Considering the Universal to Specific Approach.

Williams really layers his chapters--so far-- with some dense material. Chapter 2 illustrates, nicely, the concept of induction versus deduction approach to writing. The " Bottom-up" system which William describes allows for the obvious flaws in today's writing pedagogy to show itself. The argumentation, which this system ignores, provides the distinction between--I think--synthesized and developing writing and sheer regurgitating of micro- factual information (45).

In our own writing--and this stands out more clearly when we read the writings of others--the realization of audience plays a big part in the effectiveness of the work. Where the contemporary writing pedagogy fails us is effort and constructing with small pieces and trying fit them nicely into the universal. It's more than just dwelling on the mechanics and the parts of the whole; it;s about forgetting the whole itself.

While I must apologize for my lack of adequately and expressively articulating my intended meaning--though as Chomsky may very well have insisted that I have developed an internalized grammar"-- I have yet realized how to express it.

It seems to me that writing owns a place in epistemological circles. I my self had not, as a young child, been exposed to any other form of rhetoric which would allow for the "writing to learn" process to take hold. Simply, as this chapter nicely exposes this shortcoming, my education
has insisted on including literary works that were suppose to expand my thinking powers, reinforce my intellectual mettle to the point where I would bravely go where I hadn't gone before. I would squeeze, extract what I thought to be credible inferences from the works I read. I therefore believed these inferences made me smarter! Who knew?

Chemistry and interaction

Wow! At first, I was trying to get into my head this "crazy" connection Elbow makes with the chemistry of cooking and how changes occur-- how elements transform. I could not wrap myself around it. But the analogy which, at first, I thought a great stretch, helps to illustrate Elbows ideas of the synthesis of ideas.

The notion that the interaction with another person can greatly contribute to the development of new ideas cause me to want to gnaw on something for a second. I mean, I've always thought of writing as a solitary journey, sort of like long distance running: it's painful but something pulls you to it. I always enjoyed the loneliness of it all. But now I realize that all of themes I was stuck for an idea, when I could write nothing but repeated ideas, all I needed (at least according to Elbow) was to talk to someone else. Of course, I realize this only after having read this section.

The whole "cooking" things makes sense when we look at the idea of interaction. Other people's views, opinions--whether we agree with them or not--sort of 'disturb" some fixed way of thinking and leads us to ideas we never thought, no matter how we've struggled with trying to find them.

And about the "interaction between modes": I like the model Elbow gives us. While writing and writing, we can and should shift from a fixed perspective. Elbow suggests: poetry to non poetry and empirical to a priori, or from third to first person. These perspectives open doors. I really can use this.