One reason people are responding to the missives is that they have a clear audience and purpose and Dr. Smith knows this audience incredibly well. There's nothing particularly fancy about the pieces, but they are clear and cogent and audience-centered.
People are responding to Dr. Smith's "voice" that of a leader talking to his colleagues. The voice is natural providing freedom to express himself as a human while still staying true to the purpose of informing and inspiring his colleagues. The exclamation here does great work.
I'm sitting here thinking about how I want to help young people become writers like Dr. Smith someday, and how little of what they're asked to do in school actually prepares them to write this way. As great as Dr. Smith is, this is in the grasp of everyone.
The problem is we don't allow students to access the material and situations that make for good writing. Instead, we prescribe quasi-academic forms in the name of building "proficiency." How much more evidence do we need that this is the wrong approach?
I can't emphasize this enough. Those of us reading from the outside are not the audience, and yet we can appreciate them. Why do you think that is? It's because we are witnessing a Dr. express his medical practice through a writing practice rooted in his deep humanity.
If you believe this is good writing, and it is, we have to allow students to have the kinds of writing experiences that will prepare them to write like Dr. Smith. I may have an idea or two about what those are and even how we teach it.
And if that's too subtle. (It isn't.) I can put every sentient human on the path to write as well (in their own voice and in their own way) as Dr. Smith.
You can follow @biblioracle.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: