The concept of "good writing" has been knocking around my sconce for the last little bit. It grows out of pedagogy issues (how do I teach "good writing" if I can't pin down what I even think it is) as well as the other end of the writing process: reading. What makes for a good book? And if I can point to objective things about good books, surely I could emulate that idea for good writing, right?
Nope.
Here's the thing: I'm a pretty okay guitarist. I can play a lot of songs (sloppily) that I like and I can sometimes impress a gym full of teenagers with what I know. I've even taken the time to learn some technically intricate or interesting pieces by highly talented musicians. Learning to play these songs does require a particular skill set, but just because I can play the lead guitar parts to "Pal Treaux" doesn't mean I could ever write any aspect of this song. (This song, btw, is from my favorite band, the Rx Bandits and it sings to my soul and I love it and you should to so that we can remain friends and/or ambivalent strangers on the Internet.)
And that's the thing about reading good books. I know full well why Shakespeare is so amazing at what he does. But could I do what he does? I mean, Benedict Cumberbatch can act a mean Hamlet or Richard III, but his performance of the work is not the same as the creation of the work.
Of course no one mistakes Cumberbatch for Shakespeare. We don't usually make the mistake of a performance replacing the creator. But writing and reading operate in a different realm.
Consider this: According to some old statistics (circa 2002), about 81% of Americans* feel like they have a book in them. That's a pretty high number, and there's an assumption that, because just about everybody can read a book, the same can be said for writing one. (Especially children's books, which are some of the hardest types of books to create, write, pitch, and sell. Almost no children book authors has enough royalties coming in to make it a solid career.) We have this strange, democratic sense that we can all write a book if we only devoted the time.
That...may be true, actually. But the greater point is that good writing (which, I would think, leads to good books) is much harder to come by. I can perform Rx Bandits songs (passably), but I can't create them.
And that circles me back to the idea of good writing. I'm leery of putting it in the same ambiguous category as obscenity "I know it when I see it" because not only does that make it egregiously subjective, but it's also packaging an entire craft with a lot of baggage that I don't think it ought to carry. But it can't be a strictly objective thing, either:
There are a lot of perils and problems in believing art of any kind can be objectively judged, but so, too, are there potholes in assuming that all things can be judged equally. There's so much that goes into writing that it can almost become paralyzing (some of what Bloom was no doubt talking about in his "anxiety of influence" thesis I talked about before). Okay, maybe not paralyzing, but it can give me pause.
Without being able to nail down definitions, it's easy to get lost in the Syndrome fallacy ("If everyone's super, no one is") and start thinking that all writing is equal. But it's not. This essay is a good example of my writing, but my example isn't necessarily good writing. Is having pithiness in writing a component? If so, how big of a role should it play? What about allusions? Illustrations? Rhetorical questions? My essay has all of them, yet I don't see it as being good writing. Comparatively, it's brilliant--if I'm comparing myself to my six year old son's writing. If I pretended that I'm in the same league as David Sedaris or Dr. Samuel Johnson, then I'm deluding myself.
Why? Cultural cachet and momentum of veneration are contributing factors, but if Dr. Johnson didn't have something of worth to say, he wouldn't be remembered. Original essayists like Montaigne are revered for having created the genre, yes, but they were also good at it.
I can point at any number of qualities of that goodness--clarity of thought, cleverness of verbosity, profundity of insight--but that's what makes their writing good. What makes mine any good--if it's good at all?
....I don't really know.
----
* Don't read the rest of the article. It's smarmy and weird, even if the chap has some good points. His delivery is arrogant and tone needlessly dismissive, say I with a dismissive sniff.
Nope.
Here's the thing: I'm a pretty okay guitarist. I can play a lot of songs (sloppily) that I like and I can sometimes impress a gym full of teenagers with what I know. I've even taken the time to learn some technically intricate or interesting pieces by highly talented musicians. Learning to play these songs does require a particular skill set, but just because I can play the lead guitar parts to "Pal Treaux" doesn't mean I could ever write any aspect of this song. (This song, btw, is from my favorite band, the Rx Bandits and it sings to my soul and I love it and you should to so that we can remain friends and/or ambivalent strangers on the Internet.)
And that's the thing about reading good books. I know full well why Shakespeare is so amazing at what he does. But could I do what he does? I mean, Benedict Cumberbatch can act a mean Hamlet or Richard III, but his performance of the work is not the same as the creation of the work.
 |
| Pictured here, Bumblefinger Cinderblock and her rider. |
Consider this: According to some old statistics (circa 2002), about 81% of Americans* feel like they have a book in them. That's a pretty high number, and there's an assumption that, because just about everybody can read a book, the same can be said for writing one. (Especially children's books, which are some of the hardest types of books to create, write, pitch, and sell. Almost no children book authors has enough royalties coming in to make it a solid career.) We have this strange, democratic sense that we can all write a book if we only devoted the time.
That...may be true, actually. But the greater point is that good writing (which, I would think, leads to good books) is much harder to come by. I can perform Rx Bandits songs (passably), but I can't create them.
And that circles me back to the idea of good writing. I'm leery of putting it in the same ambiguous category as obscenity "I know it when I see it" because not only does that make it egregiously subjective, but it's also packaging an entire craft with a lot of baggage that I don't think it ought to carry. But it can't be a strictly objective thing, either:
There are a lot of perils and problems in believing art of any kind can be objectively judged, but so, too, are there potholes in assuming that all things can be judged equally. There's so much that goes into writing that it can almost become paralyzing (some of what Bloom was no doubt talking about in his "anxiety of influence" thesis I talked about before). Okay, maybe not paralyzing, but it can give me pause.
Without being able to nail down definitions, it's easy to get lost in the Syndrome fallacy ("If everyone's super, no one is") and start thinking that all writing is equal. But it's not. This essay is a good example of my writing, but my example isn't necessarily good writing. Is having pithiness in writing a component? If so, how big of a role should it play? What about allusions? Illustrations? Rhetorical questions? My essay has all of them, yet I don't see it as being good writing. Comparatively, it's brilliant--if I'm comparing myself to my six year old son's writing. If I pretended that I'm in the same league as David Sedaris or Dr. Samuel Johnson, then I'm deluding myself.
Why? Cultural cachet and momentum of veneration are contributing factors, but if Dr. Johnson didn't have something of worth to say, he wouldn't be remembered. Original essayists like Montaigne are revered for having created the genre, yes, but they were also good at it.
I can point at any number of qualities of that goodness--clarity of thought, cleverness of verbosity, profundity of insight--but that's what makes their writing good. What makes mine any good--if it's good at all?
....I don't really know.
----
* Don't read the rest of the article. It's smarmy and weird, even if the chap has some good points. His delivery is arrogant and tone needlessly dismissive, say I with a dismissive sniff.
Comments