On good prose writing

I enjoy non-fiction prose.  Nine times out of ten I would rather read a good book of non-fiction over a novel, particularly if the book is well written.  Usually this runs under the subject heading “Philosophy”, but in its broadest definition this includes everything from every discipline.  And not everything has to be academic; I love the essay as a literary form, and I wish there was a good magazine in my city of essays in the the style of E.B. White or Emerson or Montaigne or Walter Benjamin or Jorge Luis Borges or any other number of serious yet non-academic, non-journalist, writers.

Furthermore, I think I am good at it.  My problem with my writing is a lack of serious energy and motivation, not a lack of skill.  I don’t consider myself a writer at this point because I cannot sacrifice sleep for my craft as great writers tend to do.  However, I enjoy writing in school, even if it is something I am not particularly interesting in learning.  I like writing non-fiction because of one particular high school teacher, Mr. Garbas.

I didn’t have him until Grade 12 history, so until then all I had really learned is the 5-paragraph essay: introduction which mentions your three points, three paragraphs, and a conclusion with a reiteration of your three points.  He got up the very first day and drew three links of a chain on the board.  I loved him because he was overly-grouchy, to the point where you knew it was all for show (he couldn’t get away with it nowadays).  He would insult us, then go on to say that everything you write, from a letter to your dissertation, should have a point, preferably an argument.  Each link in the chain, be it a paragraph or a sentence, should work towards proving your point.  Anything that doesn’t prove your point should be cut, or at the very least footnoted.  Furthermore, every link in the chain should naturally be introduced by the previous link and naturally lead into the following link.  These were the holy duality of Coherence and Unity. 

I love non-fiction when it it exhibits Coherence and Unity.  A paper should not force you anywhere, it should lead you from the beginning to the end without trouble, and you shouldn’t have to re-read in confusion.  By all means re-read in awe or read again because you disagree, but it shouldn’t be hard, even the most erudite writing. Each piece should link to the next, and they all should link to the whole. And, if we are reading an essay as classically understood, by all means take us around in circles.  I love Susan Sontag for the way in which she dances around an issue, dropping breadcrumbs for you as you go, as you slowly see the picture she is painting one stroke at a time.

Which is why I dislike the fact that I have a group project with an individual assignment that consists of making something “alternative”: a blog, or a wiki, or a video or something else which would require a 2.0 ending.  I just can’t think of what to do for this thing, beyond taking my work done for the group project and posting it online somewhere.  The project is about Mass Media and Alternative Media, and I wrote two pages about the theoretical critiques of mass media (McChesney, Chomsky etc.).  I just don’t know how to translate that into something “creative.”

Post a Comment | Trackback URI