Tradition of Writing Looking Back

¶ … Tradition of Writing

Looking back over my past writing in order to search for my writing traditions, it became apparent to me that I actually have two writing traditions. Viewing my fiction and non-fiction writing, I realized that I approached the two different genres in very different manners. Even more remarkably, when reading over my old writing samples and comparing them to works by others, I realize that I tend to use similar conventions as other writers. My non-fiction works tends to be heavily based in fact. As a result, that work is drier and less engaging than my fiction work. On the other hand, much of my fiction writing has little regard for fact, which gives it a fantastic and unbelievable quality. Surprisingly, I have discovered that I have been consistently encouraged and rewarded for writing in such a manner. Rather than encouraging me to use a more engaging style in my non-fiction works, my teachers have consistently praised my dry non-fiction style. Similarly, I have been rewarded when my fiction work has contained plot elements that make the events implausible in real life. I believe that these elements of traditional writing limit, not only my own work, but also the genres with which they are traditionally associated.

Because the majority of my writing that has been subjected to review has been non-fiction, I began my investigation into my writing traditions by looking at how my non-fiction writing has been received and critiqued by my teachers. One of the first things that I noticed is that my non-fiction writing concentrates largely on things outside of me. Although I realize there is an entire genre, the autobiography, which is concerned with introspection and self-revelation, I have largely avoided writing in that arena. Furthermore, looking at the comments that I have received on previous works, I discovered that I have been consistently discouraged from introducing personal elements into that work. For example, one of the papers I reviewed was a fact-based paper presenting the different sides of the abortion debate. In my original draft, I included information about my personal position. The teacher's comments discourage me from doing so. However, I believe that my paper would have been enhanced by acknowledgement of my personal position. It is impossible for me, or for any other writer, for that matter, to be completely unbiased. Personal position is always going to be an element in non-fiction writing. Therefore, I believe that a writer should openly acknowledge personal bias when writing a work of non-fiction, so that the reader has all of the information that he or she needs to evaluate the work. Furthermore, if the author recognizes an actual reason for that bias, I think it is important for them to explain that reason to the audience. I believe such a format would enhance the reader's experience.

One of the other things that I noticed about my non-fiction writing is that I have traditionally approached it in a non-conversational manner. In fact, one of the cardinal rules of research papers is that the writer is to avoid the use of "you" and "I." It is very difficult to maintain a conversational tone when one is prohibited from addressing one's audience directly. Moreover, I believe that avoiding a conversational tone actually contributes to the boredom and dryness that many people associate with works of non-fiction. In fact, when I reflected upon the non-fiction works that I have enjoyed the most, I realized that they almost all break the rules and approach topics in a conversational manner. While many of these works have been auto-biographies, others of them have been in different genres. For example, I have read elements of Dr. Phil's Family First book. What I find refreshing and engaging about the book is that he appears to be having a conversation with the reader. He uses the word "you" frequently, and relies heavily upon the use of examples to illustrate the various points that he makes in the book. Furthermore, when he takes a position on a controversial subject, such as spanking, he acknowledges that he is using his opinion and even provides the reader with resources that argue the other side of the argument. However, he also explains how he came to his own conclusion and makes it clear that he believes it is the correct conclusion. Though his book actually contains information that is very similar to the information contained in a behavioral psychology book, it is much easier to read and digest.

The lack of a conversational tone is not limited to my non-fiction work. Even in my fiction work, I notice that I have been discouraged from using the word "you." In fact, even when I have presented works from a first-person perspective, I realize that I have been encouraged to include details that the protagonist would not necessarily know at that point in the story. This commentary has certainly led me towards a third-person writing style. Therefore, most of my fiction works are characterized by the use of an omniscient or semi-omniscient narrator. The narrator explains how a character feels by telling the audience the character's feelings or revealing those feelings in dialogue between characters. There is a substantial amount of fiction work that uses these same devices. In fact, most classic works of literature use these same devices. Once I began thinking about this, I realized that many works of literature are written like plays. For example, in Shakespeare's plays, he uses the soliloquy to explain a character's thoughts and motivations. Even when an author is not working with the limitations of the stage, they frequently revert to the use of external devices to explain character motivation. For example, in Dracula, Stoker provides insight into character feelings by revealing portions of diaries and letters written by those characters.

While such an approach can certainly be successful and can be a very compelling way to tell a story, I have discovered that I do not favor works that take an omniscient approach. On the contrary, a short scan of my bookshelves revealed that I prefer fiction works that are written from the first-person perspective. Whether the narrator is Sue Grafton's Kinsey Milhone or Scout in to Kill a Mockingbird, I enjoy feeling as if I am reading an individual's story. I realize that the first-person narrator lacks the ability to present the entire story, which is the very reason that teachers have given when discouraging me from using a first-person narrator. However, I believe that the intimacy one gains from a first-person narrator more than makes up for the information lost in that perspective.

Furthermore, I have always been discouraged from using a second-person perspective. In my fiction writing I have rarely attempted to use "you" in my storyline. When I have done so, I have received harsh criticism from teachers. In fact, I was even told that the use of the word "you" is presumptuous and alienating to a reader. However, I believe that this traditional element of writing is absolutely off-base. Pam Houston's Cowboys are My Weakness may be the best short-story collection that I have ever read, and it features several stories written in the second-person. I understand that such a perspective may have been alienating for certain readers who were unable to picture themselves inside the story. However, I found myself more involved in her stories than I have been in fiction works since I was a child, because the story literally spoke as if I were in the story.