three kinds of writing
Back in early November something appeared here about there being three kinds of writing, which were characterised as writing to convey ideas, writing to convey character, and writing as a purely aesthetic entity. Now there was a pleasing near-logic to this if you didn't think too hard about it. But that evening on a couple of long train journeys there was time to do little else but think too hard about it. The conclusion was that it appears to be more helpful to think about writing of organisation, writing of expression, and writing as an aesthetic concern, again. Those new definitions provide the subheadings that follow.
Writing of organisation
This developed from reflections on the concept of writing to convey ideas, and was taken to mean a variety of factual, speculative, and opinion-based writings, including philosophy and journalism. Those writings which require clarity of expression, the development of an argument or explanation of concepts, and which depend on order. This is clearly broader than the kinds of writing initially identified, and would include aspects of fiction, such as narrative development. Wherever an organising principle is manfest in the writing itself.
In many ways this is probably the most powerful and persuasive tool available to the writer, and easily misused. The use and abuse of logic, science, or of any number of abstruse specialist areas in coveying an idea rely on this kind of writing. As Edward Said, Noam Chomsky and others have pointed out, you can not only present arguments, but define the parameters of a debate. For this reason alone the reader needs to be alert.
Writing of expression
Writing of expression seems to have moved furthest from its originating concept as writing to convey character. It was in fact the hardest to resolve. As initially conceived it was both nebulous and barely distinguishable from writing to convey ideas (now writing of organisation).
Writing to convey character seemed to combine dialogue and description, both of which rely in some way on writing of organisation. The parts of writing to convey character that were unique to it seemed to fall in an extremely narrow band between writing of organisation and writing as an aesthetic concern. But that narrow band offered a way out. Writing of expression need not be organised in the conscious sense, and it need not be abstract or pleasurable in the way that writing as an aesthetic experience can be. Instead it can be expressive like much everyday speech, like most of the language we use. It is funtional writing, it can be cliched, it is organised in only the most rudimentary sense. It does fall between two extremes, but it is distinct. 'I'm happy' is more expressive than organised - in the literary sense at least the organisation is invisible. Thought processes underpin it - in the writer who wants to convey something by this statement, and implicitly or explicitly, in most cases within the character who utters the words.
Clearly writing of expression remains ill-defined, amorphous and problematic. But it's difficult to wholly abandon, so for the time being it stays.
Writing as an aesthetic concern
This is the only kind of writing that remains wholly unchanged from the original expression of these ideas. Possibly this is because the whole concept originated at this point. That there is certain writing which is purely a writing of sensation, a writing that has more in common with music, that is rhythm and sound, something wholly abstract and removed from any requirement to make sense.
Writing as an aesthetic concern need make no sense, need have no organising structure. It is this writing, the ability to create a distinct 'voice' that is crucial to writers developing a distinct identity. It also makes it easy to parody or pastiche any distinctive writer, however 'great' or complex without reproducing any of the meaning. It is also the writing closest to the experience of speech. If writing of organisation utilises the tools used to order speech and our arguments, and writing of expression uses some of the exact phrases we use everyday, then writing as an aesthetic concern is the sound of speech.
In conclusion, writing of organistion and writing as an aesthetic concern are easily identifiable and describable phenomena that can clearly be found in different quatities in almost all writing. Writing of expression occupies an ambiguous and unclear space between the two. Its very existence seems contentious, and yet there do seem to be elements of writing that don't belong to either of the other classifications - some of which are actually inexpressive. It rather looks like it's over to you. Send in your thoughts please.
Writing of organisation
This developed from reflections on the concept of writing to convey ideas, and was taken to mean a variety of factual, speculative, and opinion-based writings, including philosophy and journalism. Those writings which require clarity of expression, the development of an argument or explanation of concepts, and which depend on order. This is clearly broader than the kinds of writing initially identified, and would include aspects of fiction, such as narrative development. Wherever an organising principle is manfest in the writing itself.
In many ways this is probably the most powerful and persuasive tool available to the writer, and easily misused. The use and abuse of logic, science, or of any number of abstruse specialist areas in coveying an idea rely on this kind of writing. As Edward Said, Noam Chomsky and others have pointed out, you can not only present arguments, but define the parameters of a debate. For this reason alone the reader needs to be alert.
Writing of expression
Writing of expression seems to have moved furthest from its originating concept as writing to convey character. It was in fact the hardest to resolve. As initially conceived it was both nebulous and barely distinguishable from writing to convey ideas (now writing of organisation).
Writing to convey character seemed to combine dialogue and description, both of which rely in some way on writing of organisation. The parts of writing to convey character that were unique to it seemed to fall in an extremely narrow band between writing of organisation and writing as an aesthetic concern. But that narrow band offered a way out. Writing of expression need not be organised in the conscious sense, and it need not be abstract or pleasurable in the way that writing as an aesthetic experience can be. Instead it can be expressive like much everyday speech, like most of the language we use. It is funtional writing, it can be cliched, it is organised in only the most rudimentary sense. It does fall between two extremes, but it is distinct. 'I'm happy' is more expressive than organised - in the literary sense at least the organisation is invisible. Thought processes underpin it - in the writer who wants to convey something by this statement, and implicitly or explicitly, in most cases within the character who utters the words.
Clearly writing of expression remains ill-defined, amorphous and problematic. But it's difficult to wholly abandon, so for the time being it stays.
Writing as an aesthetic concern
This is the only kind of writing that remains wholly unchanged from the original expression of these ideas. Possibly this is because the whole concept originated at this point. That there is certain writing which is purely a writing of sensation, a writing that has more in common with music, that is rhythm and sound, something wholly abstract and removed from any requirement to make sense.
Writing as an aesthetic concern need make no sense, need have no organising structure. It is this writing, the ability to create a distinct 'voice' that is crucial to writers developing a distinct identity. It also makes it easy to parody or pastiche any distinctive writer, however 'great' or complex without reproducing any of the meaning. It is also the writing closest to the experience of speech. If writing of organisation utilises the tools used to order speech and our arguments, and writing of expression uses some of the exact phrases we use everyday, then writing as an aesthetic concern is the sound of speech.
In conclusion, writing of organistion and writing as an aesthetic concern are easily identifiable and describable phenomena that can clearly be found in different quatities in almost all writing. Writing of expression occupies an ambiguous and unclear space between the two. Its very existence seems contentious, and yet there do seem to be elements of writing that don't belong to either of the other classifications - some of which are actually inexpressive. It rather looks like it's over to you. Send in your thoughts please.
Comments