The Quest for the Right Write

Cassandra DeMarco


WSC 002


4/27/11


What is Happening to Writing?


The Quest for the Right Write


In a way, writing can be seen as a deteriorating art, decaying at the hands of poor syntax, horrendous grammar, and “lol”s. However, in terms of comprehension and organization, there is a definite move toward progress. Verboseness is generally frowned upon and concision is the goal in most writings. A reader wants to get to a point with as little difficulty as possible, with important ideas highlighted, and unnecessary platitudes kicked out of the equation. The culture of the 21st century America is that of speed. Fast and to the extreme has become the new “American way” and if that means that writing must change to accommodate the culture, so be it. But how does writing do so, or, how has it? The genesis of the written language was a response to the desire to record important data: inventories, genealogies, events. As the scope of writing grew, however, stories were written. Emotion and humanity began to be placed into what was once a medium of mere information. This gave life to fiction writing and the use of writing as a medium of persuasion, and a written language of proper sentence structure and formatting was born separate from the language of speech and thought. Writing had rules and sequence. Respect was given to writers that knew and respected said customs; it showed education. However, these rules are merely constructs of tradition, and not natural or particularly conducive to the comprehension of the reader. Moving now to the present, the digital age has offered an entirely new venue from the book, or codex, or scroll. While computerized word processors may just be the electronic translation of such forms, web pages are an entirely new language, and the nature of writing and what it should be is brought into question more than ever, and addressed in a variety of novel ways.


Our class has looked through an incredibly wide scope at what is being said, yelled, shown, and written about writing. Essays, news articles, performance pieces, lectures, and the writings of peers have opened up the possibilities of what writing can do and the effect that it can have. It has also shown that there is a great deal of writing about writing. This sort of meta-writing proves the consistent impact which writing has on society. An example of this includes the poem “the Problem of Describing Trees” by Robert Hass. In his poem, he comments on the use of metaphor and the power that a writer has when the reader is in the grips of the text. He writes on the actions of a particular tree, using metaphor and personification. At a certain point however, he begins to have difficulty with this. He continues: “And the tree danced. No. / The tree capitalized. / No. There are limits to saying, / In language, what the tree did. / It is good sometimes for poetry to disenchant us.” (Hass) This technique of addressing his writing within the writing itself is an out-of-body experience for the reader, holding a mirror up to the poem and noticing the truths it contains. This commentary shows that writers are not just thinking about what they should write now, but what can be written, and the style and innovations that writers are becoming more fearless in employing. Hass is a good example of one who is aggressive in his review of what poetry can do. The commonly held idea is for poetry to enchant, specifically. However, Hass realizes the limitations of words, and for a poet to reflect on what words cannot do as opposed to what they can is a pioneering effort in the modern explorations of writing.


Moving along the lines of poetry but venturing into the spoken word forum, Taylor Mali is a teacher/performer with a passion for the power of words and speech. His performance of his poem “Like You Know” on Def Poetry is a testament to the virtues of speaking and writing with authority. (Mali) While it is certainly a written poem, the presentation style of it is not through text but through voice. In fact, when read off of a page, it has little of the impact it is destined to and loses much of the meaning. This is a reminders that writing is not only meant to be read, and never was, and the popularization and resurgence of slam poetry shows how powerful writing can be out loud and shared through the writer’s actual voice. The sentences can be fragmented and choppy, and it offers more strength to the words and the message without discrediting the poet as uneducated in proper syntax.


Jay David Bolter’s book Writing Space: Computers, Hypertext, and the Remediation of Print is a foray into the digital age that we are now living in. in working through Chapter 3: Hypertext and the Remediation of Print, it became apparent that writing is nowhere near as stagnant as many have assumed. The constant reworking of ideas and mediums gives writing the distinction of a living medium. It is working hand in hand with science and experience to find ways to make writing more accessible to the average individual. Jay David Bolter describes Hypertext as thus: “phrases in a webpage can be “hot”: clicking on them will bring up a new page. One page can be linked electronically to many others.” (27) This hypertext is a way of digital indexing that serves to make the landscape of the internet easier to navigate. Often, however, it can start a chain of distraction, opening page upon page of new information branching in all different directions instead on offering a plain, to-the-point page of information. While this might be distracting, it is conducive to knowledge retention and understanding in a way that the physical text on paper is not. It allows for instant definition of words or phrases that one might not be familiar with and breaks up the linear form of most perceptions of writing.


After the presentation we gave on Chapter 3, our peers went to their blogs - online forums for writing and thought - to respond to the chapter and ask some unanswered questions about writing through the scope of this medium. One such peer, Alex Breen, asked: “If hypertext is more akin to human thought, how might that change the linguistic habits of future cultures?” I believe that what is important to keep in mind is that we do not speak in the same way that we write unless we are reading something written or forcing it unnaturally. The way that our brains are wired is hypertextual. We speak and digress into other thoughts and fragment our sentences and backtrack to the initial point much the way we might do on a web page. But this linguistic formula has always been this way. Speaking in full sentences and paragraphs without creating a sort of vocal hypertextual web is only practical in terms of rehearsed speech. Most modern playwrights have realized that the linguistics of the English language as spoken differ vastly from the English language as written. Writers such as David Mamet have begun writing in the way that people think and speak, and it is more natural sounding to an audience than long blocks of thought without pause, retracing, repetition or defining. So, the new hypertextual landscape of writing should have no effect on the linguistics of our culture, present or future, but, in fact, mirror it more accurately.


Another colleague, Daniel O’Connor, in his blog, asks two questions about the potential of distraction that hypertext poses: “Can Hypertext worsen an argument by linking to an irrelevant piece of writing?” and “Along with Hypertext is there the risk that the reader continues to go from page to page and never returns to finish the original?” these are important questions. As impressively adept as the human mind is at establishing connections and finding meaning, it is also known for difficulties in focus. On a personal level, hypertext has distracted me almost in equal parts to the good it has done me. If the first question it is being asked from the perspective of the writer, then hypertext absolutely can weaken an argument. If a writer attempts to make an argument and does not know how to effectively manipulate the writing space which they inhabit, i.e., a web page, it is wholly possible that poor use of hypertext can devalue or dilute an argument. That is the same as using any tool, however: if the user does not have adequate understanding of or skill with the device, it works against him. Hypertext is not something that all writers should shove into their otherwise linear and meaningful texts: it is not a mandatory tool for internet writings. However, if the writer can weave it into his or her piece without adding confusion or distancing the reader from the true meaning, hypertext does its job. Much like writing itself, there is certainly an artistry involved in the shaping and formatting of an online text, not unlike any other text, but with more possible tools and higher risks of failing.


To answer Dan’s second question: the human mind, again, is prone to distraction. A writing form with such spontaneity and possibility also has its drawbacks in the context of the limitations of us as people. There are surely innovations to still be made, and hypertext is not a perfect creature, but from where we are technologically, these problems of focus fit snuggly into the discourse.


In conclusion, the time we live in is a fortunate one in the sense that we are living during a technological revolution. The way that we see the world is altered daily by new advancements and technologies instead of reading a magazine to find out about what is going on in, say, the theatre world. I can now read articles online sent directly to me through an RSS feed. Information is constantly coming at us from all sides and the scary thing is when we are overloaded, will we know? What is happening to writing is that it now needs to shout louder to reach us over all the white-noise written words we receive. It needs new organization and research to find the most appropriate formatting for our thinking patterns. It’s not so linear; it lives in fragments. What’s happening with writing is a revolution of time, speed, and form, and it doesn’t look like there will be an end anytime soon.















Works Cited


Breen, Alexander. Summareponse to Chapter 3 presentation. Breenbrain. 25 April, 2011. Web. 26 April, 2011.


Bolter, J. David. Writing Space: Computers, Hypertext, and the Remediation of Print. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001. Print.


Hass, Robert. The Problem of Describing Trees. 2005.


Like you Know. By Taylor Mali. Perf. Taylor Mali. 2003.


O’Conner, Daniel. Ch. 3 Hypertext and The Remediation of Print. DOC’s Blog. 26 April, 2011. Web. 26 April, 2011