SGarza.Question2FromWillmaWhoOwnsWriting History

Hide minor edits - Show changes to output - Cancel

Changed line 37 from:
I think this question has been around forever. Theories have been formed on who owns the meaning of a text: author, reader, historical context, author's cat. This issue is one that has always concerned me. Not because of the ownership dilema: I absolutely believe the author and reader both own individual interpretations of the words, but what I cannot understand is why we have given this issue soooo much air time. I have an issue with criticism. I believe that everyone should take what they can from writing. Words affect everyone differently. The word "ownership" implies that a work is someones property. Once words are written down, they become the property of all who read them, including the author. Owning writing is just as impossible as owning the spoken word. Once it's out there it belongs to everyone.
to:
This question has been around forever. Theories have been formed on who owns the meaning of a text: author, reader, historical context, author's cat. This issue is one that has always concerned me. Not because of the ownership dilema: I absolutely believe the author and reader both own individual interpretations of the words, but what I cannot understand is why we have given this issue soooo much air time. I have an issue with criticism. I believe that everyone should take what they can from writing. Words affect everyone differently. The word "ownership" implies that a work is someones property. Once words are written down, they become the property of all who read them, including the author. Owning writing is just as impossible as owning the spoken word. Once it's out there it belongs to everyone.
Changed line 36 from:
Respone by Sonya
to:
'''Response by Sonya'''
Changed lines 34-37 from:
----------
to:
----------

Respone by Sonya
I think this question has been around forever. Theories have been formed on who owns the meaning of a text: author, reader, historical context, author's cat. This issue is one that has always concerned me. Not because of the ownership dilema: I absolutely believe the author and reader both own individual interpretations of the words, but what I cannot understand is why we have given this issue soooo much air time. I have an issue with criticism. I believe that everyone should take what they can from writing. Words affect everyone differently. The word "ownership" implies that a work is someones property. Once words are written down, they become the property of all who read them, including the author. Owning writing is just as impossible as owning the spoken word. Once it's out there it belongs to everyone.
Changed lines 31-33 from:
Hesse has set out to clear up the question owns writing? (which we all know is as rhetorical as questions can get), but he made my ideas more confusing than they were before. He says the possible answers are , no one, someone, and depends, but he goes on to that those who teach writing must affirm that we, in fact, own it (1249). The way I see it is everyone who uses it (whether they are good/bad or right/wrong in their writing), owns it. If you pick up a pen or strike a keyboard, a writer, and you own writing. Teachers, professors, CCCC chairs, etc. then, most definitely own writing.

Hesse says he wrote this article he was concerned about external policy groups defining and assessing writing in ways that ultimately limited students and devalued our (1247). Before reading this statement, I felt like Hesse himself was devaluing the students who learn to own writing, but looking back after seeing this, I get a different sense. I see this as a call to arms. A get off your butt, stop second guessing yourself, and take ownership of what is yours. I see his struggle with singing the spirituals as he was conflicted by his own background and his right to use something he paid for. So now this article is an empowering message that even while major influences like CCCC own writing, so do I. This is not to say EVERYONE can and does own writing. The grader DOES NOT own writing. The computer generator writing tester DOES NOT own writing. The computer program that generates essay from on word DOES NOT own writing. And the people who use these programs DO NOT own writing. The power is in the person translating their thoughts onto paper.
to:
Hesse has set out to clear up the question owns writing? (which we all know is as rhetorical as questions can get), but he made my ideas more confusing than they were before. He says the possible answers are , no one, someone, and depends, but he goes on to that those who ''teach'' writing must affirm that we, in fact, ''own'' it (1249). The way I see it is everyone who uses it (whether they are good/bad or right/wrong in their writing), owns it. If you pick up a pen or strike a keyboard, a writer, and you own writing. Teachers, professors, CCCC chairs, etc. then, most definitely own writing.

Hesse says he wrote this article he was concerned about external policy groups defining and assessing writing in ways that ultimately limited students and devalued our (1247). Before reading this statement, I felt like Hesse himself was devaluing the students who learn to own writing, but looking back after seeing this, I get a different sense. I see this as a call to arms. A get off your butt, stop second guessing yourself, and take ownership of what is yours. I see his struggle with singing the spirituals as he was conflicted by his own background and his right to use something he ''paid'' for. So now this article is an empowering message that even while major influences like CCCC ''own'' writing, so do I. This is not to say EVERYONE can and does own writing. The grader DOES NOT own writing. The computer generator writing tester DOES NOT own writing. The computer program that generates essay from on word DOES NOT own writing. And the people who use these programs DO NOT own writing. The power is in the person translating their thoughts onto paper.
Changed lines 29-30 from:
''Samantha''
to:
'''Samantha'''
Changed lines 25-34 from:
Thanks Charlie -- I was a little confused.
to:
Thanks Charlie -- I was a little confused.


-----------
''Samantha''

Hesse has set out to clear up the question owns writing? (which we all know is as rhetorical as questions can get), but he made my ideas more confusing than they were before. He says the possible answers are , no one, someone, and depends, but he goes on to that those who teach writing must affirm that we, in fact, own it (1249). The way I see it is everyone who uses it (whether they are good/bad or right/wrong in their writing), owns it. If you pick up a pen or strike a keyboard, a writer, and you own writing. Teachers, professors, CCCC chairs, etc. then, most definitely own writing.

Hesse says he wrote this article he was concerned about external policy groups defining and assessing writing in ways that ultimately limited students and devalued our (1247). Before reading this statement, I felt like Hesse himself was devaluing the students who learn to own writing, but looking back after seeing this, I get a different sense. I see this as a call to arms. A get off your butt, stop second guessing yourself, and take ownership of what is yours. I see his struggle with singing the spirituals as he was conflicted by his own background and his right to use something he paid for. So now this article is an empowering message that even while major influences like CCCC own writing, so do I. This is not to say EVERYONE can and does own writing. The grader DOES NOT own writing. The computer generator writing tester DOES NOT own writing. The computer program that generates essay from on word DOES NOT own writing. And the people who use these programs DO NOT own writing. The power is in the person translating their thoughts onto paper.
----------
Added lines 22-25:
------------
'''Willma'''

Thanks Charlie -- I was a little confused.
Changed lines 20-21 from:
In a nutshell Hesse claims, who teach writing must affirm that we, in fact, own (1249). He calls us out by asking if can ungate our separate intellectual estates, at least enough to say together, this is what writing is, all of it, and this is how it (1253). Perhaps this is the reason for the smorgasbord of disciplines as you mentioned; many genres, several ideas, and little agreement. In my opinion Hesse peppers his writing with the spirituals to illustrate the notion that its [to] promise the end of enslavement for both students and , when ownership seems to be up for grabs (1255). We have to claim our stance and fight for victory. It seems as though the fight has already been fought, now together must own and own up to writing, not as colonist or profiteers, but as (1260). Does this help?
to:
In a nutshell Hesse claims, who teach writing must affirm that we, in fact, own (1249). He calls us out by asking if can ungate our separate intellectual estates, at least enough to say together, this is what writing is, all of it, and this is how it (1253). Perhaps this is the reason for the smorgasbord of disciplines as you mentioned; many genres, several ideas, and little agreement. In my opinion Hesse peppers his writing with the spirituals to illustrate the notion that its [to] promise the end of enslavement for both students and , when ownership seems to be up for grabs (1255). We have to claim our stance and fight for victory. It seems as though the fight has already been fought, now together must own and own up to writing, not as colonist or profiteers, but as (1260). Does this help?
Added lines 17-20:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'''Charlie'''

In a nutshell Hesse claims, who teach writing must affirm that we, in fact, own (1249). He calls us out by asking if can ungate our separate intellectual estates, at least enough to say together, this is what writing is, all of it, and this is how it (1253). Perhaps this is the reason for the smorgasbord of disciplines as you mentioned; many genres, several ideas, and little agreement. In my opinion Hesse peppers his writing with the spirituals to illustrate the notion that its [to] promise the end of enslavement for both students and , when ownership seems to be up for grabs (1255). We have to claim our stance and fight for victory. It seems as though the fight has already been fought, now together must own and own up to writing, not as colonist or profiteers, but as (1260). Does this help?
Changed lines 11-16 from:
I'm not sure, but I think he's basically saying that no one owns writing - it is too big and enters into too many fields - but at the same time those who understand writing, such as those in the CCCC, are best positioned to define writing, know how it works and do their best to make others understand it as well. I wonder if it isn't prompted by a general sense of panic within the writing world (I know it's present among writers, not sure about academics) that 'official' writing is a thing of the past and thus writing careers are doomed. As you show in your question where you trace through the various forms of writing he introduces, writing exists everywhere there is thought. There is no containing it really and it has broken its institutional bounds in the form of blogs, video and internet. Anyone can and does participate threatening the 'official' view of what writing is or isn't. But this breaking of bounds has always been the case as the spirituals show. I think he is trying to show that there is still a need for someone to understand all the connections of writing and that need is not going away anytime soon - the format might change, but the human process and human effect will remain. I think I'm rambling so I yield the floor ...
to:
I'm not sure, but I think he's basically saying that no one owns writing - it is too big and enters into too many fields - but at the same time those who understand writing, such as those in the CCCC, are best positioned to define writing, know how it works and do their best to make others understand it as well. I wonder if it isn't prompted by a general sense of panic within the writing world (I know it's present among writers, not sure about academics) that 'official' writing is a thing of the past and thus writing careers are doomed. As you show in your question where you trace through the various forms of writing he introduces, writing exists everywhere there is thought. There is no containing it really and it has broken its institutional bounds in the form of blogs, video and internet. Anyone can and does participate threatening the 'official' view of what writing is or isn't. But this breaking of bounds has always been the case as the spirituals show. I think he is trying to show that there is still a need for someone to understand all the connections of writing and that need is not going away anytime soon - the format might change, but the human process and human effect will remain. I think I'm rambling so I yield the floor ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'''From Melissa R.'''

Willma and Wendy I quite sure why Hesse would separate writing and language. If Hesse is going to question owns he might as well ask: Who owns language? This article did not set well with me. I understand that the academic world has put their claws into writing, but writing has been around for centuries, prior to the development of institutions. The one who holds the pen owns writing. The one who speaks owns their language. Why would a scholar such as Hesse, claim that writing has broken away from its institutional bonds? Institutes have attempted to build their walls around writing, but writing has always been larger than the buildings that try to contain it.
Added lines 7-11:

-----------
Response from Wendy

I'm not sure, but I think he's basically saying that no one owns writing - it is too big and enters into too many fields - but at the same time those who understand writing, such as those in the CCCC, are best positioned to define writing, know how it works and do their best to make others understand it as well. I wonder if it isn't prompted by a general sense of panic within the writing world (I know it's present among writers, not sure about academics) that 'official' writing is a thing of the past and thus writing careers are doomed. As you show in your question where you trace through the various forms of writing he introduces, writing exists everywhere there is thought. There is no containing it really and it has broken its institutional bounds in the form of blogs, video and internet. Anyone can and does participate threatening the 'official' view of what writing is or isn't. But this breaking of bounds has always been the case as the spirituals show. I think he is trying to show that there is still a need for someone to understand all the connections of writing and that need is not going away anytime soon - the format might change, but the human process and human effect will remain. I think I'm rambling so I yield the floor ...
Added lines 1-6:
Who Owns Writing
Douglas Hesse

Before reading the essay, my question was: Are all the different styles of writing designated to a specific pedagogy?

Hesse indicates that the members of the CCCC knowledge of what writing is and what it can be, the whole of it in every (1260). In identifying the different spheres of writing, he presented a writing excursion, beginning with Negro spirituals to computer writing; from computer writing to perspectives of professional writing associations; from perspectives of professional writing associations to writer functions; from writer functions to composition; from composition to blogs; from blogs to web sites; from web sites back to the Negro spiritual. At then end of the essay, I think Hesse is referring to the prominent status of the CCCC and the members. However, I don't understand what he is trying to say. Can someone help me to assess his points?