Disclaimer: This post is my attempt to clarify Breuch’s theory on post-process and its connections to the writing v. composition debate.
Breuch writes, “post-process theory encourages us to reexamine our definition of writing as an activity rather than a body of knowledge” (98). She goes on to say that writing can’t be taught which supports her theory that post process shouldn’t be viewed as an activity. If it were viewed as an activity, then it could be teachable to some to degree. I agree to some degree with her and Kent’s perspective that writing is an “interpretive” act. There is a rejection of the system and process, and not of the act itself, which I think I can align myself with more. In this process, once joined with revision an act of composition may occur.
Perhaps therein lies the difference between writing and composition, if we consider writing a process separate from revision and such. What I mean is, if the document, or item is revised and treated like a new well developed project, then perhaps that is where the composition lies. The care in revising, and rewriting is the act or process of composing. A benefit of this separation may make it more digestable for first year students, who may be overwhelmed by the tasks at hand. Unfortunately it may over complicate what is already being asked of students, if they are told to consider several different processes, not while writing but afterwards too.