My Philosophy of Writing (As of This Week)

I have little to no first-hand experience in teaching writing, but I have managed to gain years of second-hand experience from viewing my writing teachers in classes throughout the years. If I have learned anything about being an English teacher from paying attention to such teachers myself, it is that teaching composition means to encourage students to convey more from a composition than a desire to get an A+. Creative and critical writing should bring into the forefront a clear concept of critical thinking, while still molding that comprehension of critical thinking with your opinions and arguments to form a unique writing style that sets you apart from other writers. By comprehension of critical thinking, I mean that all creative and critical writers alike should become aware of the basics of rhetoric. Said basics certainly include logos, ethos, and pathos; when writing creative or critical works, a writer needs to have those three things to keep all members of an audience swayed by the strange bugs you’ve placed on your paper. That process takes two kinds of subjective voices to see eye to eye on a topic, for writing must be between a writer’s voice and each of the audience’s voices. As it stands now, my whole philosophy on writing revolves around that whole wordy concept. But that whole wordy and winding concept can still be whittled down into three brief ideas:

1. A writer should learn to meet and adapt to the needs of individual listeners and readers.

2. Writing is a gift that all people have, and it should boil down to a writer’s subjective voice.

3. At the same time, writing is based on dialectic interaction, or the social interaction between the material and the individual audience members, by way of style, arrangement, and connection.

            I believe that as writers, all of my students must learn to adapt to the needs and opinions of individual listeners and readers. Even though a writer’s piece is his or her own work, he or she must become aware of the audience who will read the text that he or she has prepared. The individual audience for a first draft will be the ones who will ultimately tell the writer what the paper’s strengths and weaknesses are so far, and how the writer can amend the weaknesses. In this way and many other ways, the audience can help the writer generate and evaluate a critical or creative paper. Secondly, considering individual audience members are also essential for a writer to know how his or her paper must be written. If a writer is writing a journal article for scholars, the paper must be in a professional and formal tone to appeal to the scholars and readers of that journal. If the article is for a newspaper or general audiences, the paper can have an informal tone to interest the more casual reader.

            Despite this mindset of adapting to readers’ needs, students should also never lose sight of the fact that writing is a gift all people have and should boil down to an individual subjective voice. It is one thing to appeal to the audience who read your writing, but a distinct voice needs to arise from your writing style over a period of time. Such a voice must sound natural and unforced, as if you are comfortable with the material that you write about. The idea of expressionism that I believe in means I believe in having a stronger connection with a certain audience or group of students. James A. Berlin writes on expressionism in his article “Contemporary Composition,” saying that “theories rely on classroom procedures that encourage the writer to interact in dialogue with the...class. The purpose is to get rid of what is untrue to the private vision of the writer” (Berlin 561). To have a natural subjective voice that can appeal to audiences in its own way, a writer must not be afraid to open up and express him or herself. Because if that writer still hides or disguises his or her true subjective voice, no real progress can be made towards a writer’s subjective voice to prepare that writer’s material for its interactions with individual audience members.

            The final point that should be brought up ties the initial two together, bringing up the idea advocated by Mike Rose that writing is based on the social interaction between the material and the different readers by way of style, arrangement, and connection. From the writer’s writing the words of his or her argument on some paper to the reader’s thoughts on reading those words, a written paper is a long-distance communication with a writer and his or her entire vast audience of unknowns. The style and arrangement, no matter how structured, must connect with the varied audience well enough for that audience to respond. This connective mindset must be distinguished more than most cognitive theories, according to Rose, because “Human cognition-even at its most stymied, bungled moments-is rich and varied” (Rose 359). No two readers or writers will be ever the same in regards to their cognition, so the written material’s style, arrangement, and connection each need to have a dialectic hook that connects the writer’s voice with the audience’s voices regardless of the half-bungled variable known as a social interaction between two human beings.

            In the end, the three most important things to keep in mind when students write include the writer’s voice, the audience’s voices, and the interactions developed between the two. I feel that such things will be able to give any class an understanding of the importance of writing rhetoric, and how rhetoric is applicable to critical and creative writing alike. The connections between differing voices caused by different kinds of written rhetoric shows how inclusive writing can be if it is used properly. In each and every way, teachers must try to teach the importance of alternating opinions to their classes or any attempts at teaching learning any type of writing will fall flat.