Audiences
I don’t believe in writing for anyone but myself. I don’t imagine my audience, I don’t imagine anyone reading my work, and I don’t write as though I’m writing for anyone in particular. I write what I know, what I’ve experienced, as authentically and truthfully as I can, for no other purpose than to convey a truth.
There is too much emphasis placed on audience centered writing in academic settings. When students try to imagine the audience they are writing for, the writing becomes overworked, oversimplified and its intent is lost. The writing becomes technical, perhaps even formulaic, and inhibits the depth and introspective nature of the work.
If we were all to write without an audience in mind we would be able to find so much more in the writing. If we could immerse ourselves in our writing without giving any thought to the audience, the end result would be so much more authentic than what might have been produced had we specifically written to an imagined audience. My idea of a perfect piece of writing is one that the audience finds for itself. The audience should always choose the writing; never the other way around.
Word Choice vs. Ideas
Which comes first: the word choices or the ideas? It’s similar to the timeless question, “Which came first: the chicken or the egg?” While many feel that word choice is the instrument through which ideas are expressed and therefore ideas come first, I think it’s the word choice that comes first.
For me the ideas are a result of the perfect word choice. Word choice allows ideas to grow organically – it gives the ideas the flesh they need to have poignancy and truth. If the right word isn’t there, an unstated idea that the author intends to let up to the reader discover may fall flat.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Brugee
I don't have much a response to this, mostly because I agree with everything that's said.
I especially agree with where he speaks of the importance of introspection. It seems me that many students are focused on learning about the opinions. Understanding various perspectives is one thing; internalizing those perspectives to increase self understanding is much different. I feel collaborative learning allows for the sharing of perspectives among students, but it can often stop short of aiding the student in applying knowledge to themselves. The whole point of gaining wisdom and insight is understand yourself. More emphasis should be placed on this aspect of collaborative learning since the learning style is the perfect set up for allowing students to gain the insight by learning from example.
I especially agree with where he speaks of the importance of introspection. It seems me that many students are focused on learning about the opinions. Understanding various perspectives is one thing; internalizing those perspectives to increase self understanding is much different. I feel collaborative learning allows for the sharing of perspectives among students, but it can often stop short of aiding the student in applying knowledge to themselves. The whole point of gaining wisdom and insight is understand yourself. More emphasis should be placed on this aspect of collaborative learning since the learning style is the perfect set up for allowing students to gain the insight by learning from example.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Cognitive Development
I was so glad to see someone else write about the fact that many students do not possess critical thinking skills. It's something I've struggled to articulate (no surprises there) and I was relieved to have someone express the very things I've been trying to put my finger on for quite some time.
Writing for academic purposes alone explain this lack of ability to analyze and apply given information to other situations. In the academic setting, many teachers spit information at us; often times we are not given an opportunity to formulate our own opinions because of the pace of the discussion.
Writing about said subject should an avenue for us to explore a topic, to understand it more fully. However, I feel that (academic) writing, which is the majority of writing, is so often aimed at proving a point rather than discovering a topic. In proving a point, students often develop a certain formula for proving a thesis. In doing so, they often lose the ability to freely analyze information and gain insight. Again, this seems to be a result of process thinking rather than product thinking.
Writing for academic purposes alone explain this lack of ability to analyze and apply given information to other situations. In the academic setting, many teachers spit information at us; often times we are not given an opportunity to formulate our own opinions because of the pace of the discussion.
Writing about said subject should an avenue for us to explore a topic, to understand it more fully. However, I feel that (academic) writing, which is the majority of writing, is so often aimed at proving a point rather than discovering a topic. In proving a point, students often develop a certain formula for proving a thesis. In doing so, they often lose the ability to freely analyze information and gain insight. Again, this seems to be a result of process thinking rather than product thinking.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Audiences
I love what Ong is saying in this piece. A question I'm always asking is, "Who do we write for?" For me, she answered it.
Sometimes as students, in an academic setting, we are taught to write for what seems like an audience of teachers, professors, those who are familiar with the subject, who are critical of the subject. As creative writers, it seems we're taught that we should imagine the specific audience that we'd like to enjoy or relate to our work.
I write for myself, and I think that's what Ong is saying. we should always write for ourselves. By writing for ourselves, we can guarantee that others will relate to it. By writing for ourselves, we'll find truth. Writin solely for ourselves allows a level of introspection. Our audience will become those who relate to our piece. In other words, by writing for ourselves, we essentially leave the possibility of our audience open - the audience will choose our work, instead of us targeting them. It allows for a powerful interaction between the audience and the narrative due to the truth the author finds by being authentic.
Sometimes as students, in an academic setting, we are taught to write for what seems like an audience of teachers, professors, those who are familiar with the subject, who are critical of the subject. As creative writers, it seems we're taught that we should imagine the specific audience that we'd like to enjoy or relate to our work.
I write for myself, and I think that's what Ong is saying. we should always write for ourselves. By writing for ourselves, we can guarantee that others will relate to it. By writing for ourselves, we'll find truth. Writin solely for ourselves allows a level of introspection. Our audience will become those who relate to our piece. In other words, by writing for ourselves, we essentially leave the possibility of our audience open - the audience will choose our work, instead of us targeting them. It allows for a powerful interaction between the audience and the narrative due to the truth the author finds by being authentic.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Revising
Sommer's article provoked a strong reaction in me - I found myself thoroughly irritated with her attempts to strategize and generalize the revision process.
The reason there is no research on the revision process is that it's not something that can be defined or structured. It's an extremely personal process and for me, at least, it differs every time. Sometimes I revise while I'm in the shower, sometimes I spend hours on one sentence, sometimes I don't revise for several weeks and then come back to it. My revision process has never been consistent - that's because each piece is different and comes from a different place. Trying to categorize the revision process into categories.
She makes the point that students think of revising as rewording, which she claims is an incorrect point of view. This is a totally ridiculous assumption - for me, revising is 60 percent rewording. I can spend hours restructuring a sentence and altering the word choice to make it as poignant and effective as possible - if you tell me that's not revising, then what is it?
I don't think there is a place in this field for trying to define and suggest strategies for revising. Writing is art. There is no correct way to create art. It's instinctual, it's personal and it's based on personal taste. It irritates me that an intelligent researcher would suggest there is an incorrect, or at the very least, less effective method of revising.
The reason there is no research on the revision process is that it's not something that can be defined or structured. It's an extremely personal process and for me, at least, it differs every time. Sometimes I revise while I'm in the shower, sometimes I spend hours on one sentence, sometimes I don't revise for several weeks and then come back to it. My revision process has never been consistent - that's because each piece is different and comes from a different place. Trying to categorize the revision process into categories.
She makes the point that students think of revising as rewording, which she claims is an incorrect point of view. This is a totally ridiculous assumption - for me, revising is 60 percent rewording. I can spend hours restructuring a sentence and altering the word choice to make it as poignant and effective as possible - if you tell me that's not revising, then what is it?
I don't think there is a place in this field for trying to define and suggest strategies for revising. Writing is art. There is no correct way to create art. It's instinctual, it's personal and it's based on personal taste. It irritates me that an intelligent researcher would suggest there is an incorrect, or at the very least, less effective method of revising.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
