Reflect on our readings and discussions and start to construct your own "Theory of Composing;" what does it mean to compose and to do so "effectively?" Draw on all the readings of the course thus far as well as your own life and educational experiences.
From what we've read, the "theory of composing" that I have come up with is based on this: writing has to be personal. All of our readings so far have been similar in the fact that they all discuss rhetoric, methods of persuasion, and techniques for good writing. But for the most part, the descriptions all put an underground emphasis on personal style, and a more personal form of rhetorical situation.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading the "Style" section in Vanderberg's article, that was when I realized that a personal touch was the basis of my own theory of composition. He discusses how personal style makes writing really stand out from a landscape, and compel a second look from the audience. What audience would want to read the same kind of writing over and over? What audiences are looking for, no matter what the subject matter, is a form of writing that is refreshing. The style of writing should be able to completely capture the reader, no matter what the writing is about.
To compose, as a whole, means to bring ideas together. To do so effectively means that a writer must use all of the components of composing (with a particular emphasis on their personal style). In my own educational experience with writing, I've found that I get the best reactions from the audience when I stick to my own style, rather than try to mimic the methods of others. In order for and authors writing to be effective -- whether they're focus is on rhetorical situation or more on the theory of composing -- sticking to their own methods and techniques (whiles still following certain guidelines) is a must.
Wow. What a consideration: “start to construct your own ‘Theory of Composing’”. ‘Tis certainly a far cry from the “Wake up-Make Coffee-Get Dressed (Eventually)” enterprise that laced my quiet, spring-centered days over the past few weeks. Sigh… Still, a welcome enterprise, it is. I suppose. Quite frankly, it does feel a bit daunting, but I am definitely curious to see what such a theory-o-mine might look like, given not only my inherent pull towards writing, but also, my innate (WARNING: candid remark ahead!) deep aversion to juxtaposing words like “theory” (which implies the application of intellect), against words like “composing” (which, for me, requires the application of intuition, creativity, and authenticity). But I digress.
ReplyDeleteAs I reflect on our readings and discussions thus far, I suppose the key concepts/terms that are most in line with what I believe to be necessary components of composing effectively are: style, arrangement or form, delivery, audience and Pathos. No doubt I’ll flush out the “how” and “why” these concepts are standouts for me, at a later time…
Over the past ten years of writing songs, poetry and prose (in the form of blogs and newsletters) extensively, and in reading (and re-reading, and repeat…) a select group of books—some specifically on the craft of writing, some brilliant works of fiction and non-fiction, all of which continue to ignite and guide my mind and soul as a wordsmith—I’ve come to develop a few concepts that I feel are crucial components to effective composition. Some examples, in improvised summary, are: less is more; it’s all in the details; write within your world; the truth is always more interesting; the most personal offering is likely the most universal; timing and perspective are, indeed, everything. As noted above, further insight into the meaning and application of such ideas, and others, shall commence at a later date.
Regarding the aforementioned group of books-I-treasure, which have greatly influenced my approach to writing, I am compelled to outline their titles here in closing, in the spirit of a) sharing, b) bringing some focus to how I might go about referencing/applying the teachings I value most within the works to my own theory of composing, and c) ending with a list, because…well, let’s face it, lists are fun:
“If You Want To Write” (Ueland)
“The Art of Nonfiction” (Rand)
“Bird by Bird” (Lamott)
“Telling True Stories: A Nonfiction Writers' Guide from the Nieman Foundation at Harvard University”
“Travels With Charlie” (Steinbeck)
“The Angel Is My Watermark” (Miller)
“Songwriters on Songwriting” (Zollo)
“Self-Reliance” (Emerson)
“So You Want To Be A Writer?” (Bukowski)
Composition, where Aristotle is concerned, is a creation of rhetoric. First off, when composing, one needs to know the audience they’ll be addressing. In Vanderberg’s article, he brings up an argument made by Russell Long: “Rather than beginning with the traditional question, ‘who is my audience?, we now begin with, ‘who do I want my audience to be?’…What attitudes, ideas, actions are to be encouraged?” In that way, you can shape the piece to be exactly what you want it to be, rather than worry about the opinions of those who will read your finished work. “They don’t know what they want; we have to tell them what they want.”
ReplyDeleteFollowing the decision of what you want your audience to be Then, the composition should be arranged to best fit the audience and the medium through which the composition will be presented; one doesn’t necessarily have to follow Aristotle’s method verbatim. Following arrangement, style should be added. Again, one should have the style fit the intended audience; for example, if you wanted teenagers as your audience you’d want to avoid overly complicated words and unnecessary flourishes as it would remove your audience from your point. Not only that, but the style must also reflect the one writing it rather than imitate another’s voice; when it isn’t natural, it isn’t convincing.
In order to compose effectively, you should know what end you’re supposed to meet; that is, what point you’re trying to make. If the finished composition goes on and on, breaking off into different tangents and never reaches a point, not only will the composition lose its audience, but it’s failed to do its one and only job. From very young, I was taught to “write like your audience is stupid”. In that way, you’re forced to break down your point into subcategories and through that your audience is not only engaged more in the material, but your point will be made thoroughly and understood once you’re finished.
To compose is to write. Right? Well, is more than that, of course. Composing is all about the thoughts, our thoughts. Through composing we collect and refine our ideas. When these ideas are brought to our attention, we as composers take the idea and run with it. Then to do it effectively, we look at those aspects that we have talked about like rhetoric, which allows for personalization of our composition. And even with concepts that are as abstracts as rhetoric or collaboration, among many others, we do see that composing is ultimately about us. It’s a personal thing that we want to present to the world.
ReplyDeleteAlso part of composing is about the recipient of our thoughts, our audience. The audience is for whom we compose. We constantly should remind ourselves that we might not necessarily know our audience, but we should be able to project our thoughts through our audience. It is a partnership between the transmitter (Us,) and the receptors (The audience.)
It is ultimately about the idea, and what do we do with that idea. What we should do is to bring it together, which in response brings our audience together. The concepts that we’ve read takes us only so far, since they are ultimately just guidelines into how we should compose. It is up to us to take it to the next level, and it starts with our thoughts and our audience.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the theory of composing is that creating a composition is all about the process rather than about the final product. There are steps that need to be taken in order to create something that will engage an audience. Ever since I was young and was just beginning to learn how to write simple paragraphs and then finally essays, some basic principles were being engraved in my mind along with everyone else at the time. One of these fundamental steps was pre-writing. Everyone remembers this, your teacher would make you “brainstorm” topics and have you write them on a scrap sheet of paper and then choose a few that you would like to write about. Then they would have you make either a “word web” or an outline or whatever you were taught to make, in order to organize main ideas with supporting details to form the framework of your paragraphs. The next step was creating that introductory paragraph that contained your thesis statement, laying out your thought process for the rest of the composition, all the while explaining yourself and your purpose for writing on the topic. For the next couple paragraphs you would argue, persuade, inform or what have you and would summarize with a paragraph that 97% of the time began with “In conclusion…” And as long as this was done, your little 4th grade self got an A. Even up until high school, aside from expecting slightly better vocabulary and a longer word count, this basic format alone was all that was required of me.
ReplyDeleteAs I started taking more demanding classes later on in high school and through college, I learned that composing is heavily influenced by the audience you are speaking to and they need to be taken into account. This is where I first started learning about rhetoric and its canons, Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory and Delivery. These aspects of composition had always been there and I had probably noticed plenty of them in things I had read but I never knew that these things were done consciously in order to connect with the audience in different ways. I started thinking about invention and how it’s simply coming up with something to talk about. I’VE BEEN DOING THAT THE WHOLE TIME. Never did I think, however, that I was going through the Invention stage or canon in my composition. And that apparently my word webs and outlines from elementary school were me going into my arrangement mode! Could I even spell “arrangement” back then? Style came a little later in life once I had gotten the basic writing structure down but even when I did start to begin my essays with a QUESTION, I had no idea that I was being artful with my expression of ideas! With memory and delivery, I mostly learned about them my last year of high school and all through college. They were explained to me in depth in a speech class I took senior year and have been reiterated in classes in college where I’ve had to present or turn in a print or digital project. Actually, now that I think about it, in 5th grade I had to do a presentation on Thomas Jefferson (all the while dressed like him) and I used a mnemonic device to remember what his vocations were. The word APES reminded me that he was an Architect, a Philosopher, an Engineer, and a Scientist; now it reminds me that I knew about the memory canon 11 years ago!
Which brings me to the present and to our WEPO class, where I’ve learned almost as much about writing and composition in two days as I have in the previous 16 years of schooling. For example, in the Bitzer reading assigned last class, there was an analogy for rhetoric to a fisherman and his instructor. The instructor would only shout out instruction when he felt the situation called for him to tell the fisherman what to do. This opened my eyes to the rhetorical situation and how rhetoric is all about having reason to address something and doing so. Also, one of the most interesting analogies I’ve heard regarding rhetoric was in Bitzer where he stated that a man who spends his whole life writing eulogy after eulogy for no one in particular is not being rhetorical but if by odd coincidence there happened to be someone who fit the description of one of the characters of his eulogies, then that eulogy would become rhetorical. Further, the most recent readings we had by Vandenberg and Covino/Jolliffe were really insightful as far as reassuring to me my view of composition as being about the process and not the product. Vandenberg went in depth on every aspect of composition I could think of and gave me a great understanding of what it means to cover each aspect adequately. Covino/Jollife’s Key Concepts in Rhetoric was really good at showing me what different composers throughout time have valued or focused on when dealing with rhetoric and was just very interesting to see such varying views on the matter. Overall, I feel as though I at least have the knowledge to be a better writer and composer with what I have learned up to now.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that coming up with my own theory of “composing” might come a bit easier than I initially expected. Everything that we have read is a form of composition. Everything that we have discussed is a form of composition. To a slight extent, a simple thought can be made into a composition. In my eyes, just about everything can be composed.
ReplyDeleteBy all means I am not trying to say that the title of a child’s toy is composition, but the thought behind it and the brainstorming that happened behind the scenes can be considered such. In many ways, just throwing your ideas on paper and then rewording them into an essay can be considered a form of composition since there was, at the very least, the slightest train of thought that went into what you put down.
I guess what I am trying to say is that anything that had some educated thought put into it can be formed into a composition. I may not agree with everything we have read so far, but it was still thought out in depth and put down on paper for others to read. I do not feel that composition should be limited to just print (online or elsewhere) since there are other means to get ideas to people. The mass networking of media nowadays is the most common form of composition. At any given time there is someone out in the world talking to another person or broadcasting the news or sports on television or radio. They still have to put thought into what they say and then try to say it in the most professional way possible (at east if they are in the media itself).
Coming from someone who wants to join the media, it hurts to say this, but why would someone want to go out and buy a newspaper when they can just as easily go online and get the same article at the push of a button? Even more so, why would someone take the time to read the article when they can just as easily find the same news, put in a different way, through television and radio? I look at the media as the ultimate form of composition, but through many different ways of reaching its audience.
From what I have learned about “Theory of Composing” is that if you write about something you enjoy, the flow, style, and audience will come naturally. Audience is essential when composing a writing effectively. Audiences are the people who ultimately criticize your piece that involves your own style of attitude, action and ideas. How you compose the paper is also the way the audience will perceive it. When talking about an idea, know how to smoothly talk about it to make the paper flow effortlessly with creativity. For instance Vanderberg says, “an accepted, imposed, or expected way of writing that is shared by both reader and writer” (pg. 20). Since more people use the internet, a good way to get your word out to a large audience would be to post your thoughts there instead of being selective to one group of people.
ReplyDeleteA good structure for composing a piece of writing would also be effective if you used the five cannons of rhetoric. The structure of invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery are all great ways to write a paper or tell a story to an audience. In my opinion, the five cannons make sure there are a beginning, middle and end. The points in the paper come across vividly with the style of writing you choose. How you stand out and use the choice of words you use is style. Style creates pleasure in reading and shows what type of person the writer is.
In addition to the five cannons of rhetoric, form, revision, and process also take a role to the “Theory of Composing”. Form is something that is instinctive. You already know how to make put together sentences, unless you are having writers block. Process and revision seem to go hand-in-hand. The process of writing a paper is most enjoyable when you write about something you like to talk about. If not the process can be quite difficult. Clearly voicing the way you feel about a subject matter is what I think process is. After the process of the paper is done next comes revision. Revising your paper can help greatly with reforming your style, but it doesn’t always mean that it will make your paper more effective. Although revising is a good attribute that always should be done, keep in mind that it doesn’t always make the paper better.
“Theory of Composition” involves having something ideal to talk about that you can give facts and opinions to an audience. You need to have a good structure and flow of the paper to make it enjoyable to the reader. Revising can sometimes make the paper more stylistic and understandable. This is in my opinion, is the way I would effectively compose a piece of writing.
The theory of composition is truly a very broad topic when it comes to the reading we have done thus far. It is very dependent on who is author of the rhetoric composition, and greatly is emphasized on your personal opinions of what rhetoric writing means to you. To me, rhetoric writing is focused heavily on the audience and the delivery method by which it is presented. Bitzer and Vanderberg all heavily emphasize the importance of who are your viewers and what will be the best method of persuasion.
ReplyDeleteI believe the concept of a truly great composition comes from an original and personal point of view. It must be something of importance to you in order to effectively translate to your audience. This can be related to Ethos, Pagos and Logos. When reflecting on these three terms created by Aristotle, if you combine their concepts into one it basically means you must present yourself as a genuine and credible presenter in order to effectively infuse your idea in your audience on both an emotional and intellectual level. This idea itself describes what a successful speech or written selection should be based on.
Rhetorical writing is involved in my life through music. I truly believe that the concept of music being rhetoric dates back all the way to the Middle Ages which reflects “ars grammatica” or the process of verse writing. I believe music can be extremely persuasive especially when it comes to affecting our emotions and attitudes. Music displays this powerful control over our attitudes and beliefs, which according to many of these readings is one of the most important aspects of any composition.
My own theory on composing can be simplified into one rule, stay true to yourself. For any piece of work to hold quality and relevance it must stand out and hold depth. For this to happen it must be an original piece. Depth cannot simply be overlooked, but calls for the beholder to a step back, take a moment to think twice and to second guess oneself over again because a piece of work calls that much attention to itself. When composition is broken down into classes and subclass, each set with its own rules, it becomes this basic framework. The structure of invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery are all elements that form together to create a composition. It is the information, details and what not in these areas that’s creates and holds the gut of the composed piece. It is the method and fashion that is used in the composition that creates the very essence of why that composition is worth viewing. Thus making a piece of work great or not. Think in reference to your favorite song or painting or book. It is your favorite because it stood out to you and made you feel something different unlike anything else. When a song sounds just like the next playing on the radio, it tends to become forgotten and overlooked. Carbon copies are boring. This is why staying true to oneself is so important because people, like a great composition are in essence composed of all the same things. It is in the details and manner of ourselves that sets us apart and makes us unique. If one stays true to themselves when composing it is easy to create something valuable. When reading about style in reference to rhetorics and composition I was happy to find that it is held as such an important aspect in reference to creation. I value when self expression is valued. When looking back on my life, education and memories, the ones that stand a part from the rest are the moments that big and defining. When I say defining I mean something a simple as teachers that I can remember and their lessons that have stuck with me. I have had dozens upon dozens of teachers when looking back on my past education and after middle school I can only remember a handful of their names because I would have several teachers a year due to subject classes. The teachers I remember are the ones that taught me something other than just the classes curriculum. They were different. In composition, as in all areas of life, originality is crucial. It can only be found when following the flow of your own way.
ReplyDeleteWhen thinking of my own “Theory of Composing,” numerous elements began to pop into my head. My theory would consist of composing what you know rather than what you don’t know. I believe it is harder to compose a story or article of any sort when you don’t know what it is you are talking about. For example it is much easier to compose a story about a personal experience compared to writing about something you have never experienced. To continue, a professor once told our class to give the reader something they can relate to. I think this makes the element that you are composing more credible which relates to one of the key terms: ethos .People are more likely to believe a story that seems genuine, and they tend to believe that you know what you are talking about. Continuing, composing something that the “audience” can relate to may even bring forth different emotions and appeal to pathos. I recall reading about how a young girl gave a speech to college student about the effect of drinking and driving. She told of a story where her uncle was killed by a drunk driver leaving her devastated. One her audience was around the age where typical drinking and driving most likely occur, and two her story make the audience more sympathetic. Also, those who have been in her same situation began to empathize with her.
ReplyDeleteAnother component of my “Theory of Composing” would be always revising and making changes to your work. One can always edit and revise previous work to make it better. A composition can never be perfect. In the article by Vanderberg he refers to revision as a “bonding agent,” and when composing you should think of revision just as this “bonding agent.” Revision puts everything together. Whether the revision is making sure everything is grammatical or changing different text around in order to clarify, revision is essential. Grammar ties into revision as well because in order to compose “effectively” there shouldn’t be any errors. When I say effectively I mean so that the audience or reader can digest and understand the composition. Anyone can compose a piece but to do so in an effective manner one must make sure all the elements flow and everything is grammatical. For a composition to be grammatical also ties in with one of the keywords for composition as well. In the reading it talks about how freshman English as the most important course. But in my freshman English class I didn’t learn much and my composition had a lot of grammatical errors. It was very hard for my professor to understand my work. This is why I believe that revision and grammar is an important element of my theory of Composition. This blog may even be filled with grammatical errors, but that’s fine because revision is always a necessary process!
For me composition is both the creative (right-brain) process and the (left-brain) remediation process. Composition is creation, whether it’s writing, music or painting. While it is important to keep the audience in mind, to me the audience is secondary to the creative process. The creative process comes from within a person and through their experiences in life. The more one experiences, the more creative they are. A person does not have to be old to be creative, but they do need to have experienced some sort of conflict or suffering to rise above the shallow and trite.
ReplyDeleteHowever, a composition can not exist on creativity alone. To be effective or beautiful, or moving, a composition needs structure—some sort of left-brained analysis, review or remediation. This where, the creator can rework a piece for an audience or rely on outside input. The five canons of rhetoric mention the importance of functional arrangement (the order of a piece), style (artful expression) and delivery (pacing, volume, timing). Vandenberg talks about the coherence (glue) of a piece, how it holds together and weaves concepts for the audience. He also discusses the importance of form and structure to contain all the various elements, emotions and concepts of a piece. He also overlays structure and form with style (pleasure, grace, delight).