Blog 5

There isn’t much I have to say this week and this is mainly due to the fact that I can find no way to truly be an advocate to the opposite way of thinking from that of any of the writers in this week’s readings. I am happy to see that the idea of the five paragraph, highly organized, and utterly boring type of paper is falling out of favor in the writing community. As a chaotic writer, and as a writer who does not always follow the rule of thesis statement followed by supporting evidence followed by conclusion, I can appreciate fully the move away from this kind of writing. I do wonder though if formulized is as much of a danger as it is presented in 9 Rights. What I mean is, would not some people flourish under such rules and formulas, especially if those rules and formulas were altered to allow slightly more freedom? I ask this because of a friend who is a very “black and white” person. He follows every rule, every formula, every law to its letter, not its spirit, and I cannot begin to imagine how he would be able to cope as a writer without the formulas he was taught while growing up. While I revel in chaos and perform at my best when there is nothing but a looming deadline and a vague notion (which is why I have yet to figure out my second paper) my friend would be utterly lost. Part of me wants to say it is because of the formulas and how they were beaten into his head, but that is only a small part. A larger part of me believes that he needs them to operate, without them he would write nothing, would express nothing (although expression is somewhat limited with him anyway). So, that leaves me with the question of whether or not formulas are truly evil.

As for the other readings … I have to honestly admit that Writing and the Writer is not for me, I have a tendency to fall asleep while reading anything in the book that is longer then 7 pages, and I thank my Laundromat for having buzzers on their dryers or I would have slept through the day. On the point of Smith’s observations on reviewing writing and writer’s block I must admit that I am happy to at least see someone, and a professional no less, who agrees with me on the issue of editing. It is quite true that a writer may never catch all of his or her mistakes. What we see on the page is not what is on the actual page, is not the actual print but what a translation of the voice in our minds. We as writers hear that voice again as we attempt to edit our work, and so we miss that we typed “ever” instead of “every” or that we forgot three whole words in a sentence. To the writer those words are there because the voice in our heads repeats them from its memory and we see “every” and not “ever” because that was what we though when we wrote. On a side note, I’m also happy that I am not weird for projecting possible situations and that it is normal for the mind to do so … I think, that is what Smith said right? I bet you all think I’m nuts now, right?

Someone out there, posting in this blog probably has something really important to say about the Sommer reading. Something profound, some great and some other “p-word” I cannot rightly think up right now. Needless to say, I am not that person, and found myself more interested in the allegorical story of the author’s youth than to the points she was trying to make. I got lost in the story and wandered to far. Sorry.