You’re Not the Boss of Me
I teach Composition and Scientific & Technical Communication at a technological university which is a very interesting and fun challenge because the majority of the students at my university are not predisposed, at least in temperament, to the liberal arts.
As I grade student work, I often find myself offering students feedback by way of writing rules or myths I’ve long incorporated into my repertoire to guide them in revision, etc. Last night, as I labored over a fairly problematic stack of technical reports, I had to stop myself because I was feeling very uncomfortable about simply regurgitating the same old writing rules without really thinking through their merit.
A couple weeks ago, I had students read an article about Expressive Technical Writing as a means of introducing them to different avenues of scholarship in technical communication that go beyond the material traditionally taught in technical writing courses. After reading the article, the students wrote a brief reflection (without any specific guidelines from me) on what they thought about the idea of incorporating expressive writing into engineering communication. Sometimes when you ask students to write reflections they’ll turn in meandering Dear Diary type writing that is lacking a clear sense of purpose beyond, “I am writing this because I have no choice.”
In this instance, however, my students turned in some of the strongest writing I’ve seen in years. Their responses were passionate, well-organized, clearly and rhetorically expressed and mechanically well-written. Reading their responses made me excited and for a few moments, at least, I felt I had done something right. As I returned their work, I asked my students why they thought this work was so much stronger than some of the work they had previously done and several students eagerly discussed how it was easier to write when there weren’t any rules. That experience has been on my mind since.
What rules or myths guide your writing? What rules/myths need do we need to stop regurgitating to other writers, our selves, students? When do you set writing rules/myths aside and trust your natural instinct for composing written work?
“What rules or myths guide your writing?”
None. I want to explode the rules, to melt them.
“What rules or myths guide your writing?”
None. I want to explode the rules, to melt them.
Well of course. That’s the default response. Surely, though, at some point, there were rules or myths you followed. Or are you saying that you’ve always had the confidence to write beyond rules?
Well of course. That’s the default response. Surely, though, at some point, there were rules or myths you followed. Or are you saying that you’ve always had the confidence to write beyond rules?
No No. Until I read Burroughs I was a slave to rules. I hope I have killed them all now, though
No No. Until I read Burroughs I was a slave to rules. I hope I have killed them all now, though
it’s interesting—in the little teaching i’ve done, what i’ve found myself doing most is rules by way of permission. i.e. “tell me how you think it has to be. no, it doesn’t only have to be like that. it can be like this or this. if you think about this or read that, you’ll see you’re allowed to do this and that.”
usually i try to be “descriptive” when it comes to rules, which is of course a sleight of hand. i find myself tracing rules back to stuff like “this is how people get attention in a bar, this is how people find what is theirs to say when they’re talking to a close friend—do the same thing with your writing”
i try to avoid at all costs the idea that there is a magic/authoritative/secret “right way to do things,” but i know it’s appealing just as much to a different kind of authority to say “let’s think about how the things we like work”
in fact, i think there can be an ideal sort of “writing something you don’t like” if it is a certain kind of explosive/gnawing/crawfish smelling “don’t like” and if you’re surprising yourself in an urgent (and not stupid) way
it’s interesting—in the little teaching i’ve done, what i’ve found myself doing most is rules by way of permission. i.e. “tell me how you think it has to be. no, it doesn’t only have to be like that. it can be like this or this. if you think about this or read that, you’ll see you’re allowed to do this and that.”
usually i try to be “descriptive” when it comes to rules, which is of course a sleight of hand. i find myself tracing rules back to stuff like “this is how people get attention in a bar, this is how people find what is theirs to say when they’re talking to a close friend—do the same thing with your writing”
i try to avoid at all costs the idea that there is a magic/authoritative/secret “right way to do things,” but i know it’s appealing just as much to a different kind of authority to say “let’s think about how the things we like work”
in fact, i think there can be an ideal sort of “writing something you don’t like” if it is a certain kind of explosive/gnawing/crawfish smelling “don’t like” and if you’re surprising yourself in an urgent (and not stupid) way
technical writing is vapid work. that stuff is all rules. i bet your students went apeshit when given a chance to be “reflective”.
i think some people like rules a lot. they like to control small things so they can feel safe about their life and their environment and etc.
i think most of academia loves rules.
i also think if you don’t follow the rules well then you aren’t going to be accepted by academia.
and if you aren’t going to be accepted by academia you better be tough as porn pussy or know the rules inside and out so you can defend your work.
this notion is universal to many things.
technical writing is vapid work. that stuff is all rules. i bet your students went apeshit when given a chance to be “reflective”.
i think some people like rules a lot. they like to control small things so they can feel safe about their life and their environment and etc.
i think most of academia loves rules.
i also think if you don’t follow the rules well then you aren’t going to be accepted by academia.
and if you aren’t going to be accepted by academia you better be tough as porn pussy or know the rules inside and out so you can defend your work.
this notion is universal to many things.
I like mikes comment about “permission” – that was really liberating for me as an undergrad. It’s like “holy shit – I don’t have to be grammatically correct? that’s awesome!” – and then I discovered Clark Coolige and the like. All downhill into a pit of noise from there. It’s fun in here though. If you want to join me, I’ll grab some beers from the noise-fridge.
I like mikes comment about “permission” – that was really liberating for me as an undergrad. It’s like “holy shit – I don’t have to be grammatically correct? that’s awesome!” – and then I discovered Clark Coolige and the like. All downhill into a pit of noise from there. It’s fun in here though. If you want to join me, I’ll grab some beers from the noise-fridge.
Ahhh, technical writing is not vapid work, though many people construe it as such. The discipline is definitely (and has been for a few years now) evolving beyond the paradigm of rigid rules that must be followed.
Ahhh, technical writing is not vapid work, though many people construe it as such. The discipline is definitely (and has been for a few years now) evolving beyond the paradigm of rigid rules that must be followed.
One of the the things I’m learning to incorporate into my classes is the idea of permission–that there’s more than one way to write a memo/report/whatever and still meet audience expectations. As a creative writer teaching tech comm it has been a real project to find useful ways of bringing what I know about the creative form to a different (at least on the surface) kind of writing.
I really like what you say about avoiding the authoritative/magic answer to how to write. So often students (at least at my institution) really want an answer key, if you will. They want there to be a right and wrong way to write. The challenging/fun part of teaching is getting across to them that the definitive answers don’t exist.
One of the the things I’m learning to incorporate into my classes is the idea of permission–that there’s more than one way to write a memo/report/whatever and still meet audience expectations. As a creative writer teaching tech comm it has been a real project to find useful ways of bringing what I know about the creative form to a different (at least on the surface) kind of writing.
I really like what you say about avoiding the authoritative/magic answer to how to write. So often students (at least at my institution) really want an answer key, if you will. They want there to be a right and wrong way to write. The challenging/fun part of teaching is getting across to them that the definitive answers don’t exist.
it was vapid work to me. i wasn’t meaning to shit on the vocation as a whole.
it was vapid work to me. i wasn’t meaning to shit on the vocation as a whole.
First of all, these are wonderful questions. Okay, let me think. 1) I always employ some kind of constraint, or rule, when I write. It makes writing, for me, fun. Like a game. Or a puzzle. For example, I am writing this thing right now in which my constraint is simply to “avoid the essential.” So, my goal has become to write something as deliberately vague (no, but I mean really) as possible. So far, it’s been really fun! 2) If I was a teacher (I am jealous that you are a teacher), I would definitely encourage and support the students in my classes (i.e. other writers) to do things that get them to write. Whatever it is that works, that gets you to write stuff, then do that. Plus, I would always try to show them stuff that I hope would help them if they needed it. 3) Whenever I get stuck or bored, I change the rules. Sometimes, it’s true, I write “without” any rules or constraints at all. Of course, this is impossible, but sometimes it just feels good to let go and write about whatever!
First of all, these are wonderful questions. Okay, let me think. 1) I always employ some kind of constraint, or rule, when I write. It makes writing, for me, fun. Like a game. Or a puzzle. For example, I am writing this thing right now in which my constraint is simply to “avoid the essential.” So, my goal has become to write something as deliberately vague (no, but I mean really) as possible. So far, it’s been really fun! 2) If I was a teacher (I am jealous that you are a teacher), I would definitely encourage and support the students in my classes (i.e. other writers) to do things that get them to write. Whatever it is that works, that gets you to write stuff, then do that. Plus, I would always try to show them stuff that I hope would help them if they needed it. 3) Whenever I get stuck or bored, I change the rules. Sometimes, it’s true, I write “without” any rules or constraints at all. Of course, this is impossible, but sometimes it just feels good to let go and write about whatever!
I think that rules can, and should, be used to advantage. While a writer shouldn’t fret too much about obeying the rules in all instances, understanding the rules means that they can be followed or broken when it is the most effective to do so.
And anything that helps a writer anticipate how a reader will approach his or her work is good, I think.
I think that rules can, and should, be used to advantage. While a writer shouldn’t fret too much about obeying the rules in all instances, understanding the rules means that they can be followed or broken when it is the most effective to do so.
And anything that helps a writer anticipate how a reader will approach his or her work is good, I think.
Gotcha.
Gotcha.
I feel like imposed constraints are for people who didn’t have something they wanted to say. When people are given the opportunity to express something important to them, they do it well…or fulfill their potential, at least.
I feel like imposed constraints are for people who didn’t have something they wanted to say. When people are given the opportunity to express something important to them, they do it well…or fulfill their potential, at least.
What is a constraint? Writing in language is a constraint. Writing in a language, too. Using a QWERTY keyboard. Grammar is a constraint. Alluding to the Odyssey is a constraint. Writing from experience but forcing yourself to “tell it slant” is a constraint.
The Oulipo folk explored constraints as generative instead of stifling.
What is a constraint? Writing in language is a constraint. Writing in a language, too. Using a QWERTY keyboard. Grammar is a constraint. Alluding to the Odyssey is a constraint. Writing from experience but forcing yourself to “tell it slant” is a constraint.
The Oulipo folk explored constraints as generative instead of stifling.