After reading, “Inventing the Universe” by David Bartholomae for the second time,I still focused in on his use of the term commonplace. I feel when you talk about academic writing, “commonplace” motivates us to activate academic discourse, with or without a purpose.I felt at first this concept brought on a positive twist in academic writing. After reading this essay again,Bartholomae points out that the twist we are feeling comes from a double edge sword.
When we start to think,” how shall I write this” we tend to go towards a safe mode or commonplace. We become translators by just repeating or quoting what we have read our other people have thought. This is where I feel it is safer for the writer to stay on common ground and follow the rules, rules that have been embedded in his or her writing since they picked up a pen. Bartholomae states,” that kind of writing is writing that comes through you, not from you”. Are we writing papers truly from us, or are these papers channeled through us from a stamped outline of previous writers without any creative substance or truth. He points out in his first epigram as I interpreted, education may as well be the only righteous or moralistic path to take and it is the only we can gain access to discourse in our society.Rules that we must follow.Does it permit or does it prevent us from writing from within.
Is "commonplace" the appropriate type of discourse that is all too common in writing? It is a comfortable place to go for most academic writers. It is not always the right place to go when it come to writing to anyone. It covers many aspects of writing and touch’s each conflict whether at home our school. It’s safe. Most people will take the safe route when it comes to anything and writing is no different. Only the few that analyze each situation and speak in a voice that relates to each and every situation in one that writes from within.
I felt Bartholomae portrayed this through out his writing. In order to have the best of both worlds and progressively point writing in a positive direction,we must move towards a more specialized discourse, perhaps not only satisfying the common codes of the university, but satisfying ones self by putting himself in a position of privilege,working towards a code of his own. Which is the reason why Bartholomae liked the last essay better because the writer showed his versatility by his complete awareness of the codes that operate within a discourse. By doing this the writer can be effective on getting a strong message across by satisfying the scholars without losing ones identity our creativity.