Erin Daily
ENGL 4320
Dr. Gaillet
March 1, 2004
Elbow, Peter. Everyone Can Write: Essays Toward a Hopeful Theory of Writing and
Teaching Writing. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. 475 pgs. ISBN 019-510416-1. $18.88
Peter Elbow has been an active member in the field of composition since he wrote
Writing Without Teachers in 1973. His ideas fall in or near the expressive camp, valuing
the authenticity of the writer’s voice. Expressionism is only one of many approaches to
composition. The field of composition today is quite disjointed. Many feel that the field
requires more of a sense of unity in order to be recognized as a legitimate discipline. The
field can’t seem to reach a solid agreement on the big issues it currently has to face: How
should we treat basic writing? How should we deal with minority dialects? How can we
even the score between literature and composition? How can we improve students’
writing?
In Everyone Can Write: Essays Toward a Hopeful Theory of Writing and
Teaching in Writing Peter Elbow answers these questions and others while maintaining
his belief that the answers can be found by accepting multiple views. Peter Elbow writes
to his fellow academics who have the responsibilities of writing on their own and
teaching writing to their students. He presents his own views as solutions to problems
common to academics in the field of composition. Elbow emphasizes the idea that it is
not necessary for the whole field to agree on a certain set of tenants or theories. We
should really try to give them all a fair chance, and accept as many as we can, even if
they are contradictory. His belief that we should accept multiple views explains his
affinity for defending the little guys, the views that few people agree with, in almost
every essay in the book. In his words, “I am trying to stand in two places at once:
crouching down in the trenches as I fight for one position, but also standing above on a
lofty promontory and affirming all positions” (xvii). He wants to celebrate the diversity
in the field, not eradicate it.
He offers practical solutions to the struggle between literature and composition,
dealing with minority dialects in student writing, and the problems inherent in basic
writing classes. With the goal of improving students’ writing in mind, he fights for the
validity of voice, the importance of “binary thinking,” the shortcomings of holistic
grading, and entangled in it all, the benefits of low-pressure writing.
I must pause here for a little nitpicking. I strongly disagree with Elbow’s use of
the term “binary thinking.” He himself points out that this is not really what he means.
He is not advocating that we see everything from two different points of view; he is
advocating that we see varying viewpoints. Thus, binary, referring specifically to two, is
highly misleading. If he simply could not find a term that fit what he was trying to say,
he ought to have made one up to fit his purposes.
Freewriting, the form of low-pressure writing he focuses on the most, is the most
prominent idea in the book, so it deserves some attention. He believes that this type of
writing will help students in a number of ways: 1. Freewriting allows for a freer flow of
ideas, whereas the pressure to write correctly stifles the ideas. This free flow of ideas
encourages metadiscourse and surprise ideas, both of which Elbow holds in high esteem.
When the students are simply writing what comes to mind they are more apt to talk to
themselves and to come up with ideas they didn’t know they had. 2. Freewriting often
has a livelier voice than formal writing, and this lively voice can be a valuable tool. 3.
Freewriting is easier than formal writing and can serve to build students’ confidence and
help them to identify themselves as writers, one of Elbow’s biggest goals for his students.
He wants his students to “find writing as an occasion of discovery and of getting to know
and appreciate [their] own mind” (88). Not to say that he doesn’t value correct writing;
he believes that freewriting will lead to livelier and more thoroughly thought out correct
writing, but he finds no need to defend correct writing because it is already accepted as
good.
I tried to adhere to Elbow’s freewritng methods to write this review. Here are a
few of my comments on the process. The freewritng did make me come up with ideas I
may not have had otherwise; it made me feel smart and gave me confidence in my
writing ability. Just to sit down and type for an hour and then to see the multitude of
words I could produce in such a short time was empowering. While I had a hard time
holding onto that confidence when I sat down to write anything formal was noticeably
diminished by the idea that I knew I had plenty to say. In fact, I now feel like I have too
much to say, more than I could ever fit in a few pages. I’m not sure how much the
freewriting will improve the final product, but at least it makes the act of producing it a
little less painful. And that is certainly good in itself.
Elbow concedes that many of his ideas come form his personal experience of
finding his own writing stifled by high pressure as a student and writer. In fact, he brings
it up so many times it is impossible to forget. He never fails to walk the reader through
the thought processes that lead to his conclusion. This thinking on paper allows the
reader to see many sides of the issue, which is exactly the way he advocates that we
should all look at things. In this way, his writing is more expository than argumentative
in that it fully explores an issue. Elbow’s exploratory style has some good and bad
effects. On the bright side, it provides for rich bibliographies, with sources that explore
the problem from a variety of viewpoints. Also, by giving the reader information that he
might otherwise need to infer from the text, it allow for an easier and fairer evaluation of
his argument. On the other hand, it draws the essays out to twice the length. Busy
readers who simply want to gather the information and run with it could become annoyed
or frustrated with his roundabout approach. “I don’t care about every single experience
and thought that you’ve had that lead to this conclusion,” they might say, “I care about
the conclusion itself.”
The fact that Elbow explores many sides of each argument is only one of the ways
in which he maintains a consistency with his root ideas. Throughout the book, he
advocates the same ideas in a variety of different forms and settings. This repetition of
ideas can be good and bad. Consistency is good, right? But redundancy is bad. Of
course we can expect a certain degree of redundancy in a collection of essays all written
by the same author, but not all written for the purpose of this book. Most of the essays
were previously published and have just been pulled together to create this book,
however Elbow could have chosen to revise the essays in order to avoid redundancy. Is
this redundancy a handicap or is it repetition as a rhetorical device? It certainly worked
as a way to highlight his main ideas, even to beat them into my brain. Binary thinking is
good, low-pressure writing can be a valuable too to improve students’ thinking and
writing abilities, voice is a valid device that can improve writing, and students will write
better and enjoy it more if the have confidence in their abilities and identify themselves
as writers. I don’t spout these things off because he writes then in his introduction or puts
stars around them; I could have easily dismissed of forgotten them in either case. I
recognize these ideas because they appear over and over again.
Elbow’s discussion of controversial issues dissipates the atmosphere of
redundancy that typifies the middle of the book. The last essay, “Writing Assessment in
the Twenty First Century,” is especially ambitious as it calls for an overhaul of the
system, as opposed to minor changes within the system. The book is structured so as to
call special attention to this essay. In every other section of the book he has three or four
essays followed by “fragments.” In the last section, he has his “fragments” in the middle
so as to end the book with the most radical and resonant essay. This essay calls for a
writing program where students spend as much or as little time as they need to master the
skills. The students would work in small groups in a setting similar to a writing center.
As members of the groups passed the class the group would gain new members.
According to Elbow, the focus here would be on a mastery of writing instead of simply
“serving time” in a writing class. I can only hope an administrator reads this essay and
finds a way to make it work for her school. I think all students would benefit from a
program like this.
Peter Elbow presents valuable solutions to problems in the field of composition
and useful teaching applications. Even if the reader does not agree with is ideas, Elbow’s
exploratory style will get the reader thinking and developing his own ideas. Everyone
Can Write: Essays Toward a Hopeful Theory of Writing and Teaching Writing is an
incredibly useful book for anyone who considers herself a writer or a teacher who is
willing to give Elbow’s ideas some time and consideration.