QDJ 1,2 & 3

1. Strasser writes that "The devices of grammar and rhetoric remain superficial skills until a writer employs them to express important and powerful feelings, thoughts, and ideas" Why? And do you agree?

I strongly agree with Strasster because if we didn't pay attention to grammer the reader won't be able to understand any thing from what the writer has wrote. I can relate because I've read some letters written by not very educated people.

2. What seems to be at issue for Strasser is creating "personally meaningful writing"  in response to school assignments. Is there actually anything in Stanley Fish's advocacy of a writing course that teaches reasoning which would seem to rule out such personally meaningful writing? In other words is Strasser right to assume the Fish's insistence on writing in order to exercise one's grammar will actually lead to meaningless writing?

I think it really won't be interesting to write any more it takes the fun and excitement from it.

3. In your experience, does school create a separation of mind, body, and spirit that Strasser quotes bell hooks as identifying?

I didn't have enough experience in high school we wrote one paper the whole year while one of  friends wrote about an paper every two weeks. I think it depends on the teacher.

                                                                                            QDJ 2,5 & 6

2. I think writing in autobiography tells a better story to the reader and better understanding because it is written in first hand. it is more interesting.

5. I defiantly  agree with Murray because everyone thinks different and writes different.

6. It depends what I'm writing and who am i writing for I always write different when it comes to school work or just social communication. there usually in autobiography but sometimes they differ.