DOES GOOD WRITING = GOODNESS?
I've read this essay, 'Envy' by Kathryn Chetkovich a bunch of times, and it still knocks me out. Chetkovich began dating Mr. Corrections Jonathan Franzen in the window of time before he was famous, as she was struggling to write herself. Then her father got sick, and Franzen got famous:
What do you think? Does your writing have to be good, or do good, in order for you to feel right?
"It's not as though anyone thinks that being a good writer makes you a good person. But it helps. (Isn't this perhaps one reason why women, as a whole, are more apt than men to see writing and reading as therapeutic acts? All that private time spent rendering and transforming personal experience on paper is easier to justify if the writer and, ideally, reader is healed in the process.) If you're truly talented, then your work becomes your way of doing good in the world; if you're not, it's a self-indulgence, even an embarrassment. "
What do you think? Does your writing have to be good, or do good, in order for you to feel right?
posted by Martha at 9:10 AM
3 Comments:
Hm. I'd have to say that most science writing I read--at least popular scientific writing--is some of the most exciting I've ever read.
'Good' is a very broad term.
By 'good', do you mean writing that is clear, and generally easy to accesss? For certain purposes (writing for political campaigns or instruction manuals) clarity (and brevity) defines 'good' writing.
Do you mean writing that inspires a positive result in the world? In that case, the Bible is either the best-written book of all time - or the worst. (Depends on who you ask.)
Do you mean writing that is well-rendered and unique in and of itself, regardless of its impact on the world? Many books considered to be the work of literary giants are greatly respected in certain circles, yet have no impact outside those circles. (I'm sure you can think of one or two such works.)
If it's OK (as per your question) for 'good' to be subjective, then there is a 'yes' answer there somewhere. Since writing is a large part of what I do, I'm not making much difference in this world if I am not writing. Certainly I feel better about myself if I am contributing to the world at large, therefore I feel better about myself if I write.
I also am concerned about what I write. If I am writing, say, an advertisement, then I am doing good (probably only on a level of commerce) for my client. If I write something that amuses, edifies or informs, and if I am doing it in a way that few or no others are, then certainly that is satisfying. And if anyone read my work and decided to go cure disease in the third world, I'd be thrilled. (That hasn't happened yet as far as I know.)
I suspect writers who have made the most impact rarely see it coming. Surely Shakespeare could not foresee the long-term impact and longevity of his work. Lincoln thought his Gettysburg Address was a failure (as did critics of his time).
Ah, Mr. Snitch, you pose lots of good questions. Good is a very broad term. I think Shakespeare was mostly trying to meet a production deadline, Dickens, ditto, and...well, many, many other writers I can think of didn't have posterity or social change at the top of their lists...just making the rent would do.
Good can equal "informs the reader." Can equal "serves the client." Can equal "changes the world." Can equal "provides a therapeutic value for the reader and/or the writer." I think Chetkowich was specifically zeroing in a kind of thinking that suggests that writing should be "good for you," and possibly "good for the reader," and she was exploring how often women writers of her nationality and generation employed that meaning of the word "good." And indeed, almost all of the writing manuals that I've read that have a spiritual or therapeutic component are written by women.
Post a Comment
<< Home