I had trouble with this reading. I think it was because I didn't like the cooking metaphor. I suppose I felt that it didn't quite fit, or that he was trying to force a square peg in a round hole. It just didn't seem right. But I did agree with his theory overall. The idea of using energy, mixing ideas, seeing what works and what doesn't...I see where he's coming from.
His section on brainstorming stuck out to me because I've always been a very private writer, but lately, I've been trying to share my writing with people other than my professors. I've been trying to talk out my ideas and get other people's opinion...and it's working! I'm seeing new perspectives and views that otherwise would have escaped me. Now that my peers actually have something useful to say (other than just correcting my couple misspelled words and saying, "I like it"), I really don't mind peer reviews/workshops. They give me the chance to see what's unclear, awkward, or what just doesn't work. Or maybe I'm totally on point.
I also like the "Goodness and Badness" section on page 69. Sometimes, while writing, I think all my whole paper is crap. At that point, I get up, walk away, eat a snack, run an errand, whatever, and eventually come back. What I come back to is a not-so-bad paper. Some of it's downright good. So, overall, I'm glad for the struggle and the crap I've produced because without it, I wouldn't have written the great stuff.
No comments:
Post a Comment