In the Writing Log 2.2: Sample Student Research Paper, several students wrote about "good" writing and "bad" writing. I found it interesting that writing was being defined into the binaries of good and bad. So, what makes good writing and what makes bad writing?
Thoughts.....
6 comments:
I must say that I was one of the people who deemed certain aspects of the paper “good” and “bad”, but I guess now that I think about it, it should be, “works” and “needs work”; but then again that might not be right either. I think for the most part writing is fairly objective. While the organization of this paper confused me, for others it might have read fairly well. Now, there are some issues that are distractions for everyone, such as spelling punctuation etc. but for the most part I guess my “bad” and “good” can be reversed for someone else. Also, it is interesting how the terms “bad” and “good” are so black and white. “Bad” can mean everything from “completely incoherent” to “needs minor tweaks to improve”, while “good” can mean “satisfies the assignment but nothing extraordinary” to “fantastic/ really works well”. Next time we have an assignment ill be sure to label these two categories something like “great addition to the paper” and “needs improvement”.
I think this is an interesting question as well. I agree with Talia's points, and I feel like what makes 'good' writing, other than what she pointed out (grammar, spelling), is completely objective. When I first read the original post I immediately thought of the question "What makes a book literary merit?". Although I'm sure there are certain 'requirements' a book should meet to be considered literary merit, there are a lot of books that some teachers consider to work within the guidelines while other teachers disagree (Harry Potter, for example). It all really depends upon the person. I think this notion applies to 'good' writing vs. 'bad' writing as well. I also think that there should be ways to qualify the writing without having to use 'good' and 'bad', as they are very bland terms. Though I'm guilty of using them, I'm definitely going to put more thought into expressing what I really mean when I'm reviewing a piece of work. But as far as 'good' vs. 'bad' writing goes, I think it's all really subjective.
I don't think there's anything wrong with labeling aspects of the paper "good" and "bad" since this was supposed to be our take on the paper. The terms are subjective, but it's our opinion that we're expressing so it doesn't matter. If the writer of the paper were to review all our criticisms and make changes accordingly, she would realize that the feedback was based in opinion. Sure, there are factual judgments based on grammar and things like that, but for the most part what we said was "good" or "bad" depended solely on our opinion. This way the writer can read the feedback, consider it, and decide for herself whether it is useful to her or not.
This question can be applied to almost everything, from music to geographic locations, from art to food, and so on. While 'good' and 'bad' are philosophically objective terms, there are still certain paradigms to which we compare and judge things to. Sine the question is applied to writing, I will try to stay within those lines.
It seems as educated writers and readers, we have been taught rules and methods, then shown examples of writers who implement them. We were taught to see things that used proper grammar, format, and language as 'good.' In our own writing, we have used these tools as new ones are constantly added and absorbed. Throughout school, we write with these tools to get good grades. When we see writing, strictly as a form, we intuitively seek out the things that we have been taught are 'good', as a means of seeing how well the writer displays his or her abilities.
The other aspect of writing is the creative content. This includes the ideas, style, and writer's voice. To me, this is more objective than form. This is more of a personal judgement, lending itself it how the work affects you.
Overall, it think that there is certainly clear bases for judging writing as either good or bad, and our assertion of our judgments only helps us as writers and readers.
Great conversation. Just to clarify: I don't think there is anything wrong with labeling "good" or "bad" either. I'm just curious as to what EXACTLY makes things good and bad. These are excellent posts. Thanks!
By the way, I agree with Megan on the "literary merit" point. That's something Emerson struggles with in its First Year Writing Program. Should we be teaching The Sound and the Fury in a writing classroom? Some teachers do. Some teachers don't. I guess it is up to aesthetic and personal taste.
Post a Comment