Writing Construct
Proposal: Natural Writing vs. Learned Writing
It
is my understanding that there exists a common cultural conception that there
is such a thing as a natural writer.
That is, some people are born with innate understanding of how writing
works and some people are not. Just as
we think of some people being born with a natural talent of music or painting. For writing is not only a craft, it’s also an
art. Sarah Allen, on the other hand,
asserts that writing, at times, is not easy for anybody, including those who
are professional writers. She sites
David Bartholomae as confessing to not learning how to write until he finished
his undergraduate degree and also had his dissertation rejected because it was
“‘poorly written’” (Allen 29). In her
view, Bartholomae is representative of a writer who may have been born with
natural ability. However, Bartholomae,
himself is the one who claims that he also had to learn how to write. I would like to explore this idea
further. Is Stephen King successful
because he was born with natural talent, or does he have a better understanding
of what is culturally popular? Because
Junot Diaz took ten years of work to complete a novel, does it mean that he is
not a natural writer? I would like argue
that the idea of the natural born writer may, in fact, be a reality. Many of us would like to believe that in the
classroom it is up to the teacher, the curriculum and the effort of the student
to cultivate the ability of student writer.
So, we are caught in a paradox, neither can natural ability be
acknowledged publically nor can it be completely ignored.
Javan, you are writing on a similiar construct that I have selected to write about, but it seems we are taking different approaches!
ReplyDeleteI do not disagree with what you are proposing here, but I wonder if you can make this a little more nuanced?
For instance, are you asking whether some people are born as writers and others or not, orrrrr are you really asking where some people are born as BETTER writers than others? I see a pretty big distinction in those two questions.
Also, are you treating writing as Writing or writing as something specific... what I mean is that the writing the David Bartholomae engages in (academic) requires a different knowledge and heuristic base than the writing that King and Diaz engage in (narratives). Surely, fiction/non-fiction overlaps to a large degree, but this may also shade/frame your natural talent question differently.
Javan, this is such an interesting construct to explore. I agree with Michael above that there is a distinction between writers who write creatively and those who write more "academically." As a non-creative type, I think that the ability to write well is learned, but I'm interested in reading what you find. I like that you cite other artistic practices (musicianship, drawing, etc.) in which it does seem like the person is predisposed to perform it well or pick it up quickly.
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested in learning more about how talent in general is regarded by scholars, and also how talent relates to the writing process.You could maybe even go back to Kleine and examine some of the different writers' "processes"- did any one writer seem to have an easier (less complex) writing method? I guess this does, once again, bring up the problem of what discipline/type of writing you wish to explore.
Javan,
ReplyDeleteSee also Lamott's "Shitty First Drafts."
There is no denying the existence of talent. Without it, Diaz would never have been able to complete a successful novel (maybe a bad one . . .). Nor Bartholomae succeed in the academy (See his essay in ROW).
That said, failure in writing seems important . . . No one of any amount of talent just sits down and out comes great writing. Maybe seeing failure as negative is a construct?
I think you do need some further focusing. So you might look at the construct of 'natural talent' as part of a mystifying ideology. For example, it mystifies or obscures the role that a privileged background plays in one's literacy. Poor folks just are not exposed to the same opportunities. I think you might do some reading in literacy studies that looks at this.
Another way would be to look at what has been written about how the educational system plays into the natural talent mythos. Where do students get this? How is it best undone? Is writing in for the academy more into this?
--AR