails
CCCC, Louisville, KY, March 2010
New Term
Essay in
Deliberations
Passage
Notes
Krucoff
Christine
relating
Krucoff
33
Marissa
defending
Krucoff
33
Ashley
self-speculating
Wolff
16
Thawley
Liz
interpreting
Thawley
44
Geoff
progressing
Thawley
42-43
Thawley
42-43
Christina
discussing social
effectiveness
Yao
Zach
fully coming to
terms
Yao
22
Joav
clarifying and
refining
Yao
25
Elizabeth
extending
extending
Yao
24-25
Yao
25
Sandeep
connecting
Etc.
AJ
Daniel
backdropping,
filtering, linking
false forwarding
Lim
38-39
Sobel
30
—Joseph Harris
Duke University
jdharris@duke.edu
http://www.duke.edu/~jdharris
Teaching a Metalanguage for Writing
[C]
Session H39: Explicit Teaching Why It Works and Why It Fails
CCCC, Louisville, KY, March 2010
Responses to W8: Extending Rewriting
Sandeep, “Connecting”
This technique of connecting would fall under the umbrella of forwarding, especially if the two
different themes or ideas validate one another and serve to extend each other’s focus. This writer
doesn’t operate on his own with only one set of texts, as Harris’s forwarder does; he is taking two
ideas that perhaps normally would not be discussed together, and tying them together in a
meaningful way. Instead of a one-subject “conversation” (as in Harris’s metaphor [35]), the writer’s
paper becomes an interdisciplinary talk. . . .
Yao exemplifies connecting in her Investigation across Art and Religion, in which she ties together the
underlying motives of terrorisms with symbolism in the violent, surrealist Un Chien Andalou. After
concluding a thorough description of the film, she begins the next paragraph stating, “The violent
imagery … serves a grander purpose, and the same may be said of terrorism” (25). By beginning the
next passage like this, Yao starts the process of connecting the unlikely couple of terrorism and
surrealist filmmaking.
She ties together the “intentional ‘attack’” of violent surrealism and the “workings of terrorism,”
saying that in terrorism “the actual act of violence is often relatively less important than the message
it is trying to convey”—it becomes “symbolically significant” (25), just as in films like Andalou. Her
language is fiercely intent on connecting the “active participation” inherent in appreciating and
understanding both a terrorist attack and a highly symbolic film. The next paragraph begins with
“[i]n both terrorism and surrealism,” which continues the theme of connection and interdisciplinary
discovery. She notes discrepancies between the two ideas—she discusses the simplicity of equating
gruesome images to true acts of violence—but her overall focus is on the similarities between the
two: the “value of stimulating imagery in both scenarios” (26).
Liz, “Interpreting”
What Thawley does in her essay may be seen as “extending”, but there is a difference between
what she does and what Marc does with the topic of professional wrestling and sitcoms. Harris
points out that “in forwarding the idea of a ‘spectacle of subtleties,’ Marc puts his own spin on this
celebration of the popular, arguing that the roots of the sitcom lie not in the excesses of burlesque
or wrestling but in the nuances of domestic drama” (47). Therefore, Marc takes the evidence he has
found from viewing television and applies it to his own idea of societal thinking. On the other hand,
Thawley does the exact opposite: she takes her knowledge and applies it to a text to explain the
significance of that text. Therefore, the act of interpreting is not just a combination of coming to
terms and forwarding, but it also functions in the reverse order. Instead of taking someone else’s
ideas to support one’s own, we take our knowledge to explain another’s intentions.
—Joseph Harris
Duke University
jdharris@duke.edu
http://www.duke.edu/~jdharris
Joav, “Reflarify/Clarifine”
[Yao] starts this passage with a direct quotation from Juergensmeyer’s text regarding the nature
of violence in regards to terrorism. She then proceeds to clarify Juergensmeyer’s statement about the
“deliberately intense and vivid way” terrorists carry out attacks by noting that “These acts of
violence are broadcast across various forms of public media, purposefully dramatic in order to have
a large impact” (25). This sentence gives an explanation for Juergensmeyer’s idea, clarifying why the
nature of terrorist acts are “designed to maximize the savage nature of their violence.” Since
Juergensmeyer does not fully explain himself, Yao takes the liberty to make more sense of his words.
This is similar in some ways to Harris’ idea of coming to terms with a piece, but Yao does more than
just come to terms with the other text. By clarifying the text, she makes it her own, and helps both
herself and Mark Juergensmeyer make their points. In a way, she is also forwarding the text with this
move, adding to its meaning through her explanatory sentence.
After this clarification, Yao goes further in using the text by refining what Juergensmeyer has to
say. Though it may seem that she is countering what he has to say when she replies “This intended
effect, however, seems to be misconstrued and backfires,” (25) she is actually making what
Juergensmeyer has to say sharper. . . . Yao refines Juergensmeyer’s broad ideas, making his writing
clearer while supporting her own words.
The power of these moves is their one-two-punch combination. Clarifying the words of other
authors helps the writer come to terms with the text. Refining forwards the thoughts of both writers.
In combination, these moves help the reader understand what is going on while giving him or her a
clearer picture of the author’s ideas. Not quite extending what Juergensmeyer has to say, Yao instead
fills in the gaps where he does not fully support his words. The words are Yao’s, but the ideas are
shared between her and Juergensmeyer.
—Joseph Harris
Duke University
jdharris@duke.edu
http://www.duke.edu/~jdharris