Ms
P and Mr
R have got me thinking about my theory of good writing. My problem is, I
don’t have one.
I understand the idea that there is bad writing and I
certainly know the experience of reading writing which is good, but I’ve never
really been comfortable with the idea of being able to define it. I am, in this
instance, a relativist, which means that I don’t believe that there is any such
thing as “perfect” writing nor that there is some way of making irrefutable
judgements about the quality of writing.
I’m not sure if my students should be pleased by this
declaration or not. On the one hand, I don’t claim to have the knowledge to
make final judgements about their writing so they can feel more comfortable to
explore and experiment without fear of too harsh a judgement. On the other
hand, they don’t have a teacher who feels able to point them towards perfection
with any degree of confidence.
Whilst I appreciate that writing is a discipline and that
there are very definitely practices that help produce the final product
effectively and efficiently, I’m not sure that the real poetry of writing can
be achieved solely through discipline. There is something in the best writing
which is beyond words: a paradoxical special ingredient that somehow evaporates
if you try to take the lid off and define it in a classroom. The best I think I’ve ever been able to do is
put it in front of my students and hope for a little osmosis.
So, below, I offer a little bit of magic. This is Ted Hughes’
description of the act of writing poetry depicted, appropriately, through
metaphor. My favourite line in this poem is the first line of the last stanza.
A masterpiece of descriptive writing – but I can’t, exactly, tell you why.
I imagine this midnight
moment's forest:
Something else is alive
Beside the clock's loneliness
And this blank page where my fingers move.
Through the window I see no star:
Something more near
Though deeper within darkness
Is entering the loneliness:
Cold, delicately as the dark snow
A fox's nose touches twig, leaf;
Two eyes serve a movement, that now
And again now, and now, and now
Sets neat prints into the snow
Between trees, and warily a lame
Shadow lags by stump and in hollow
Of a body that is bold to come
Across clearings, an eye,
A widening deepening greenness,
Brilliantly, concentratedly,
Coming about its own business
Till, with a sudden sharp hot stink of fox
It enters the dark hole of the head.
The window is starless still; the clock ticks,
The page is printed.
Something else is alive
Beside the clock's loneliness
And this blank page where my fingers move.
Through the window I see no star:
Something more near
Though deeper within darkness
Is entering the loneliness:
Cold, delicately as the dark snow
A fox's nose touches twig, leaf;
Two eyes serve a movement, that now
And again now, and now, and now
Sets neat prints into the snow
Between trees, and warily a lame
Shadow lags by stump and in hollow
Of a body that is bold to come
Across clearings, an eye,
A widening deepening greenness,
Brilliantly, concentratedly,
Coming about its own business
Till, with a sudden sharp hot stink of fox
It enters the dark hole of the head.
The window is starless still; the clock ticks,
The page is printed.
Ted Hughes
Ramblings ...
ReplyDeleteI love this ..."There is something in the best writing which is beyond words: a paradoxical special ingredient that somehow evaporates if you try to take the lid off and define it in a classroom. The best I think I’ve ever been able to do is put it in front of my students and hope for a little osmosis."
Osmosis is idealistic though, even if I am sure you didn't mean that in a purist way. I think more than exposure we have to share/model/advocate/incept what we know about clarity and sophistication through whatever way we know how. Doesn't mean we have the monopoly of what that looks like. I guess, again, there has to be a balance between discipline and magic. Yoikes.
Another thing, I think it is impossible to define poetry. There's just no way. But I agree that we have the ability to spot good stuff from not so good stuff anyway. Sometimes we can explain how and why. Other times,to do so would be pretentious. I think I just wanted to reassure our friends yesterday that as we hope and push for the magic to emerge organically and wonderfully...we are also making sure the students will be equipped to survive university. Haha. :) Cheers.
I think It depends on your own personal style. It depends entirely on who you are writing for, for instance, If I wrote one piece and gave it to a middle aged woman and then gave the same piece to a 15 year old boy they would both probably tell you something completely different. Maybe good writing is being able to adapt and change your style for your audience. Well, my opinion is their is no such thing as bad writing to a certain extent, and it is impossible to define good writing so I sugest you stick to not having your own theory (;
ReplyDelete