Looking at these readings I am still having a bit of an issue with "tacking in and tacking out". My mind wants to read these as Tracking, which leads me to a whole new set of phrases and how I interpret the readings.
That being said, what I want to focus on is the part of critical imagination. This is where I imagine, I guess the pun is intended, the meat of any story comes out. As Gesa points out, it goes beyond the traditional journals and writings.
What I see is that critical imagination allows for, not just rhetoricians, but all writers to take a leap forward with their writing. It's not a pure regurgitation of fact, or a recitation of what has been written, but a comprehension and expression of that what writers choose to express.
To be able to make that critical leap is what is going to separate writing and great writing. Again, this is purely my opinion, at this point, but what I think that critical imagination will allow writers to do is make those connections, and allow them to explore the various points in which we (they) play with the words and form them into the groups that we (they) do.
Jacqueline makes a very nice statement by saying that it allows students to think more viscerally about what they are writing.
I’m not used to seeing 'tack' or 'tacking' used in this way either. But I guess the word choice does make the phrase stick out as I read and remain in my memory. According to dictionary.com, 'to tack' can mean “to join together; unite; combine” or “to attach as something supplementary; append; annex.”
ReplyDeleteHmm.