The Writing Game: 1977 to 2012

We all know writing is an aid in learning. That is not the issue for us as English and Comp/Rhet students. At first it may seem like Emig’s article only states the obvious. But the importance of the article is not in restating what we already know, but in mapping out this knowledge itself and weaving it through data in other fields. Emig’s article is a breath of fresh air. Partially because I simply am fascinated by writing itself, but also because it is important to understand the psychology of writing and combing the tangle of thoughts out into prose.

I liked this statement:

“A silent classroom or one filled only with the teacher's voice is anathema to learning” (Emig 123).

But it does make me question if it helps her argument. This is because she focuses on writing and the cognitive processes it entails, but here she is going back to old-fashioned Socratic method and dialog. Both are fine and accentuate each other. However the “second-order” mode of thought that writing forces upon us is an enhancement of reflective consciousness. It, to me at least, enhances perception (and apperception). Nathan made a comment a few weeks ago about the benefits of writing and I see Emig making the same point. I wholly agree: writing effects a strengthening of the cognitive faculty, whatever that may be. What I picture is that it makes the mind more receptive to “concepts.”

There is one passage I would question. Emig writes that “[w]riting is stark, barren, even naked as a medium; talking is rich, luxuriant, inherently redundant” (Emig 124). This statement must be taken in a specific sense. The problem I have with it is that “writing” is beyond this. I situate “writing” to other media, not just the lettristic, but the graphic. After all “graph” means “write” (if I’m not mistaken). Cinematography, Choreography, and other “graphies” I place much value in. The specific “graphy” Emig is dealing with, however, certainly facilitates conceptualization (and abstraction, what I would like to say is a kind of “Pure Reason”).

Lastly, Emig states that “unless the losses to learners of not writing are compellingly described and substantiated by experimental and speculative research, writing itself as a central academic process may not long endure” (Emig 127). In this I wonder what her tone is conveying. To me, I worry that other disciplines don’t recognize the importance of writing. Even in English—Yes English!—there was much theorizing against writing, mostly after Emig’s article (1977), after waves of Cultural Theory swept through the Departments. Well, Emig’s article is a good look into the psychology of writing. What it really justifies is the existence of our field. In case some of us didn't know, English is a bit shakier ground than some other fields. We need people to step up and let them know how the field is marked is how the game is played.