In her article, “Voice of Authority,” Rosalie Kerns questions the “normative workshop” and details three facets of its typical structure (792). The first is the “gag rule” in which students up for workshop are silenced while their piece is critiqued by the teacher and students. Kearns claims that this practice typifies white, upper middle class, male privilege and may go unnoticed because it bolsters the normative power dynamics in the university setting. Kearns writes, “The gag rule silences those who already feel silenced, thus furthering their feelings of alienation and disempowerment” (794). The gag rule also assumes that the student, if not silenced, would attempt to ruthlessly defend his or her story against criticism. This assumption imagines an arrogant, over-privileged student that is arguably not the norm (794).
Kern’s second complaint with the normative workshop is that the very format of the course assumes, or supports the idea that the work of the student is inherently flawed. The theorist names this the “fault-finding mode” (795). Because of this mindset, the student’s peers may not give the deserved attention to the piece, which, because of it’s nature, might require multiple “rereadings before it can be fully appreciated” (798). Thus perceived plot holes, a lack of character development, or narrative ambiguity could all be the fault of the reader.
While published works are hailed for successful breaks in literary norms, these breaks are seen as accidents or faults in student pieces. Kearn writes, “When others detect what they think of as some violation of an aesthetic norm, they assume the author has made a mistake rather than a deliberate artistic choice to disrupt reader expectations or experiment with something new” (793). The same could be said for the composition classroom where students are in that classroom because of their unsuccessful writing skills. Their teachers might assume a work is flawed if it breaks a technical literary norm. This disadvantaged setting also “ignores the context in which we learn to appreciate fiction or poetry. We often read a work...with expectations that the work is important, interesting, and of high quality” (Kearns 794). Constant rejection and negative criticism stifles the generativity of a student. Altering teacherly attitude would certainly aid this issue.
Also implicit in the normative workshop format is the propelling of student and teacher aesthetic preferences. Kearns claims that in finding a fault, the teacher or the student’s peers are “thus presuming a norm and should be expected to have a discussion with the author about why a device might work in a published story, what else the published author does with the device, how specifically the workshop author could utilize the device more effectively, and so forth“ (798). This, of course, would rely on the student or teacher having the literary library to back up their claim, which is one of Kearn’s suggestions for a new workshop format. Kearn suggests more study of literary works, a course on appropriate critique etiquette , a recasting of student work as “in process,” and a more descriptive cast of criticism (801). All of these suggestions would benefit the English composition classroom as well.
Kearns, Rosalie M. "Voice of Authority: Theorizing Creative Writing Pedagogy." College Composition and Communication. 60.4 (2009): 790-807. Print.
Kern’s second complaint with the normative workshop is that the very format of the course assumes, or supports the idea that the work of the student is inherently flawed. The theorist names this the “fault-finding mode” (795). Because of this mindset, the student’s peers may not give the deserved attention to the piece, which, because of it’s nature, might require multiple “rereadings before it can be fully appreciated” (798). Thus perceived plot holes, a lack of character development, or narrative ambiguity could all be the fault of the reader.
While published works are hailed for successful breaks in literary norms, these breaks are seen as accidents or faults in student pieces. Kearn writes, “When others detect what they think of as some violation of an aesthetic norm, they assume the author has made a mistake rather than a deliberate artistic choice to disrupt reader expectations or experiment with something new” (793). The same could be said for the composition classroom where students are in that classroom because of their unsuccessful writing skills. Their teachers might assume a work is flawed if it breaks a technical literary norm. This disadvantaged setting also “ignores the context in which we learn to appreciate fiction or poetry. We often read a work...with expectations that the work is important, interesting, and of high quality” (Kearns 794). Constant rejection and negative criticism stifles the generativity of a student. Altering teacherly attitude would certainly aid this issue.
Also implicit in the normative workshop format is the propelling of student and teacher aesthetic preferences. Kearns claims that in finding a fault, the teacher or the student’s peers are “thus presuming a norm and should be expected to have a discussion with the author about why a device might work in a published story, what else the published author does with the device, how specifically the workshop author could utilize the device more effectively, and so forth“ (798). This, of course, would rely on the student or teacher having the literary library to back up their claim, which is one of Kearn’s suggestions for a new workshop format. Kearn suggests more study of literary works, a course on appropriate critique etiquette , a recasting of student work as “in process,” and a more descriptive cast of criticism (801). All of these suggestions would benefit the English composition classroom as well.
Kearns, Rosalie M. "Voice of Authority: Theorizing Creative Writing Pedagogy." College Composition and Communication. 60.4 (2009): 790-807. Print.