This semester, in the spirit of Joan Retallack’s ideas of “essay as wager” and “poethics,” I decided to make the first high stakes paper assignment of the semester (for my Composition II courses) something fun. Something a little “creative.” I asked my students to write a manifesto—to think about this first paper as a piece of writing they can have fun with, a piece of writing that would express their own unique and specific argument about “happiness” (the course’s theme), a piece of writing meant to be read out loud.
A handful of students really explored the form. But, the majority of the class were delighted when their second paper assignment was to do a (fairly straightforward) close reading. I was pretty surprised. It seemed strange to me that my students would choose a prescribed assignment over one that leaves the door wide open. And, in a lot of ways, this student bias goes against my general theory of essay writing—one that tips its hat to essay’s French ancestry— essayer (to try). Joan Retallack frames this approach by positing, “the source of vitality for the essay is its engagement in conversational invention rather than ordinal accounts of things (including thoughts) that have already taken place” (“Essay as Wager”). In other words, to write an essay is to explore, to follow thought in motion and then see what shape it takes, and to engage with the world around us. As Lex Runciman writes, “to write is to think, or to try to think.” But, then again, I occasionally call myself a writer, I don’t mind writing essays, and I might be a tiny bit naïve.
I attended the Conference on College Composition and Communication a week or so ago. I heard Richard E. Miller give a talk in which he spoke about standards and standardization and said something like (and I am paraphrasing here), one of the failures of our system is “the eradication of ambiguity—we train people to create arguments that bear no relation to the complexity of lived reality.” This felt like a big (to borrow the age old adage) “aha moment” to me. Of course, how could I expect my students to feel comfortable being “creative,” imagining and owning their own manifestos, when they were probably taught to do just the opposite.
I left the session, sought out some WIFI and immediately blogged on our course site. My post included the following questions: “How often do you feel that you are able to be creative? How does that manifest itself? What does it look like? And, how comfortable do you feel “living with ambiguity”? Do you feel okay not understanding something from time to time? Is it exciting to be confused? Why?”
I also offered them links to the following videos:
Daniel Pink: Education and the Changing World of Work
Teaching the Action Horizon
Ken Robinson Says \”Schools Kill Creativity\”
I felt certain that my students would respond. As we all know, blogging is very different from paper writing. My students occupy this space fairly comfortably. I do not think they would describe blogging in the same way that they described their experiences writing the paper one manifesto. However, it is rare that I give them a specific prompt to blog about. In this medium, the ambiguous is somehow okay.
A sampling of responses: “classes that support creativity are usually joke classes”; “before college we were always taught to pass standardized tests”; “I keep everything within certain acceptable boundaries”; “I always perceived creativity as being something worthless”; and “I am not that creative at all (or at the very least, a person whose creative instincts were not nurtured and was left to wither and die in a small, desolate place in my mind).” The students who (reluctantly) admitted to being creative said that it manifested itself in “doodling and daydreaming.”
My students’ writing about not being “creative” was overwhelmingly creative. They used images and media, they “showed” instead of “telling.” I am tempted to attribute all of these things to the medium that they were composing in, but at the same time, I wonder how often we take a step back and ask ourselves and our students how often we/they are creative? Or, perhaps the real question is…what does creativity look like today, particularly in a space where so much of what we do exists in “virtual”? Do our students even connect the words “creative” and “writing” anymore?
For me, the composition classroom represents a rare opportunity for students to re-engage with “the composing process…as a continuum of making meaning” (Berthoff, “Learning the Uses of Chaos”), and to rediscover or discover the real “pleasure of the text,” always keeping in mind Roland Barthes’ definition of “pleasure,” “there will always be a margin of indecision…the paradigm will falter, the meaning will be precarious, revocable, reversible, the discourse incomplete.” And, for me, this rare opportunity is creative and demands creativity from its participants. But, am I the only one in my proverbial classroom subscribing to that definition?
A few wagers in the form of quotes:
from Joan Retallack’s “The Woman in the Chinese Room”
She-1.
now that we think we know that the world is not all that is the case the case in question the space of the case sad but fierce with light upholds the dark it seems to utter itself must there be subtitles must there be translation she thinks she knows but doesn’t want to accept that in order to write or read or speak there must be a division between light and dark
from Gertrude Stein’s Tender Buttons
NOTHING ELEGANT.
A charm a single charm is doubtful. If the red is rose and there is a gate surrounding it, if inside is let in and there places change then certainly something is upright. It is earnest.

































There’s a 


I almost choked on my Sunday morning pancakes when I read

Recent Comments