• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

Ken Macrorie Annotated Bibliography Essays

Essays

‘Teach Listening?’, College English, Vol. 12, No. 4. (Jan., 1951), pp. 220–223.

Macrorie states that people do not listen to others enough. We have become a nation of “interrupters” and in doing so, we fail to communicate effectively. Communication is an exchange of information, but if no one is listening, then there is a very limited exchange. We must teach students to listen if we are to take from others the best they have to offer. Macrorie believes that the reason that we have such difficulty in listening is because the fast-paced lifestyle we live doesn’t allow for many situations conducive to concentration and “we teach ourselves not to listen.”

‘Words in the Way’, The English Journal, Vol. 40, No. 7. (Sep., 1951), pp. 382–385.

Macrorie relates that there is a contradiction between the belief that instructors are not here to teach students to become authors, yet they hold them to “a standard of clarity, force, and mechanical excellence that we have constructed from our reading of published authors.” It is an unrealistic standard of perfection that needs to be reexamined. He goes on to describe the writing process from how students’ communicate an experience. In many cases these students need to be untaught and unlearn what they have learned previously.

Macrorie recollects an encounter he had with the “Best Directions Writer in the World,” Edward Zybowski. Zybowski makes the distinction between the unconscious and inspiration, stating that the latter is a myth, and that writing directions is more than just writing, it is also deciding text size and position. He also makes the distinction between knowing about the English language and knowing how to use the English language. Upon Macrorie stating that writing directions seems simple enough, Zybowski is actually flattered because the simpler it seems, the more he did it right.

‘The Movies Don’t Move’, The English Journal, Vol. 41, No. 9. (Nov., 1952), pp. 474–479.

In this 1952 article, Macrorie criticizes the lack of motion in motion pictures. The story was being moved along through what he calls filmic language as opposed through motion. Motion if film has significance, even a lack of it if necessary. The editing process becomes just as important as the film itself when montages are used. A montage can be used to show the “mind’s eye” by blending images together. Macrorie relates to different forms of motion: motion of time, and motion of space. Motion pictures utilize specific sequences and gaps to prevent from making a film to elongated As he writes this article, Macrorie is anticipating with great interest to see just what this “new” medium can do for storytelling.

‘Examining the Newspaper’, College English, Vol. 14, No. 2. (Nov., 1952), pp. 112–113.

With the increase in technology, there has been a change in the way the news is reported and received. Macrorie believes that with the advent of the teletype and news wire service, news reporting has become more unified, not just in structure, but in the way they are repetitively reported across different broadcast media. Since most of the stories that come across the news wires are either AP, UP, or INS, various reporting agencies are in effect reiterating what someone else has reported, which can be seen by simply changing radio news programs from station to station. Instead of having multiple voices in the news, we have a limited amount of voices because of advancement in technology. He calls what we have a “production-line society” and makes it our individual responsibility for supplementing the news we receive by seeking out other sources.

As professors and teachers of English, we tend to become more critical of students’ uses of conventions like grammar, punctuation, and spelling than we are of other professionals in the field. Macrorie points out that we tend to be more sympathetic or less judgmental of professional writing than of that of our own students. He believes that these errors in student writing should be acknowledged and pointed out, but not to the degree of persecution. This double-standard is a hypocrisy Macrorie wants to point out, even to the point of purposely using the word “hypocracy” as part of his article title.

While walking with his friend Edward Zybowski, Macrorie gets into a conversation about writing and is informed by his friend that writing is dying. Zybowski states that an electronic revolution has occurred and that reading and writing is being replaced by the images and sounds of television and film. Against what Macrorie wants to hear, his friend explains that part of the problem with writing is freshman composition courses, and that writing should be taught in a seminar format to put the pressure on students. Learning how to write well should be a painful experience sometimes because from that pain will come breakthroughs. When Macrorie brings up the topic of mechanics, Zybowski states that “. . . you can’t teach mechanics to someone who doesn’t like to write. First things first, or the second things will never come.”

There seemed to be an over abundance of criticism for college newspapers, and Macrorie takes offense to the idea that English professors choose to focus on the negative aspects of student writing and not look for examples of good student writing within the papers. Providing several good examples from various college periodicals, he shows that one can find writers at the college level with great proficiency and creativity in every section, from letters to the editor to the sports pages. He points out that this, in many cases, are students’ first attempts at writing for publication and that we should remember what we wrote like the first time.

Macrorie addresses a new committee brought together to address and redesign the freshman composition course in order to create better writers. His main idea is that input from all members of the department is not necessary, rather only the input of teachers whose students have shown improvement after their first month of writing. These teachers should write there programs out in detail, and that is what should be taken under consideration. He cites his experiences on committees and states that when the committee process takes too long or becomes too democratic what results is a course which is reduced to “minimum essentials.” He advocates rhetoric as the “miracle drug” for composition courses that no longer produce good writing.

‘The Circle of Implication’, College English, Vol. 28, No. 6. (Mar., 1967), pp. 435–438.

The “circle of implication” is a method of judging even when we are trying to maintain objectivity. Macrorie states that “everything we write judges.” By choosing what we write we automatically show our opinion that it is significant, important, or necessary to understand, but we only judge with integrity if we include ourselves within that “circle of implication.” And, according to Macrorie, by our inclusion we prevent ourselves from looking foolish.

‘To Be Read’, The English Journal, Vol. 57, No. 5. (May, 1968), pp. 686–692.

Traditionally, papers have “not meant to be read, but corrected.” Macrorie outlines a program he created to reform writing from the seventh grade all the way through graduate school. It is designed to make students more excited to write, instructors more excited to read, and produce (through enjoyment) better writing. Although an expressivist, Macrorie utilizes many aspects of the collaborative pedagodical movement, including peer editing and discussion groups.

Macrorie reviews, with extreme enthusiasm, this highly disorganized book on college composition courses. He applauds Greenbaum and Schmer’s dissection of the university system as a whole, freshman composition courses, and the exposing of the double standards which exist within them. He advocates that everyone within the college and university systems to read this book and revels in the fact that “It has no sense of audience, mixing substance and style now fit for professor readers and then for student readers. It is a catastrophe of form and voice. In one chapter it scores with smashing irony and ‘in the next bunts foul with amateurish dialogue.” Macrorie seem to be as enthralled with the chaotic nature of the book as he is with the truth it reveals.

In December of 1971, College English published a six-page review written by John F. Huntley on Literature and the English Department by Barrett John Mandel. Macrorie addresses this review and Huntley’s berating of Mandel’s book. Macrorie believes that the book has merit, not just for teachers of English, but for all educators at the college level. He acknowledges that Madel has moved on from having students regurgitate the teacher’s knowledge and is focusing on the student’s knowledge. Macrorie does not agree with everything Mandel presents, but he does state that Madel has addressed some valid points, and it is possible that Huntley may have only seen Mandels statements as an attack on professors instead of the value of Mandel’s points about teaching.

Letter to the Editor, College English, Vol. 37, No. 1. (Sep., 1975), p. 85.

In this short letter to the editor of College English, Macrorie addresses the November 1974 issue for its focus on “the Homosexual Imagination.” He feels that the NCTE succeeded in creating a “revolution” in the world of massive literary organizations. With a single issue they have broken barriers by “consolidating liberal viewpoints, reporting significant innovations, and helping professionals get together.” He praises the dignity and integrity of College English for its enlightening discourse for those who did not understand the homosexual world.