Reading Response

The first two chapters of Butler’s Out of Style had provided a historical context to the debates surrounding style and invention. The third chapter situates the debate in the more recent developments in the disciplinary practices. Butler’s claim that style has been an integral part of the process era writing instruction goes against the general perception. A detailed review of the current practices leads Butler to claim that ‘the attempt to dichotomize style and invention reflect an incomplete characterization of the canon’ (62) and that there is a strong tradition of inventional style. The idea that form and content are not mutually exclusive ends of a dichotomy but are ‘organically coexist’ means that style isn’t an addendum to the writing process, or a make over that adds some glitter to the written text sounds logical and natural. So when Lacan theorizes the complex workings of the mind, the form of his writing becomes emblematic of the complexities of his content. Benjamin’s fragmented and episodic writings foreground the fragmentation and disintegration that is characteristic of the late modernity. Beckett’s absurdity is nowhere more apparent than in the form of his sentences and paragraphs, I must concede, however, that my understanding of some of these theoretical perspectives is awfully limited, and Butler’s book offered an immensely rich review of resources that I should read to grow as an instructor.
After providing a historical context, Ray offered insights on contemporary problems that felt important and relevant. The argument steadily shifted away from a normative or prescriptive view of style, and foregrounded plurality of styles and voices. In chapter 4, Ray approaches this idea from the theoretical perspectives of Elbow and Bakhtin. My first introduction to Elbow was in composition pedagogy course, and his views have left profound imprints on my concepts concerning writing. His view of voice matches Bakhtinian view of double voice in treating voice as a varied and evolving concept which is alive and sensitive to the context. Ray argues in favor of texts in which the writer’s presence serves as an inherent style.
Ray’s views on grammar as an active agent of style contribute to the argument, though he is evidently more guarded toward advocating rhetorical grammar. My experience, both as a student and a writing center consultant, has often made me realize the significance of this problem. An overwhelming majority of clients at the writing center have anxieties about grammar. In one of the courses that I took out of English department, I scored a C grade on writing because I erred in the use of articles. I have always felt that prescriptive grammar and correctness are incredibly popular out of the English departments.
This is precisely the reason why I found the debate about the scholars from the field assuming the role of public intellectuals particularly useful. The incredibly popular view that there is a standard English that every student must produce necessitates a greater engagement with public opinion.
Butler’s book offered more of a review of the existing scholarship, and at times overwhelmed me. Butler’s primary argument is lucid and convincing, though the enormous range of her survey makes for a great list of suggested readings. I particularly enjoyed Ray’s book, and my favorites were chapters 6 and 7. As an ESL writer, I found Ray’s argument reassuring because I found his views confirming my practices as a language and composition instructor.