"Murray & Strasser"

Pg. 75

2. In what ways, according to Murray, is writing autobiography? Can you categorize the ways that Murray believes writing is autobiography?

            Writing is autobiography because it lets a person show off their voice to the world and to also to show off things you’ve been through or experienced. Your writing is produced from who you are and what you’re going through. Murray says that all writing, in many different ways, is autobiographical and he has no categories on the ways that he believes writing is autobiographical.

5. Consider the implications of Murray’s arguments: If he’s right, how do his ideas change the way you think about writing? Would they encourage you to write any differently than you currently do?

            I really agreed with Murray ‘s argument and his ideas encourage me to try harder and be more open about experiences in my life. Yes, his writing has encouraged me to be more autobiographical in me writing.

6. Consider the last few texts that you have written, whether for school, work, or personal reasons. Consider the ways that these texts are – or are not – autobiography in the sense Murray describes

            Majority of the texts I write about are somewhat autobiography. When I’m writing, I break down and go through the topic, I talk about my experiences. Also, sometimes, I write, depending on what type of writing I’m doing, it still can be autobiography in some sort of way.

Pg. 205

1. Strasser writes that “The devices of grammar and rhetoric remain superficial skills until a writer employs them to express important and powerful feelings, thoughts, and ideas” (para. 1) Why? And do you agree?

            Strasser says that if the devices of grammar and rhetoric remain superficial skills, people would not love their writing and that peoples abilities to construct complicated grammatical structures will not put any meaningful purposes and she’s absolutely correct. I agree because with that happening, the paper wouldn’t be a meaningful thing to read because the writer doesn’t love it and a person don’t put full effort to something they don’t love.

2.What seems to be at issue for Strasser is creating “personally meaningful writing” in response to school assignments. Is there actually anything in Stanley Fish’s advocacy of a writing course that teaches reasoning which would seem to rule out such personally meaningful writing? In other words, is Strasser right to assume that Fish’s insistence on writing in order to exercise one’s grammar will actually lead to meaningless writing?

            Me personally, I don’t think one’s grammar determines if their writing is meaningless because someone’s grammar can be totally off but you can still understand where their coming from and it’s the same way with talk to people, they may don’t speak English in the proper manner, but you can understand where their coming from.

3. In your experience, does school create a separation of mind, body and spirit that Strasser quotes bell hooks as identifying (para. 4)?

            Yes because in school, you have to make sacrifices and some of those are endless nights of studying for quizzes and doing homework, working, and to also juggle your social life. It can be a lot on a person but we just have to try and balance it all out to be good academically.