Thoughts About Writing

1. Before and when first entering college, I thought that writing was bound by a certain set of rules. Of course, I had also often heard the popular cliché, “Learn the rules before you break them.” In my mind, this phrase applied only to a writer’s stylistic choice in “creative writing” such as short stories and memoir. In fact, I thought writing to be so governed by rules that if one only followed the proper “formula” (standard grammar rules), his or her writing will automatically be of good—or at least acceptable—quality.

Now I view “rules” more as guidelines, helpful tools for the writer. After all, “correct” grammar can sometimes serve to make a sentence more clear and concise. But the “rules” of writing extend far beyond grammar. We find certain guidelines that determine differences in genre, tone of voice, delivery of argument, etc. In this way, I don’t associate “rules” more with one kind of writing than another; all forms of writing (a term in itself we use rather loosely) are directed by particular guidelines, which allow us to build genre and rhetorical classifications in the first place. Language itself must adhere to rules or guidelines in order for it to be comprehensible. Ironically, I still think writing is bound by rules, but neither my conception of writing nor of rules is the same as before.

 

2. In the past, I thought personal opinion should be stymied in professional or academic papers. After all, we should strive for objectivity, right? However, throughout college, my views on the role of personal opinion have greatly changed. First, I’ve come to realize that pure objectivity is an ideal that no human could possibly achieve. Although we do, in some types of writing, come close to full objectivity, its realization cannot be met due to our own limited knowledge—as possessors of finite knowledge, our views are inherently subjective. Second, personal opinion may be shaped on a whim or guided by facts and evidence. If by the latter, “personal opinion” might also pose itself as “thesis.” I usually equate “thesis” with “argument,” or that main point around which rhetorical persuasion is centered. Since I believe that all writing is rhetorically motivated, I therefore think “personal opinion” also manifests itself in all types of writing.

Donald Murray states that “all writing is autobiographical.” The very way that someone writes—word choice, line of thinking, sentence structure—reflects the type of person he or she is. I think society expects some kinds of writing to be more “personal” than other kinds: writing in a diary, for instance, versus writing in a car manual. In those instances, the reader would see more of the person of the writer reflected through the diary than through the car manual.

If Doug means “personal opinion” as something entirely unsubstantiated by fact, then yes, I believe there are types of writing where opinion isn’t “allowed.” I want the person writing my car manual to know how the car works, not just think he knows how the car works. I want the journalist covering the news report to actually know the details of the story, not just think she knows what did or did not happen. In this way, “objectivity” would mean something devoid of all personal opinion—all those thoughts not guided by evidence. However, “personal” and “personal opinion” are not synonymous. “Personal” means that something comes from, or is reflective of, a particular person. So even an objective piece of writing is somewhat personal, like I mentioned earlier. I think then, perhaps the question of should it be is irrelevant.

3. Apparently I answered the previous question incorrectly since in this next prompt, we were asked to differentiate between “personal and opinion-based writing” and “objective and impersonal writing.” All right, I’ll go with the framework that there is such a thing as impersonal writing. Under that category of impersonal writing, I would list technical writing and recipe-writing—basically, the “how-to” types of writing. Also, I guess I hadn’t considered public signs (such as “stop,” “yield,” and “Denver 11 miles”) as types of writing—but if they are, they would definitely be objective and impersonal forms of writing. (They’d also disprove my earlier statement that all writing is personal; such an economy of words and tight standard of display allows really for no creative choice of the writer). Whether or not public signs count towards what most people typically think as “writing,” it does bring up a good point: the “creative choice” of the writer. The more flexibility in a piece of writing and the more opportunity for varying styles, the more “personal” and “opinion-based” that piece likely will be. That’s why, though news articles should theoretically be objective and impersonal, I wouldn’t count them as such; they aren’t as “formulaic” as technical writing, for example. Perhaps the “differences in those scenes” all come down to genre—the varying guidelines shaping and guiding a piece.