> Of course the author of this article believes that content is important.
If that is indeed true it cannot be adduced from what he has actually written here. The central thrust of his argument occurs in the second paragraph where he suggests most current US compositional classes major on content without study of formal structure. This ’theory’, he asserts, is wrong: “Content is a lure and a delusion, and it should be banished from the classroom. Form is the way.”
Well, actually he is factually wrong.
We all learn language by doing it.
Understanding the formality or the methodology comes WAY later.
It is perfectly possible to run a good class in composition without going into the analysis of form he is so self-frottingly ecstatic about. This is not to say that what he is doing is not valuable, because I would agree that it is, but it is not the only technique, and it is plain wrong to suggest it has some inherent primacy over other ways of study. Methods of study that are more accessible to the large majority may also not necessarily be ‘appealing to the lowest common denominator'.
Above all, I simply laugh at the fact he implies that what he is doing is about ‘composition’. It is actually about dissecting composition. This stands (to use his favourite word) in the same relationship to composition as dissecting a frog in biology does to understanding the meaning of life. It may be a very useful discipline of study, and it may indeed save many average people from expressing themselves with inexactitude or lack of clarity. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest this kind of pedagogy has ever stimulated creative composition.
Congraduelations, Mikelsdottir!
