When it comes to me as a writer in general, this class has significantly calmed me down about the task of writing. I was talking to two high-school friends the other day about how my English class "de-Fleury-ized" me. Our former English teacher is named Ms. Fleury, and she's the woman who taught me to write essays. It's not that I don't like her, it's that she put terrible constraints on me as a writer by forbidding me from using first person and discouraging "being" verbs and other ridiculous things like that. I was taught to write very dryly. I made up for all the arbitrary restrictions I had as a writer by increasing my technical vocabulary and contorting my syntax; sadly, this was encouraged by my teachers. Overall I feel like I've had a large object removed from my ass.
I don't strain myself as much when I write now. It comes as naturally as before. Because of high school, my analysis and argument papers felt very familiar, but I was more focused on my ideas than on how to avoid first-person and fit into the boundaries of "topic, example, discussion."
I enjoy the method of "reading like a writer" we were taught. It fits into the larger idea of simply being aware of myself as a writer rather than doing things "right" or "wrong." For one, I enjoy workshopping now; I can look at someone's work and accept their qualities as a writer as their own, and view what I have to say simply as being my perspective as a reader. When I write, I hardly think about mechanics or guidelines anymore. I just look at what's written and examine what the writing is doing. That's a skill I've always thought I've had, but I've actually just newly earned it.
You have to learn to look at your writing and not think "this is good enough." I think most people do it subconsciously, because I was never aware I was doing it when I used to write, but I was. I even would think I was just a naturally good writer so what I was doing could be trusted, which is even worse.
So most of my development as a writer has been maturing. I've also taken a creative writing course this semester with another teacher who's made me aware of my strengths and weaknesses. The work in both of these courses has been humbling, and I'm glad because I've become noticeably better because I have to hold my standards high.
I'm not a perfect writer. This is true much more-so with my creative writing than with my academic, casual, and technical writing, but they often spill together. I am actually becoming a skilled poet now, and can look at a poem and notice a mixed metaphor, or actually know why I'm enjambing a line and how words sound and images fit together. But in anything artistic I still write I'll often leave phrases in the work and read the piece over and over to myself and not question them, not realizing what a confusing or melodramatic thing is sitting there. I still have to learn to "question everything" as far as writing goes.
I've also been noticing this problem where a lot of my work takes on a similar pacing and tone. My big brother from the fraternity I'm pledging, a creative writing minor, proof-read some of my poems and told me it was like reading "one long poem." This has often been the case in my prose. While I don't think it vital that the body of my academic writing explore different paces and tones as long as it's effective, it's important for that of my creative and casual. Even Facebook statuses. I don't want all my Facebook statuses to sound the same.
As for the whole "two writers" thing I talked about in my first blog, I think they've kind of met each other. I didn't realize it was an issue that my creative writer and essayist were split entities.
No comments:
Post a Comment