I can say with
absolute confidence that my theory of writing, and my more personal identity as
a writer, has undergone a dramatic change this academic quarter. This is due to
my intense study of writing in general that stems from this class and from my introduction
as a consultant to the writing center, which required me to take a course that
focused on how writing is taught in writing centers. This focus on writing has
acted as a sort of obsessive frame of mind for me. I have found myself
attempting (with varied success) to talk to my friends and peers about writing
and often just contemplating it on my own.
Six
months ago, I saw writing as a means to an end. I have always had an
appreciation for writing, but that appreciation very rarely dipped below the
surface. I was able to recognize ‘good[1]’
writing, and I had always excelled in my own academic writing; yet I was
coasting. I rarely bothered to think about the writing process other than
proofreading and editing, and, I am embarrassed to say, I never truly revised a
paper until last month[2].
The intricacies of the writing process and of teaching writing were never of
importance to me and I was fine correcting papers for grammatical errors, basic
coherence and structure, citations, and formatting. Yet I was missing the whole
point of writing.
Perhaps
the most complete thought I have deducted is that writing is a conversation and
a social act. Writing begins as a thought. Yet to go back, to reflect, let’s
look at what a thought is. For us as human beings, a thought takes place in
words. So what we are experiencing as reflective thought is a form of
internalized conversation. The next step in this conversation is to make it
external. To do this is an intense effort, to verbalize to another human being,
to converse and discuss and turn this thought into a more cohesive idea that
another person can understand. For me, this is the most important part of my
writing process. I can think all day long and have short notes on my thoughts
and think I am onto something big, but when I try to articulate it can fall
apart. This is where writing becomes a social artifact. It is something that is
developed within a conversation, though the context of this conversation can be
fluid[3].
Though I believe, if you are lucky enough, the best ideas are those developed
in a personal conversation[4]. I
have gained the most through my conversation with a close friend where we can
debate these issues for hours and talk through abstract ideas until they
finally become concrete[5].
In
my contemplation of writing – what it is, the process behind it, and the
different forms it may take – I have delved into the ideas offered and explored
within the postmodern genre. The three authors I have taken the most from this
quarter are all masters of this genre, Kurt Vonnegut (Slaughterhouse-Five), Chuck Palahniuk (Survivor, Fight Club), Thomas Pynchon (The Crying of Lot 49), and David Foster Wallace (Infinite Jest)[6].
Postmodernism struggles to understand what mass media and technology are doing
to our culture, and in this struggle these authors pull from other texts and
rely heavily on social satire to critique and question the world around us.
Jenkins, Ford, and Green explore the impact that technology is having on our
society as a whole and many of the concepts in the novel are satirized in these
postmodern texts. DFW, besides creating some of the most phenomenal works of
fiction in the 20th century, follows in Didion’s footsteps with his
creative non-fiction essays. Consider the
Lobster and Authority and American
Usage are two of his essays that are now commonly found in college
classrooms around the country. These authors are not just incredible writers,
they are philosophers in the continuous and ongoing conversation that is
attempting to make sense of humanity.
Writing
is more than just words on a page, and it is more than just printing out an
assignment for class. Since in the invention of writing, and the evolutionary
process that has deviated from oral cultures and practices, these conversations
span generations and allow for a more thorough and globalized perspective into
these issues. What these postmodern texts are really getting at and trying to
understand is what it means to be a human today. We are surrounded by
technology and we are surrounded by people, but we have never been more
isolated. The postmodern self is a situational self, it is different in every
context and it is continuously bombarded with outside influences[7]
that create chaotic discord on a personal, societal, and global scale. What I
want to do is enter into this conversation because I think the postmodern era
is coming to an end and something new is emerging. The postmodern self is
situational, but this new self (I’m calling it the dislocated self) is
dislocated. It does not know what it is in any true context because we have no
constant context. Our world changes at an astonishing rate that we cannot hope
to keep up with. There are new trends every few days and if you fall behind
then you are ostracized from our culture.
I
now believe that writing is not just words on a page with an intent to
communicate. It is a conversation, an act of reflection, and a social artifact
and process. David Foster Wallace said that ‘fiction’s about what it is to be a
fucking human being,’ but I would add[8]
that writing is what makes us human.
It is a constant act of reflection, of going back. It is a primarily recursive
process that can define us if we let it. The more I read ‘good’ writing (such
as DFW, Joan Didion, Chuck Palahniuk) the more I realize that the ‘good’
writing is about being human. It is articulating the struggles we face on a
daily basis and attempting to put that into some sort of context. This can take
the form of fiction, of creative fiction, of an essay, of a scientific research
paper. These are all attempts to take something from the world and make sense
of it. It is reflective. It is looking back. It is about what it is to be a
fucking human being in the chaos of today.
[1]
Good writing is a term that has always bothered me. To me, good writing is not
about grammar or structure or any of the prescribed uses of syntax and diction.
Good writing is a good idea. While it can be incredibly pleasant to read pretty
sentences and complex sentences and experimental sentences, the ideas are what
stays with me.
[2]
A part of me still believes I have not fully revised a paper. There is a
notion, perhaps that is not fully realized yet, that thinks a revised paper
should look very little like the rough draft. There was a reading I did
recently for a class and the author described her experience of having a
professor go through her Master’s Thesis and completely change it. She simply
watched as he took it apart. Yet she wasn’t upset or offended, she was grateful
that someone finally showed her how to write and revise. Simply seeing comments
and attempting to make acceptable changes and hope that your writing has
improved to meet some abstruse standard is incredibly frustrating. I am
extremely envious of that experience.
[3]
A conversation may not be with another person in the form of speech. It can be
through social media, you can post an idea and have anyone or everyone respond.
You can email a friend or post on a random or relevant blog or article or
picture or Wikipedia. It can also be reading whatever on what you are thinking
about to gain perspective and other ideas. Writing is a long history of thought
and response and thought and response. Writing simply is conversation.
[4]
Yet I have this abstract idea that talking about writing is so wonderfully
redundant. So if it is redundant, then is talking about writing the definition
of reflection?
[5]
Or not, sometimes they become so abstract they just disintegrate, and that’s OK
too.
[6]
This should not come as a surprise at this point, but all of these authors are
in a conversation with each other! Chuck Palahniuk and DFW cite Kurt Vonnegut
as a major influence, DFW cites Thomas Pynchon, and Thomas Pynchon and everyone
else on this list cites James Joyce. These authors, without exception, are
looking at the media and our culture and pointing out its flaws in the form of
fiction.
[7]
This bombardment comes from advertising (you will be a happier and more
beautiful and more popular person if you buy this brand of toilet paper!), from
social media (look how happy and perfect everyone else is!), from the non-stop
informational overload that is the media. We are surrounded by everyone else’s
thought and ideas; so much so that forming our own is incredibly painful. We
want to be accepted, we want to find that human connection, and so we conform
our thoughts, our ideas, and our selves
to fit this unattainable image of perfection that we see everywhere we look.
[8]
And this is an act of heresy on my part since DFW is my writing hero, I mean
check out these footnotes!
No comments:
Post a Comment