Friday, July 22, 2011
Genre Features: Murray Blurring the Lines
Murray's article was published in a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal, yet it does not share the typical features of that genre (in this case, "scholarly article" is the genre). Murray's writing is more informal, more "creative," and easier to read in some ways. Make a list of the ways that Murray's article is different from the other scholarly articles in this chapter. Now consider the opposite. Make a list of the features that mark Murray's article as belonging to the genre of "scholarly article." What are some reasons why Murray would have wanted to break out of the usual 'rules' for writing in the scholarly genre? What features of scholarly articles did he have to keep in order to still be heard by his audience (teacher-scholars who read College Composition and Communication)? [Due: end of day Friday]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Murray believes:
ReplyDelete-writers should write autobiographically
-writers should keep their writing personal
-writers should not limit their reflective narrative to a single genre
-students should not be made to write on different genres, rather to write and rewrite in pursuit of those few subjects which obsess them
Out of all the ideas presented thus far in the college reader, I feel Murray's identifies the closest to the method in which I write. I think many of his concepts are very true, particularly his statement about how just as writing is autobiographical, so is reading. When I read, I take in the information, mesh it with my life experiences, and then process the writing from that point. It all takes milliseconds, but I don't deny that it happens.
While Murray deviates from what has been established in the field of academic writing, he still upholds many of the existing ideas, such as the idea of research, and it's purpose to instruct.
I DO agree with you Dr. Charlton, when you said that Murray’s article was easier to read. He made his article more interesting, more personal, with a point to prove, but creative at the same time. He explain and gave examples; because of the way the article was written it made it more interesting to read (my own opinion – read it without falling asleep or taking a break).
ReplyDeleteWell, Murray’s article still falls under the “scholarly article” category because he is presenting a different way of seeing our own writing. He is challenging some of the rules we have forever been taught like “don’t use I in your wiring” or “research writing is purely factual and objective”. He was able to write his documents with his personal touch without using the “I” in them, since he believes that all writing is autobiography. He explains that in his writings not everything is true, he combines truth with fiction. He thinks that the teachers should not limit reflective narrative to a single genre and that they should not make the students write on many different subjects but rather encourage them to write and rewrite in pursuit of those few subjects they like.
Some of the reasons why Murray would have wanted to break the usual “rules” for writing in the scholarly genre are: His own personal perspective that the persons/students should write about what they like and enjoy. The truth behind “all reading is autobiographical” since it identifies the writing with the author. To demonstrate to students that they can still write in a personal way without using the “I” all through the document. And maybe to encourage students to write, by demonstrating that writing is not as complicated as other writers make it seem.
Some of the features he kept in order to still be heard by his audience (teacher-scholars) are: encouraging students to write about their likes. Being able to express the facts and fictions in one same document. The capacity to add a personal touch to the articles without making it too personal. To demonstrate that at the end all writing is an autobiography of that person writing it. Maybe by doing this students would be encouraged to put more emphasis to their writings, knowing that at the end others would identify with them through their articles.
After reading Murray’s article I feel it was easier to read. I’d like to agree with Sandra, “He explained and gave examples; with made it more interesting to read. I feel that Murray believes writers should: “support the exploration of autobiographical themes, should not move away from personal or reflective narrative, they should not limit their reflective narrative to a single genre, and that students shouldn’t be forced to write in different genres, rather to write and rewrite in pursuit of those few subjects which obsess them.”(Wardle pg.64)
ReplyDeleteI believe Murray still falls under the “scholarly article” category because he is showing us a different way of seeing and writing our own stuff. Maybe he would have wanted to break the usual “rules” for writing in the scholarly genre because he believes people should be able to write about what they want to write about and what makes them happy. Writing about what people want to write about and what makes them happy are some features that he wanted to still be heard by his audience (teachers-scholars). It’s a new way of others being able to add a personal touch and expressing facts and opinions.
Murray’s article was a much easier article to read because it was more interesting to read. It was more personal and had stories and poems which were fascinating to read. His stories were mainly fiction but he told them as if they were realistic and personal the way he wrote it. He was able to combine what is true and fiction, which made his stories that more exciting to read. Murray’s reasons for wanting to break out the rules for writing in scholarly genre are for his truth of writing. In his viewpoint he wants students to be able to enjoy reading and have them learn more interesting ways of writing. Writing doesn’t necessarily have to be true in which it makes reading more enjoyable to the readers and writers themselves. Murray believes what the authors write is all autobiography without using words like “I” because the story isn’t about you. In order for him to be heard by his audience, Murray had to keep certain scholarly articles. Feautures that he kept were the articles that he discussed using fiction and personal writings together. He wants students to be able to write about what they like and what they find interesting. It would help encourage students to be more interested to write and develop new skills.
ReplyDeleteMurray's writing is clearly easier to read, I'm trying to figure our why though. Is it because it wasn't boring? Is it because I can relate to it? Is it because i'm in agreement? Is it because I also put my "own" creativity into my own writing? Or it may just be all of these.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I do, and noticed that Murray mentioned on page 65 is that I create my own story out of his. I realte my experiences with what I read, and I understand the poem and relate it to the time and place that I am in. I dont know if I explained it right. Hopefully I did. :))
Murray's article is considered an "scholary article" because he's giving us a different view of how we can read and write. He's making us aware just as the other's have made us well aware of different tactics to use as we are reading and writing.
I really liked Murray's article because like everyone of us posting agrees that is was not necessarily easy, but I was able to understand it better than the past articles. It kept me more interested; with Murray adding in some of his old poetry and life experiences.
ReplyDeleteMurray's article is different than the rest because he makes a claim that all writing is autography, that you should keep your writing personal and don't focus on just one genre of writing. I agree with what Sandra was saying that Murray was still consider a scholarly article because he gave a different view on how to write and also that he wanted to break the usual mold of student writing because writing using person experiences makes reading it more enjoyable and gives the reader a look inside the person you are.
This article by far has been the most intriguing and the most easiest one to follow. I think it is due to the fact that it captures the attention of the reader better than the other articles did. It didn't seem as confusing and his ideas were made clearer than other writers. Perhaps because he put more of himself in the article and made it a more personal type of writing.
ReplyDeleteI also believe, like Sandra said, his article is considered scholarly because he gave a new view about writing that changes how students usually write.
The features that make Murray different are that he starts off the article by saying “I”. He has already proven his point right off the back. He also uses some of the work he has written such as poems and an excerpt from a novel he is writing. He definitely makes it personal just as everyone else has stated. He also kept my attention throughout the whole article which sets him apart. He pretty much sticks to just observing his own work unlike the other scholarly articles that observe the work from others.
ReplyDeleteHe is still under the genre of “scholarly article” because he is still trying to point out some of the flaws student have, by using rhetorical situation. I feel that Murray wanted to be different because he felt that student don’t want to read to same old same old article with the gigantic words; this is how he kept the attention of his audience. He also used some quotes from his colleagues which I also believe are some features within scholarly articles.
Murray;s article the easiest to read of all the ones we've read so far. It is also one of the most interesting ones also. The way that Murray wrote the article is what captured my attention and made me want to continue reading. It wasn't as confusing as the other articles we have read. The ideas involved in the article were simple and not confusing. Murray involves himself in his article thus making it more personal.
ReplyDeleteWhile Murray's articles is a bit easier and personal, it still is a 'scholary article' due to the fact that just like the other articles we have read it offers us more tips and ideas on how to read and write better.
Murrays article was easier to read cause we can relate to what he is talking out. Murray wanted to break out of the usual because he would write for therapy. Writing his autobiography is his way of making meaning of the life he has led and the the life he is leading and the life he may lead. Murray had to use selective details to try to get his point across but not using details of the details so he could try to relate to a larger audience. Example he mentioned cancer in his article but not what kind of cancer so that his readers can relate when he mentions cancer to all cancers instead of just a specific cancer like colon cancer. Dont know if I made any sense but he wanted his readers to relate in a general way instead of a specific way
ReplyDelete-There is an autobiographical language that has a personal touch
ReplyDelete-An autobiography has creative and inventive elements
-Layer your writing "we make up our own history, our own legends, our own knowledge by writing our autobiography" (pg 64)
-
Murray's article is different from most scholarly articles because it has informal language, and is very personal. He observes his own works and includes his own excerpts to prove his points. He writes in an interesting and narrative way to keep the readers intrigued. He still kept this article "scholarly" because of his knowledge and expertise. He knows what he's talking about. You can just tell by reading the first paragraph. Throughout the article he makes tips and hints to better our writing skills. He wanted to walk away from the usual rules of Scholarly reading just to illustrate his point of "all writing is autobiography" He wanted to show that writing can be personal AND smart. He did a very good job of cutting out chatter. He had to to keep his audience.
ReplyDelete