ELT News Think Tank

This Month's Think Tank Panel

Marc Helgesen

Peter Viney

Curtis Kelly

Chuck Sandy

Chris Hunt

Date: June 2004

Topic: "A day in the Life of the ELT News Think Tank"

And now for something completely different...This month, we take a look at a recent e-mail discussion between our panelists and myself over the course of 24 hours or so. The discussion resulted from an e-mail from me to Chris Hunt on the subject of writing style and content. For those of you who have not read any of Chris's previous columns, his writing style tends to be very direct and has, at times, used metaphors and references which some have considered controversial (at best), and have drawn some complaints from readers.

The following discussion was not originally written for publication and has been - slightly - edited. I would strongly recommend that you have your say on this - or any other Think Tank-related - issue on our Message Board.

Mark McBennett
Editor, ELT News

Dear Chris,

There's an issue I've been meaning to write to you about for a while. To be blunt, I'd like you to tone down the "political" content of your Think Tank articles, except in cases where it is directly relevant (such as this month's topic, which of course you chose). I don't think that the bludgeoning approach is appropriate, and throws the feature as a whole off balance. I had my doubts even before the controversy started by the article about drug pushers. But Curtis liked it and I thought a bit of controversy couldn't do any harm. Then again, I also thought it would be a one-off.

With a name like Think Tank, the feature could indeed have evolved into a real soap box, but it doesn't suit the present panel. Personally, I always enjoyed Chuck's articles and I'm saddened that he decided to drop out. Recent articles were one, though not the only, thing that influenced his decision.

I considered not including your piece in April, as I thought it was just too out of whack with what Chuck had written. Having read your writing both for ELT News and elsewhere, I know that you have eloquence enough to present your ideas better than you did in that piece. In the end, I was just too busy to deal with the issue and I let it run.

We have had some complaints, but the opinions of these readers are not the main issue, and no doubt you would have expected some negative feedback. I am certainly not writing this in response to such criticisms. It's simply my feeling, as your editor.

So anyway, what next? I don't want to be a heavy-handed editor, hassling writers month after month. I'd rather you complied with what I've said above. If you'd rather not change your style, I would be quite happy to give you a separate forum for your ideas, a column of your own.

Let me know what you think.

All the best,

Mark

(response from Chris to the panel)

Dear Think Tank,

Mark has written to me about my writing style. He is concerned that it is too political and upsets the balance of the whole. Mark wrote, "I'd like you to tone down the "political" content of your Think Tank articles, except in cases where it is directly relevant". In turn I'd like to ask your opinions.

For me, writing is very personal. I also care greatly about the way I see the World going. I strongly sense humanity is on the brink of an abyss. I think a holistic approach is very important. I see Think Tank as a forum that first and foremost encourages people to think and question. I realise there are different ways of doing this. I reread most of my Think Tank Contributions and I think that in many instances I have been provocative and unsettling. I haven't deliberately attempted to rile people but I certainly think I wanted to question assumptions. Perhaps this is arrogant of me. I wonder what you think? How much of my writing in Think Tank is misplaced? Should it be elsewhere? I'd appreciate your candid thoughts and concerns.

I've forwarded this email to Chuck as he has been involved with Think Tank while I have been writing. I hope Mark doesn't mind me opening up his concerns to the group, but I see this as something that concerns the group as a whole.

Best wishes,

Chris

(response from Chuck)

Dear Chris and all,

Thanks for thinking of me. As Mark knows, I always have an opinion, and if you don't mind me being as candid as you are, Chris, I'll happily share it ...

Though I sometimes really dislike the way you say things and some of the metaphors you've reached for, I love what it is you have to say and I would hate to see you leave Think Tank or tone your writing down very much. I understand where you are coming from and getting at as a teacher, and as a person (no different) I agree with you completely: we're on the edge of an abyss and the only thing to do in addition to holding on is to help others, as we can, do the same. More, maybe, even to help others find a moral handhold on which to build a more secure footing.

I'm writing an essay now based on a bumper sticker someone gave me: when I first received it, it read 'teachers change lives' and I thought, ho hum and put it away. Then when cleaning this spring I discovered it again, pulled it out and it ripped so that only the first two words remained: teachers change. I put that up on my wall.

The point? If we're not helping teachers to change and changing ourselves, what's the point of writing essays, doing teacher training, and in fact, in teaching? Teachers change, and I certainly have. I'm really no longer content reading or hearing about little games or classroom techniques unless those things are embedded into a framework that inspires change, real change on deep personal levels. That's political and it's relevant. WIthout that, it's just fluff and there is enough of that around already. Why bother?

So I say to you Chris: right on.

I didn't like the test-taker/drug pusher metaphor though, and I smile here as at least Mark knows I had some trouble with that essay -- but that was my trouble, not yours. I will say, though, that one thing I'm starting to learn how to do (and failing sometimes) is to take a metaphor apart and put it back together again before I see how far it can be stretched. Also, in the interest of not dating the work. I'm learning it is sometimes best to avoid references to the right now events of the world. Horror is horror and chaos is chaos. It's not the war in Iraq and Bushism we are fighting here: it's stupidity and thoughtlessness. An attack on Bush, for example, or an overwhelming focus on a single incident, is an attack on Bush and a single incident. An attack on stupidity and throughtlessness, well that is timeless, and when you hit that right Chris, that's where you are best.

Keep it coming Chris.

Warm wishes,

Chuck

Page 1 | Page 2

<<Back Number | Top | Recent Issue>>