writing to learn

WRITING TO LEARN: CONSTRUCTING THE CONCEPT OF GENRE IN A WRITING WORKSHOP

MILLY EPSTEIN-JANNAI

Kibbutzim College of Education, Tel Aviv, Israel

Abstract. For those working on writing, genre can be a suitable framework for stressing the complex web of relationships between the reader in a personal, idiosyncratic role and the socio-cultural conventions, which involve both text and reader. The concept of genre – with all its wide and heterogeneous background – may prove to be fertile when working on reading and writing with different learning populations, in order to discuss and understand literary, linguistic and cultural topics as integral forces. In this paper, I would like to relate to some theoretical ideas about reading and writing and their influence on the organization of a writing workshop. I will emphasize the idea of genre as a ‖framework‖ for meaning construction and simultaneously as an analytical tool. I shall focus my discussion on writing within a generic framework as a way of clarifying the reader's role and deepening his/her awareness of the genre's constraints and its role in enabling personal innovation. Key words. Writing workshop, reading and writing processes, creativity and its development, learning and teaching processes.

1.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to describe educational practice as it is determined by theoretical ideas about reading. Specifically, the aim of this chapter is to point out these theoretical influences on the approach to the writing process and its products. My assumption is that writing constitutes a personal testimony to various reading processes. It follows from this that the individual‘s sharpened awareness of the reading process is made possible by intensive and critical writing experience (Epstein-Jannai, 2001). This assumption has given rise to a teaching vehicle – a writing workshop –, which will be described below. Experience of such a workshop can serve to emphasize for the writing reader the formulation of writing as a ―network‖ created among different texts, a ―network‖ that at times creates even him - the reader - as a writing subject (Juranville, 1994). The space in which writing and reading exist is imprinted, among other things, by the stamp of other reading that had been done in the past. Simultaneously, these traces mark future writing and reading. In other words, writing is one way of uncovering previous readings and 1 T.H.E. Series Editor(s) (Series ed.) & T.H.E. Volume Editor(s), Book title, Volume nr, 1—6. © yyyy Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

PREPARATION OF A CAMERA-READY MANUSCRIPT

2

examining their presence in the new text. As an example of the close relationship between reading and writing, I chose the term ―genre‖ in order to emphasize this relationship in a framework whose purpose is educational. The question that links the topics I have outlined above is whether writing in the framework of a defined genre can develop writers‘ awareness of the complex nature of the reading process, which is unique and biographical, but at the same time grounded in a cultural, social and historical framework. In other words, can writing experience within the ―boundaries‖ of a specific genre - through coping with its characteristics and conventions from a thematic, narrative and linguistic point of view - contribute to writing novices‘ deeper understanding of the reading process and the way the text is created through it? The aim of this chapter is therefore dual. On the one hand, it seeks to point out the nature of the text from the point of view of genre as a literary and cultural issue. On the other hand, it aims to emphasize the contribution of theoretical ideas to teaching-learning practice. In accordance with these aims, the discussion is based on actual work in writing workshops for elementary school and kindergarten teachers and speech therapists, which usually take place in the framework of teachers‘ refresher courses. The chapter is divided into four major sections: remarks about reading, remarks about the concept of genre, a description of practice in the writing workshop and examples of them, and implications of the workshop for constructing participants‘ new knowledge about writing (revealing non-formulated knowledge and its processing). 2.

REMARKS ABOUT READING

In the present chapter, I will relate to the reading process as an internal experience (Poulet, 1986) that permits an ―imagined‖ encounter (Mannoni, 1979, EpsteinJannai, 1996) between the reader/subject, the text and variegated previous experience – including previous reading. This experience is unexpected and its unpredictability facilitates the more revolutionary and significant aspects that reading can evoke (Freire, 1987; Hadot, 1997). In the course of reading, the reader activates patterns and decoding conventions that are appropriate to what he sees as proper to being a reader. The reader, then, fulfils this role1 in order to actualize the kind of reading he considers suitable to the text being read (Culler, 1982; Rabinowitz, 1987). The cumulative memory of the reader and the writer is what allows them to conduct a kind of ―dialogue‖ between texts. It may thus be stated that the text when it is read reflects the ―polyphonic‖ (multi-voiced) dialogue that the famous critic of culture Michail Bakhtin (1978) identified in his discussion of the novel. The dialogue between texts points to the relationship between readers and reading, but

1

“Playing a role” (for the reader) includes an acting element that is clearly expressed in other languages such as French, Spanish and German (for example jouer, jugar, spilen).


3

not necessarily to a direct or deliberate influence2. Hypothetical or well-grounded relationships between readers and readings are reflected in the text being read, and they leave traces in the ―tapestry‖ of the text and the way it is written as well as in the experience of reading it. The written text appears to be made up of heterogeneous fragments, some new and unknown, some that ―have been read before‖ (Barthes, 1970). The polyphonic nature of what is written is activated and ―concretized‖ by the reader (Iser, 1974). The relationship between texts from a rather wider point of view is indicated by the concept of inter-textuality (Foucault, 1969; Kristeva, 1971). As Bakhtin (1978) has stated, every text relates in one way or another to other texts. As a result of this relationship, each text belongs to a specific tradition of readers and their ways of understanding and interpreting, thus weaving a kind of ―web‖ whose strands embrace ways of relating to what is written (Tompkins, 1986). Personal memory is interwoven into what culture ―bestows‖ upon us and is marked by it. 3.

REMARKS ABOUT GENRE AS A FRAMEWORK FOR CONSTRUCTING MEANING

The concept of genre can help us better understand the complex, convoluted relations between texts and those who write and read them. This is due to the fact that although one can study it formally, genre is one of those concepts whose existence can be sensed intuitively and identified in a text inadvertently. That is, the concept of genre actually allows one to activate and examine non-formulated and tacit knowledge (Caspi, 1985) that may be revealed through the writing process. Knowledge regarding the concept of ―genre‖ crystallizes into a kind of internal compass that guides readers and writers, while determining their way of approaching different textual utterances since they belong to a definite class of texts. Thus genre appears to be an ever-changing socio-cultural way of shaping readers and guiding writers (Cope and Kalantzis, 1993; Martin, 1989). It may be assumed that intensive experience in writing and writing analysis can expose novices to the concept of genre as a kind of abstraction of previous readings. Each genre has unique qualities that allow it to be intuitively classified as a different text type that fulfills different social and cultural goals (Martin, 1989). Genre arouses expectations in readers, since it organizes in advance what is read as a significant construct (Bakhtin, 1985), thus allowing the reader to anticipate what is coming. Genre supplies types of ―scenarios‖ for organizing events, thus directing readers and writers alike. For example, in a fairy tale there is a tendency to ―expect‖ a happy outcome of complicated events.

2

What is under discussion is a socio-cultural state of mind in which reading and writing take place. Concepts such as “story,” “motif” (for example, the stepmother), and “literary language” (for example, “sparse,” “rich,” “symbolic”) are formulated by reference to a variety of texts that make up the reader’s and writer’s repertoire. In each of the concepts mentioned above, the inter-textual phenomenon will be revealed to the reader that recognizes it, but this phenomenon can also not be discovered, remain invisible or become blurred in the textual weave.


4

Bakhtin (ibid.) claimed that readers and writers, acting in a changing social environment, learn to shape the dialogue that is orchestrated between them in generic forms. The individual perceiving the words of his interlocutor, whether verbally or in writing, usually identifies the genre organizing them from the opening words of the expression (ibid.: 268). Bakhtin also emphasized that the private discourse of each and every speaker is filled with others‘ words, with things that were said in the past, similarly or differently. Each text appears as a fabric of other texts, while at the same time underlining the social and cultural horizons that allow its creation. A genre is a broad ideological phenomenon that is present in various socio-cultural fields, such as classroom discourse, psychoanalytic discourse and ritual encounters. Genre is generally learned and examined by relating to texts that are included in a specific group (Martin, 1989). It appears therefore to have a dual nature. On the one hand, its existence is experienced as a general framework including different text types (for example, fairy tales, detective stories, adventure books, etc.). On the other hand, its existence partially disappears when discussing a specific text that ―creates‖ the genre anew, while at the same time being created by it (Epstein-Jannai, 2001). In this way, as stated above, the concept of genre is formulated as an abstraction of readings. Consequently, genre appears as a special socio-cultural way of allowing the organization of various kinds of expression as a whole. In a more focused way, it is a ―framework‖ within whose boundaries – and even beyond them – it is possible to refer to, understand and interpret a certain text, thus constructing its meaning. One can thus summarize and say that the concept of genre not only indicates text types but also the processes that make it possible to create texts. Genre acts as an agreed cultural framework that allows the shaping of a certain meaning and the fulfillment of certain social and cultural goals in a specific situation with the help of certain linguistic tools. In addition, genres stimulate an examination of the possible ways of creating this meaning as a kind of social exchange (Cope & Kalantzis, 1993). The examination of such ways is the core of the discussions taking place in the workshop I will describe. The central question is: In which ways does genre as a framework for constructing meaning combine more or less permanent constraints (the qualities that allow the identification of the genre) and unique, creative and changing realizations (the special form of each and every text) that reflect individual style? My assumption is that consciousness of the reading process develops through the sharpening of generic principles and by paying attention to the restrictions that genre dictates to readers and writers alike. The subsequent discussion will attempt to show how theoretical issues relating to literature, linguistics and culture may be applied when analyzing the texts written in the course of a writing workshop.

PREPARATION OF A CAMERA-READY MANUSCRIPT 4.

5.

5

THE WRITING WORKSHOP AS A TYPE OF WORK: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE

Description of the workshop

The decision to name a program for teaching and learning about writing through writing tasks a ―workshop‖ stems from viewing the writing process as a working and creative one. A workshop is a place where one works and creates products. In this case, the material is language that is used according to culture, imagination, personal associations and conventions dictated by the choice of genre, etc. The workshop allows those working in it an authentic ―encounter‖ with various textual phenomena while they are being created (for example, the symbolic dimension that may be identified in the course of an apparently trivial plot, the choice of a certain syntactic organization to increase tension and canonic creation as the object of intratextual critical dialogue). I will briefly describe the principles of the workshop and the way it is taught. (Epstein-Jannai, 1996.) The permanent framework of the workshop is comprised of the following: 1) Every week, each participant receives a new writing task. This is the skeleton structure of the workshop. The number of tasks varies according to circumstance. 2) The participants fulfil the writing assignments, usually as homework. 3) A class discussion takes place regarding the texts that were written in fulfillment of the task. The discussion revolves around participants reading the texts and analyzing them. The program is thus constructed from writing tasks that combine a certain ―constraint‖ and a certain ―possibility‖ (terms borrowed from Caspi, 1985). The constraint is an invitation to unconventional writing (for example: ―Present yourself ‗using‘ the letters of the alphabet.‖) and it involves the possibility of examining language and discovering it afresh (for example, using writing conventions that are not ―fashionable‖ today, such as writing poetry according to alphabetical order, in an ―acrostic‖). In the course of the workshop, no exact explanations are given regarding the way to fulfill the tasks (for example: How should one ―present‖ oneself? What is the meaning of ―presenting‖? Before whom and why should one present oneself? What is the meaning of ―using the letters of the alphabet‖?). Sigalit, a student in one of the workshops3, expresses a typical dilemma presented by the tasks: ―The course presented me with a challenge in the way a variety of tasks were given to us, but not in an entirely clear way, which on the one hand made me rather apprehensive during the writing process and anticipation of the final product, and on the other hand made me curious to see how I would succeed in coping with the task. There was

3

All the students’ quotations are presented as translations from Hebrew without syntactical corrections. These quotes are taken from their comments regarding the workshop and the processes they underwent in its course. Some of the quotes, while they are presented regarding a certain topic, shed light on additional topics mentioned in the general discussion, so I decided to include them.


6

difficulty at times in the way it was done when questions arose during work: Is this the right way, or is there another one? How will my ideas appear? The same task was given to everyone, but each expressed it so differently. It was enjoyable to observe, listen, differentiate and compare between different participants‘ work.‖

The tasks are perceived as an invitation to practice, investigate, play, and learn. They are intended to activate supposed ―literary,‖ ―linguistic‖ and ―cultural‖ knowledge, so they are formulated in an extremely open manner. In the framework of the workshop, writing and reading are examined as phenomena that are not obvious, but arouse deep inquiry. Therefore, the tasks sharpen awareness of the different elements that are interwoven in texts, emphasizing the recursive relations between theory and practice. This kind of awareness contributes to improving the reading methods of participants in the workshop. Lilach and Shany refer both to the tasks themselves and the ways they were analyzed in the classroom: Lilach: ―The tasks that were given in the lesson were a challenge for me. The tasks were given in an interesting way …and demanded of us to use imagination, thought and our world of associations. […I will] refer to the analyses and the attention that was given to each work written in the classroom. I felt that everything I wrote would receive attention and a professional analysis in the classroom, as though it was a work of classical literature. I feel that the classroom climate and the attention I received allowed me to embark on the writing process. They created in me a feeling of security in bringing the result to class…In addition to this I feel that these things gave me the ability, as well as the possibility, to analyze others‘ texts …‖ Shany: ―The workshop contributed a lot to me. I feel that thanks to the theories I was exposed to, I improved my skills as a reader, and therefore also as a writer… The workshop got me to write. The tasks were a basis and a springboard for me, an interesting and surprising starting off point. I liked the lack of clarity of the tasks. The definitions were clear, but within them there was a large degree of freedom. I was amazed to learn each time anew how many ways there were to interpret the same instructions.‖

The participants in the program are asked to complete the tasks from one lesson to the next. The class discussion arises as a result of students being engaged in writing; this encourages them to read critically and analyze texts with the help of the instructor. The discussion focuses on questions that one may ―ask the text‖ in order to broaden understanding and the conditions that gave birth to it. Writing analysis thus emphasizes for the writer the place of the reader and reading conventions in text construction. Anath writes thus: ―I always accepted my ability to read as something I took for granted. During the workshop, I suddenly realized what a complex process this is, and I felt glad like I did in first grade that I know how to read and how wonderful this is … I would say that I underwent a process of ‗being opened and freed‘. This is expressed in my desire to continue writing and the feeling of freedom to do this.‖

As it is possible to appreciate from previous citations, students‘ testimonies regarding processes of writing, reading and re-writing are part of the methodological framework of the workshop, and they are considered as ―facts‖ presented by the students. These testimonies permit students to re-organize personal feelings, experiences and ideas that arise during the workshop and after it, and they constitute


7

important raw material when evaluating learning processes, although a ―certain skepticism‖ is necessary when reading these testimonies. The discussion of texts that are written in the workshop is guided by a varying number of questions, an example of which may be seen in the task I will analyze below. The aim of these questions is to encourage thinking about what is being done and emphasize intriguing aspects of topics that seem ―natural‖ and obvious: what constitutes a story, how meaning is constructed, who speaks in a text. The tasks impel, encourage the workshop participants to depart from a routine attitude to language, and this occurs in a humorous, relaxed and ―playful‖ atmosphere (Lieberman, 1977). The discussion about writing that take place during the workshop is recursive and spiral and its purpose is to learn about the text, its texture and its way of demanding a certain kind of ―work‖ on the part of the reader. The instructor relates to what was written using tools taken from literary text analysis. Various theoretical references to the reading process, narrative building and the relationships between culture, society, literature and language are made according to the type of discussion. Over the years, about 300 teachers and education students have taken part in these workshops4. The participants were elementary school and kindergarten teachers, teachers in non-formal education and speech therapists. In all these frameworks, the length of the workshops ranged from 15 to 30 meetings (a course lasting either a semester or a year). When the workshop spans an entire year, it generally includes the reading of theoretical material - whose purpose is to deepen the understanding of processes taking place in the workshop - as well as tutelage in running writing workshops for children. 6.

Choice of genre: the story

Between 1998 and 2001, I decided to focus on the story in its widest sense as one of the genres to be used as a framework for writing. This choice mainly stemmed from the familiar and ―taken for granted‖ nature of the genre, the high incidence of the story in daily life and the indisputably natural way in which school children are repeatedly asked to tell stories of all kinds5. The story is an ancient genre, and children in many cultures around the world are exposed to it as they grow up. This is a genre that is used for purposes of learning, religion, entertainment, as well as healing and self-expression (Schank, 1998; Bruner, 1986). The social and cultural goals of the story are as wide and varied as the aesthetic forms it may take. We get involved in the story and unthinkingly activate the automatic cultural mechanism by means of which it ―works‖ as a result 4

The workshop took place for two years in the Experimental Creative Education Program of the School of Education of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (1991-1993), in the framework of the Teacher Enrichment Program at David Yellin College (1993), in teacher’s refresher courses at the Center for Language Development at Bet Berl College (1994-2000) and in the Creative Education Program and the Early Childhood Education Program at the Kibbutzim College of Education (2000-2002). 5 For a broader discussion of this topic, see Peled, 1996.


8

of its misleading naturalness and its always being ―close at hand‖. Thus, a series of events are accepted as ―expressing‖ something. This naturalness invites questions regarding the changing conventions that allow its existence. This is due to the fact that a folk tale, a detective story or a biography of the painter Picasso each activate conventions of their own, while at the same time telling us ―something‖ about people, the ability to discover truth, the social order, emotional life, the mysteries of art. In the framework of the workshop as a learning environment, this naturalness also invites an examination of the ―laws,‖ ―syntax‖, language and ideologies that shape the story (Derrida, 1967; Martin, 1989, Baudrillard, 1994). In the course of the workshop, text analysis focuses on three aspects of the story: plot structure, characters and perspective. Each aspect is connected to one particular writing task. The tasks thus encourage an examination of those common concepts in order to uncover the conventions that ―build‖ the supposed naturalness of the generic textual framework in general and of the story in particular. Texts written by the workshop participants are examined in light of four major perspectives or contexts. These perspectives or contexts function on two parallel levels and allow a transition from theory to concrete realization in practice and vice versa. On the one hand, they constitute a ―framework‖ for building meaning on the part of writer and reader. On the other hand, they provide ―tools‖ for sharpening awareness and analysis. These perspectives therefore emphasize the interaction between reading and writing and between various conventions and any specific performance guided by them. The four contexts are listed below: 1) The cultural context reflects the cultural canon that determines ―what is printed,‖ ―what is learned,‖ ―how to evaluate,‖ ―what is considered good, fresh, daring, old-fashioned, etc.‖. This context allows an examination of the interaction between accepted culture and marginal culture, and also points out the ideological reflections that shape the text and the social institutions of which it is a part. 2) The literary context emphasizes inter-textual relationships (at times following in the wake of other texts and at times going against them). It focuses on the aesthetic dimensions of special ways to organize information and create characters through the use of repetition, deletion, description, allusion and a whole range of devices that build the story. 3) The theoretical-critical context tends to identify a symbolic dimension in the examined text that departs from the representative-referential aspect of the writing. For example, I emphasized in the past (Epstein-Jannai, 1999) that through the fabric of its plot, the detective novel raises problems regarding ―reading‖ and ―decoding‖. It does so by presenting at its core an interpretive mystery while undergoing a reading process 6. Similarly, the

6

In the detective novel, the story involving a detective and a murderer is the referential aspect of the writing. It is possible to identify in this relationship a kind of “reference” to a discussion of the relationship between reading and readers, since the detective identifies/ reads “clues” of the murderer’s activity that allow him, as an expert reader, to reconstruct the plot of the murder. This is an unusual understanding of the referential level of the story in order to identify a symbolic dimension.


9

journeys through geographical space in the pastoral novel symbolize the emotional journeys of its characters. 4) The linguistic-organizational context focuses on linguistic, syntactic and narrative elements, and also on a set of conventions that indicate that the text belongs to a genre as a framework for creating meaning for a certain audience. This includes ways of creating tension and delaying resolution, the choice of action verbs or stative verbs, the decision to concentrate action or present it to the reader in detail and the creation of a salient semantic field that is utilized throughout the story. The organization of the story plot is what keeps it open-ended and ―impels‖ the reader to read on to the end. I will describe below one of the three tasks, in which the workshop participants were required to write a short story in their own way. While confronting the writer with constraints that represent various writing possibilities, each task ―pulls‖ language and its conventions in different directions, thus allowing an examination of both language and those who use it. The theoretical background presented above generates lively discussion in the course of analyzing participants‘ work. For the sake of clarity, the task presented in this article includes only one storyexample and focuses on only one theoretical topic. However, the actual questions that were discussed in class covered a wider range of topics. These will not be presented here in full, but it is worth mentioning that each text written in the workshop might arouse various questions regarding generic conventions due to the language used, the dialogue between the text and its models and other topics regarding generic form. The questions accompanying the task afforded an opportunity to expand the discussion to topics beyond the range of the major issues I focused on. 7.

AN EXAMPLE OF A WRITING TASK7 DESCRIPTION AND DISCUSSION

I will describe below a task that the workshop participants were required to perform. This description will include the task itself, one example of a student‘s work, the questions that aroused discussion and finally my analysis of literary, generic and didactic aspects related both to the writing task and to students‘ commentaries. The task is as follows: Write a short story (about 20 lines long) whose starting point is the description presented in a horoscope for one of the Signs of the Zodiac.

7

The other two tasks are enounced like this: A. Write a short story in which the following are the names of the characters taking part in the plot: Urganda, Melisanda, Archesileus Santander, Bastian, Franz, Ugolino, Doriana. B. Rewrite the story of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) from a different point of view.


10

EXAMPLE (The text of the horoscope is from a newspaper and was chosen by Hava, the writer of the story) PISCES 21.2 - 20.3 A stormy and tense mood will accompany you this week in meetings with others, conversations that turn into arguments, and even casual meetings with people at work, in the street, in the bus or while driving on the roads. It is important to beware and avoid this, since arguments, on the roads for example, are liable to be dangerous. Money: The subject of money is also liable to be a cause of argument and struggle. Money payments that are definitely owing to you will be delayed, and transactions such as selling or buying a car are liable to get stuck or blow up due to a lack of agreement about a minor point. If you weigh up the gain and loss involved, you might discover that it is worthwhile giving in and compromising with other people. Love: A relationship you’re involved in will become deeper in the next few weeks, and will play a significant role in your life. For those of you who are unmarried, a relationship that begins in the near future will differ in its early stages from other relationships you have had. Good days to go out and do things together – Tuesday and Wednesday. ―A stormy and tense mood will accompany you this week in meetings with others, conversations that turn into arguments, and even casual meetings with people at work, in the street, in the bus or while driving on the roads. It is important to beware and avoid this, since arguments, on the roads for example, are liable to be dangerous.‖ ―These horoscopes always predict bad things. Check with other people: it says the same thing for everybody,‖ I said to my sister. ―And anyway, I don‘t believe in all that nonsense.‖ ―I don‘t want to argue with you,‖ my sister said. ―If you think like that, then that‘s fine.‖ She went over to the telephone and lifted the receiver. ―Who are you calling?‖ I asked her. ―Ruthie,‖ she answered. ―Oh, please be quick. You know that your conversations with Ruthie go on for hours, and I‘m waiting for an important call.‖ ―An important call?‖ asked my sister rather sarcastically. ―Since when do you wait for important phone calls?‖ I tried to get out of answering her by slightly shrugging my shoulders and lifting my eyebrows. ―You won‘t get off that easily,‖ my sister said with her usual stubbornness. ―Who is it?‖ ―Well, you know, just someone I met two weeks ago.‖ My sister broke out in a giggle. ―Just someone…you character! Just a minute ago you said you were waiting for ‗an important call‘ and now you say ‗just someone‘ ?!?‖ I gave in. ―It‘s the most amazing guy I ever met in my life,‖ I told her. ―We decided to go out somewhere this evening.‖ ―I knew it,‖ my sister crowed. Suddenly the phone rang and broke the silence. I ran to the phone. ―Hello?‖ I said nonchalantly. When I heard what the caller had to say, my face fell. ―Okay, we‘ll do it some other time. Bye.‖ My sister looked at me sympathetically. ―Don‘t say a word! I have no patience for your sorrowful speeches,‖ I barked in her direction. B-r-r-r-r…another phone call. My sister answered it: ―For you.‖ She handed me the receiver. It was my friend Yael. The longer I listened


11

to what she had to say, the angrier I got. ―How do you dare?‖ I shouted at her and slammed down the receiver. My sister looked at me and didn‘t say a word. She was already acquainted with this kind of mood. ―I‘m going to bed before something else makes me angry,‖ I roared at my sister. She didn‘t answer. From experience she knows it‘s worthwhile keeping quiet until the storm blows over. ―Tomorrow is Tuesday,‖ she suddenly said. ―What? Don‘t you think I remember the days of the week?‖ I answered in a belligerent tone. ―Sure. Look what it says: ‗Good days to go out and do things together – Tuesday and Wednesday.‘ ‖ ―That horoscope again? I don‘t want to hear anything about horoscopes!! Until you started with that horoscope, I was a happy person. Leave me alone!‖ I shouted and slammed the door of my room. Hours passed until I fell asleep, hours of tossing and turning and angry and annoying thoughts. A knocking on the door woke me up. I glanced at the clock. Seven o‘clock. ―Who could that be, for Heaven‘s sake?‖ I thought. I looked out of the peephole. Outside stood the most amazing guy (that‘s right, the one from yesterday) with a huge bouquet of flowers. I opened the door and also my mouth…I stood there and stared at him open-mouthed. ―Pretty flowers for a pretty girl,‖ he said. ―I‘m sorry about yesterday. Maybe you could take the day off and we could go out together?‖ ―What day is it today?‖ I muttered in confusion. ―Tuesday,‖ he laughed. ―You mean to say you don‘t know?‖

Questions for discussion  On which details of the horoscope was the story based?  What place was given to the horoscope in constructing the plot? Was it a background for the events or part of the story‘s opening, or did it justify the chain of events?  How was the transition made from the language of the newspaper to the language of the story? What was added to the text and what was left out?  Is there a clear inter-textual connection between the horoscope (the source) and the story (a quotation, a reminder, a paraphrase, other)?  What was the attitude to the horoscope (amused, skeptical, serious)?  How was the horoscope integrated into the text organization from the point of view of the plot and its place on the page?  How did the details of the horoscope shape the nature of the text?  What types of readers are reflected in the stories written by each person? Analysis If the first task (see footnote 7) facilitated many stories that took place in faraway times and places, the second task – writing based on a horoscope – yielded stories taking place in the cultural ―here and now‖ of our era. These are stories that in various ways transform the future predicted by the horoscope into a plot nucleus that propels action and includes an emotional dimension or psychological observations. Varda expressed it thus: ―The first thing I did was to change it [what was written in the horoscope] into first person, so that there was much more identification with the events. I worked line by line according to the topic [of the horoscope]... I thought about what I needed to change in


12

order for the details to become important and give some depth to the text itself…I included a certain problem that moved the plot forward…an external problem: being late for work …and an internal problem: the heroine is alone and wants to be together with someone else.‖

The horoscope gives value to ―units of time‖ (according to the days of the week) or ―thematic units‖ (love, money, friends, etc.). This stems from the hidden assumption 8 that these units must be used critically, economically . Therefore, the horoscope can be accepted as a chain of signifiers having significance for the character involved in them. What is being discussed is a possible, hypothetical plot that must translate the potential dimension of horoscopes into the actual one. Here, a theoretical-critical context (which I described above) that tends to identify a symbolic dimension in the text may reveals itself as useful in emphasizing a non-referential vein present in the temporal organization of plot. Therefore, ―units of time‖ may appear as presenting social values related to the concept of ―change‖ in personal life or of success as perceived in a ―developed society‖. Moreover, this type of plot encourages the writers to ―give human shape‖ to an anonymous succession of events that comprise the horoscope, or to ―impose‖ some kind of causality that impels the actions or part of them. As a result, this task is suitable to a broad discussion of the topic of plot, since it affords a clear distinction between the ―succession‖ of events and the causes that link them and the linguistic ―form‖ that is actually employed while writing. Classical distinctions between fabula and sujet may also be made to enrich the discussion of this task9. In addition, coping with this task presents problems regarding the literary perception of time in the story (Genette, 1972). Thus, synthetic description as opposed to detailed presentation and the relation between actions and feelings and ways of designing and organizing the plot may appear as interesting topics for the elaboration of non-formulated knowledge. In particular, it allows us to deal with the topic of suspense and the ways it is developed in the story, since the horoscope ―tells‖ us what will happen, raising the question: should one make it happen in the story or not, surprising the readers by the characters‘ choices? Such a reading of the stories written in the workshop emphasizes the context of analysis that focuses on linguistic and organizational devices (context four) and permits participants to become aware of various narrative conventions. Regarding her text, Hava, the author, says: ―Personally, I don‘t believe in horoscopes…I especially remember from the writing process that I was careful to select different words that would express the angry mood of the character. I made sure that I didn‘t repeat the same words all the time. To my surprise, a text resulted that proves that horoscopes come true…Regarding the end of the text, it is important to mention that at the beginning I thought the text would end badly, and only when I got to the end did I write the present ending.‖ 8

See Lakoff & Johnson, 1981) about metaphors of time in our modern culture. The terms “fabula” and “sujet” were suggested by the Russian formalists at the beginning of th the 20 century, in order to describe the “intuitive” relationship between the story (the form of the content) and the aesthetic form of this story, and there is no agreement regarding the question whether this division can actually be carried out in practice. Todorov’s distinction between “histoire” and “discours” and Chatman’s between “story” and “discourse” are additional examples of attempts to map these distinctions. 9


13

This task allows the articulation of cultural voices through a text that is obviously peripheral to the cultural canon. Thus, it rises for discussion beliefs and opinions that shape popular culture and are also reflected in canonical culture, issue related to the cultural context (context one) and its impact on shaping the ways different kinds of texts are received. It is also possible to examine different types of inter-textual relationships with the workshop participants, using the horoscope as the starting point for the plot (context two). These range from exact quotations (as is true in Hava‘s example) to general influence that influences both the nature of the plot (what will happen to the character) and the nature of the character (his or her psychological traits). It is possible to demonstrate in a simple manner using a ―noncanonical‖ text such as the horoscope the complex convoluted nature of ―dialogue‖ among texts, a phenomenon I discussed above. In addition, this task uncovers the variety of values and feelings that a text can evoke, thus raising them for discussion. For example, though most of the writers declare that they do not believe in horoscopes, they generally tend to choose their own Sign of the Zodiac as a starting point. They also tend to write in the first person or with the aid of a narrator who elaborates on the character‘s feelings, using extensive inner discourse or positioning himself very close to the main character. Ariella and Varda wrote the following regarding choosing the Sign of the Zodiac: Ariella ―This task was relevant in my opinion as an opportunity to be critical and cynical about the horoscopes that appear in the newspapers. I actually chose my own sign – closeness and distance. First of all I read the horoscope and tried to create a character whose personality is as is predicted in the horoscope, while also meeting up with events mentioned in the horoscope. I wanted to create the absurd situation of people who act according to the horoscope in order to believe in it." Varda ―When I looked at my horoscope, something I especially like to do, I noticed that when I read it I actually choose the good things, and about the bad things I say, ‗Nonsense, it‘s not true what they have written. Who needs this anyway?‘…This was my opportunity to write my own personal horoscope, to supposedly animate the written text into something live… I introduced the breath of life into my horoscope.‖

This task permits the ―construction‖ of causal relations between events and states of mind as suggested by the horoscope, simultaneously answering questions generated by it: How can one understand the transition between different events? Who undergoes the suggested changes? What causes these changes to occur? The choice of specific factors as the cause of the shift between a starting circumstance and its resolution at the end of the story is what allows ―a story‖ to be constructed, having different laws than the original text – the horoscope itself. Therefore, the task allows novices to cope with one of the most important and complex topics referred above that arise in theories of narrative (Rimmon-Kenan, 1983). Language and tone are developed accordingly, as is apparent in the story I chose as an example, and are discussed in the course of the workshop in accordance with the stories that are produced. The analysis of the texts written by the participants also stresses the fact that the meaning we construct out of the text is a result of negotiation between the text and its readers, which is characterized by a certain amount of blindness to some of the aspects of the text (De Man, 1971). The narrator, his voice and viewpoint are


14

uncovered as rhetorical mechanisms that allow the ―non-naïve‖ organization of the plot in such a way as to impel the reader to continue reading (Genette, 1972). The narrator‘s point of view is what determines the order that was chosen to relate the events suggested by the horoscope ―categorization‖ of items in order to achieve a specific effect: an interesting, seductive story. 8.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The workshop experience stresses the concept of genre as a delicate combination of ―constraints‖ as determined by the tasks and by previous uses of genre and of ―possibilities‖ of creating a personal statement that grows from the ongoing struggle of the writer with the meanings he wishes to shape. Therefore, the reference in the text to what was previously written makes obvious the fact that the various generic conventions define the framework within whose boundaries meaning can be created. Characters, point of view and plot were among the theoretical topics that came up for discussion in relation to the story as a type of generic framework within whose boundaries it is possible to create meaning. I chose these topics due to the fact that much has been written about them from a theoretical point of view, and they constitute part of the terminological repertoire that guide text interpretation in schools. It was thus important to re-examine them in the workshop. In addition, regarding the stories that were written in the workshop, the grammar of the text makes it possible to actually describe the relationship between a specific text (story, letter or article) and abstractions regarding texts. It also affords an examination of the transitions between practice and theory about practice as a way of learning and constructing knowledge about text as fulfilling a wide range of socio-cultural goals. This transition between actual texts and abstractions regarding texts is what facilitates personal - but socially grounded - learning. Students‘ testimonies regarding processes of writing, reading and re-writing, in addition to the discussions that took place during the workshop regarding the kind of work ―demanded‖ of the writers by each task, confirm the assumption I presented at the beginning of this article. The workshop framework has the ability to satisfactorily impart to participants a deepening understanding of reading and the way the text takes shape in the course of ―textual‖ activities such as reading, interpreting and writing. Nevertheless, I must limit this statement in two ways. First, by suggesting that a relativistic point of view in relation to students‘ testimonies has to be assumed, because in a certain way, the students are ―conditioned‖ by a very specific style of working and learning in class10. Secondly, one must add that the story as the generic framework proposed here may allow some of the participants to ―skim‖ and write in an uncommitted and unengaged way. This is ―acceptable,‖ as 10

I can add from my personal experience during a post-doctoral research, that this kind of work in class also “influence” the way children in secondary school “think” and give testimony about the process of reading and writing. That is way it may be perhaps suggested that the use of workshops could help to learn to write and understand text’s characteristics also in school. But this is another story. I would like to thanks to Emmanuele Auriac-Peyronnet that in her fine comments to this paper remember me these facts.


15

long as there is a ―temporary continuity‖ among events that sustains an ―apparently‖ coherent continuum. However, other participants may develop the abilities and the sensibilities necessary for profound, valuable reading and writing that examines and ―re-invents‖ its conventions, as well as the writer who does so. It is clear that these two attitudes regarding the activities in the workshop yielded different results, from the point of view of personal knowledge constructed in the course of the workshop and developing awareness regarding reading and writing processes Throughout the dialogue in the workshop, attention was given to the recurring and changing characteristics of genre in light of the completed tasks. Tacit knowledge regarding writing and reading conventions was gradually revealed through careful examination of the written results and a discussion of their characteristics. This knowledge was expressed in the written texts and the writers‘ concrete decisions regarding questions that bothered them while writing, such as: Does writing in the first person generate identification? Does the elimination of details raise tension? What is the relationship between various gaps in the plot and further reading? What type of language should be used? Uncovering this knowledge and examining it in the classroom are the added value of the activity in the workshop. It allows participants to bring to light ―knowledge we were unaware of, but that was there all the time‖ in a special and unexpected way. This knowledge is especially obvious in discussions and analyses in class, which examine the mechanisms and assumptions that allow the text to exist as an interaction between reader and writer11. In this process of searching, writing is a testimonial of readings that took place in the past, but it can also testify to the writing subject as the ―inventor of himself‖ and creator of his own uniqueness12. This is due to the fact that each time anew he must place himself opposite the language and its conventions so that a certain text can be created. This is obvious, for example, in many students‘ texts and appeared ―between the lines‖ in previous examples and in different testimonies13. 11

Evidence of this may be seen in one of many examples: Na’ama: “The fact that the group talked about my texts, gave their opinion and “interpreted” the form of the text and its content – made me see my writing from another standpoint, understand things in a deeper way and understand what was conveyed to the readers and what was not…The barriers fell and the world of writing opened before me. I would have liked more opportunities for discussion, analysis, reading of the texts that were written by the workshop participants: because the actual reading of the texts and afterwards the response to the texts created in me as a writer learning of a different kind, very important learning. Learning takes place also from another angle – an angle that hears and responds to texts – I learned a lot about different writing styles through the texts that were written…The process still has not ended. It is still at the beginning and I hope to use the tools I have been given and the powers inherent in me in order to continue and never stop. I want to know more.” 12 This topic is my present spot of interest in analyzing texts created in the workshop during “automatic writing”. 13 Here two testimonies: Anath: “I would like to discuss the psychological aspect of writing. How in fact do the things I write, which are not necessarily based on fact, touch my personality, my internal world – at which point does everything intersect, and why? Why, someone else writes about the same thing in an entirely different way, from within his own personality. More than once I have met up with a strange incident: I wrote something and only afterwards understood that I didn’t choose


16

The reference to texts in the workshop makes it possible to transform phenomena that seem obvious and ―natural‖ on the surface – such as an understanding of continuity and coherence, drawing conclusions and creating symbolic connections between characters and ideological attitudes - to phenomena that uncover intense interpretive activity and reading habits. The activities in the workshop intend to deautomatize reading, and in this way create a space where reading exists as an art, an art that inquires about itself and its nature. De-automatized reading has an obvious affinity with contemporary plastic art, cinema and literature, which also ―examine‖ their expressive tools. This affinity with art is not accidental, and is bound up with my perception of the writing workshop. The non-automatic approach to the written text was emphasized in analysis in the classroom, since this critical aspect contributes to a development of consciousness of the reading process in the framework of a specific genre. In addition, this aspect uncovers novices‘ writing in the workshop as a testimony of themselves, their methods of reading and constructing meaning, their ways of saying things and shaping them, their ways of being positioned in socio-cultural environments. These elements emerge at various levels in the above quotations from participants‘ testimonies. The workshop activities presented in this chapter require ongoing experience. They also require study and a willingness to examine the cultural-linguistic surroundings in which we find ourselves, an activity that is liable to produce a certain discomfort. This is however a fertile discomfort, as it is a means of stimulating learning about written texts and the frameworks that affords their construction. Simultaneously, it seems to me that this is a type of investment that promises a unique yield for each and every reader and writer – both teachers and learners. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT My thanks to Prof. Elda‘ah Weizmann for her useful comments on a previous version of this chapter and her help in its preparation. Thanks also to the students who took part in the workshops I have held over the years. The examples in this chapter are from their work. REFERENCES

Bakhtin, M.M. (1985). Estética de la creación verbal [Aesthetic of verbal creation]. México: Siglo Veintiuno Editores. Bakhtin, M.M. (1978) Esthétique et théorie du roman.[Aesthetic and theory of the novel] Paris: Gallimard. this form of writing randomly…Some kind of wish that was buried deep in my soul…burst onto the page while I was preparing my tasks.” Yarden: “The goal of the course was in my opinion…the transition from randomness to significance…This influenced the fact that today, when I write, I also ask myself: Why did I write like that and not otherwise, and what is the significance hiding behind those words?”

PREPARATION OF A CAMERA-READY MANUSCRIPT Bal, M. (1977). Narratologie: Essais sur la signification narrative dans quatre romans modernes. [Narratology: Essays about narrative meaning in four modern novels] Paris: Klinscksieck. Barthes, R. (1966). Critique et verité [Critic and truth]. Paris: Seuil. Barthes, R. (1970). S/Z. Paris: Seuil. Barthes, R. (1973). Le plaisir du texte. [The pleasure of the text]. Paris: Seuil. Baudrillard, J. (1994) The illusion of the End. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Caspi, M. (1985) Approach to creative Self-remaking. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Culler, J.(1982). On Deconstruction. Theory and Criticism after Structuralism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.) (1993). The Powers of Literacy. A genre Approach to Teaching Writing. London: Falmer Press. De Man, P. (1971). Blindness and Insight. Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism. New York: Oxford University Press. Epstein-Jannai, M. (1996). The reader who imagine his role, Helkat Lashon 23, 244-258. (Hebrew) Epstein-Jannai, M. (1999) The reader, the detective and the reading frame, Machshavot Ktuvot 16, 14-27. (Hebrew). Epstein-Jannai, M . (2000) Some remarks about the reader and the reader process in Borges‘ short story ―The theme of the traitor and the hero‖, Alei Siah 43, 149-160. (Hebrew). Epstein-Jannai, M . (2001) Writing as a testimony for reading: An approach to the concept of genre as a frame for meaning construction, Script 2, 103-132 (in Hebrew). Foucault, M. (1969). L'archeologie du savoir. [Archeology of knowledge]. Paris: Gallimard. Freire, P. and Shor, I. (1987) A pedagogy for Liberation. USA: Bergin and Garvey. Genette, G. (1972). Figures III. Paris: Seuil. Hadot, P. (1997). Philosophy as a way of life, Oxford: Blackwell. Iser, W. (1974). The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. Juranville, A (1994). L‘ecriture, [Writing] Revue philosophique de la France et de l’etranger, 2, 167180. Kristeva, J. (1971). Le texte du roman. [The text of the novel] Paris: Seuil Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1981). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lieberman, J.N. (1977). Playfulness. Its relationship to Imagination and Creativity. London: Academic Press. Mannoni, O. (1979). La otra escena. Claves de lo imaginario. [The other stage. Keys of the Imaginary] Buenos Aires: Hachette. Martin, J.R. (1989). Factual writing: exploring and challenging social reality. London: Oxford University Press. Peled, N. (1996). Characteristics of school literacy development, Ba’Mihlala 8, 115-175. Rabinowitz, P. (1987). Before Reading. Narrative Conventions and the Politics of Interpretation. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Rimmon-Kenan, S. (1983). Narrative Fiction - Contemporary Poetics. London: Methuen. Schank, R. (1990/1998). Tell me a Story. Narrative and Intelligence. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.

17