Essay On An Analysis Of "Can Writing Be Taught?"

Rivka Galchen reminisces about her science classes and wonders if teaching how to write is like teaching the sciences. She firmly believes that teaching the basis of science or biology for that matter is not going to produce the next Darwin, Carson or Francis Crick. She says the teachers who teach science in schools are not really worried about what effect it is going to have on the students or if it is going to turn them into scientists who would later on come up with inventions. She says that it was as if the interest shown by the student and the pleasure was good enough for them to continue teaching. She begins her ruminations by talking about scientists like Fleming and Kekule who came up with inventions like Pencilin and the structure of a benzene ring. She says that the inventions were possible not because they learnt science at school but because they had a spark and says that that kind of dreaming that these scientists had cannot be taught. She ends her essay by stating that perhaps this question arises because writers would like to think that their work is a result of talent and that it is a gift and not the result of labor. She says that perhaps writers are in need of a little flattery now and then and this is the reason that there remains a debate if writing can actually be taught. Galchen brings out the example of Milton and how he wrote his Paradise Lost in a state of sleep. She says that she understands and agrees with this as she believes that some part of every creative endeavor comes out of an ‘unteachable dark’. Having said this she also states that in spite of creative sparks and talent being important in great works, there still remains a bit of teachable part. Writing thus for her can be taught, though not everyone who takes a course on writing is going to turn out good. Just as every student of biology, mathematics or other science subjects is not going to turn out into a scientist or a great biologist, not every student of writing will turn out into a good author. They however will learn a few basics of how good writing should look like.
Zoe Heller uses the example of her daughter and her school’s instruction on how to write a book report to discuss if writing can be taught. She is sure that writing can be taught but has problems about the way it is being taught at the American high schools. The schools lay down some rigid rules about how a book report should be written. She says that they lay down a set of instructions and how not following the rules to write the report will result in a bad grade. Heller feels that writing is a creative process and that constraining the writing of kids into a specific template would only make the result bad. She compares the resultant writing to a bridesmaid’s dress that is too small. There is absolutely no joy on the process of wearing it and the results too aren’t a joy to look at. Heller feels that although courses on creative writing is not going to make writing geniuses out of everyone who takes a fine arts course, teaching writing has its purposes. Even though not everyone is going to write novels for a living, learning how to write and learning the basic structures is going to help them compose letters for work or even come handy when composing a condolence note. She says that the question and the confusion about the efficacy of teaching writing is not so much about teaching per se but about what the results are going to be. She feels that the debate is over the students with limited talent to begin with coming out of the course any wiser.
Both Galchen and Heller think that writing can be taught and that teaching it effectively would improve the writing standards of pupils. They however, Heller mostly, bemoan the lack of proper teaching techniques on how to write well. Heller thinks that it is possible to teach writing as most authors have taught themselves by reading the works of others. Both the authors use examples from their lives. These personal anecdotes make their articles both credible and appeal to the emotions of the audience. Both these authors do not write or talk to a specific audience. Their ruminations and discussions are for everyone who has ever wondered why writing had to be taught and if teaching writing is helpful or if it is a waste of time. The examples that these author use, sciences in the case of Galchen and school curriculum in the case of Heller are logical. It isn’t like they are comparing teaching writing to something that defies comparison. They are quite effective in conveying their taught on the topic. Both the authors work on the assumption that there exit a lot of people who question the necessity and use of creative writing courses.
There is a lot of truth in what the authors think about teaching writing. It is true that teaching writing in schools lacks creativity and is methodical. It stifles creativity. However it also must be admitted that these courses in schools at least teach the students how a letter or a report should look like. When writing a letter it is important that the message to be conveyed is precise and in order and if the students learn this, it should be good. Since not everyone is going to be an author or a writer, the schools could be excused for sticking to a certain methodology. Even though creativity should be encouraged and students ought to be let free to write, in the lack of such measures we should be thankful that the students are at least learning a few important basics.