I ended my last post by saying that "a good thinker is a good writer." I couldn't get that thought out of my head. Partly, that's because I'm not sure if it's right. I sure think it is, but I'm not sure.
What makes a good writer? A good writer makes good writing, but what is good writing? This is largely subjective, but there is some common ground. I think that people can agree that writing is a combination of words and ideas.
Words are the medium through which ideas are shared. That means that writing is all about ideas. Words are simply tools. A good writer is a good thinker. Trained peons can learn how to use words to communicate a good idea. Only a thinker can come up with those ideas in the first place.
The only problem I have with this theory is that words are not mere tools. Although words contain meaning, which is used to express ideas, words have other qualities beside meaning. Every written word has the physical appearance of the letters that make it, and the sounds that the word represents, both of which can be beautifully woven. This means that writing is not about meaning, but about creating a painting and a song with words. Any deeper meaning to a lovely piece is in the hands of the audience to interpret in their own way.
I have never found extremes to be correct. This case is no different. Any writing that has a good idea, but is only adequate at expressing it isn't always worth reading (sometimes you just find the summary and save the trouble). Writing that sounds great, but has nothing worthwhile to say is like pop music: it's nice while it's there, but once you get bored, there's no reason to remember it exists.
Ultimately, there is much writing that is painful to read, but has a message worth knowing, and there is much writing that is a joy to read, but whose beauty is only skin-deep. Both have enjoyable aspects. If you can, try to write thought-provoking works that are beautifully constructed. If you can only choose one, then pick whichever one makes you happy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a very interesting entry to me because it identifies the opposition between form and content AND because it starts to doubt that opposition is as simple as it might seem. I've heard that a writer is someone who trusts craft--the "weaving and unweaving" that Yeats talked about--the process of revision and saying things well. Also, there may be something developmental about this dichotomy. I mean, new writers might have to jump into content first. They lack context (other writers) or much stylistic sensitivity. They are the folks Richard Lanham complains about in his book *Revising Prose.* But years of writing (and talk, listening, reading) sometimes make it seem to the older writer that it's the form--the syntax, rhythm, nuance, pacing, music, grammar, twists--of a piece of writing that lead to the meaning. So they say "pay attention to the music and everything else will follow," something they say to young poets all the time. But it seems to me that such advice is anachronistic--a bad fit with the needs of a new writer. I know my son Joe, 14, says ELA is his "least favorite subject." That might be because he's giving nothing but FORM to work with: a comparison/contrast essay, a description, a summary, a report, a powerpoint presentation. But what is the alternative? I don't buy the idea that it has to be either "self expression" or the dry crust of form. One alternative is media such as this blog or comics, of course, which you (Kevin) are pursuing. Is it possible to write well in elementary school? Is it possible to teach writing well there? I hope so. But to do so, we'd have to continue to doubt the dichotomy of form/content or assignment/self-expression or fact/opinion.
ReplyDeleteI think.