I like to call myself a journalism purist. And what I mean by that is I like journalism. Not the bells and whistles or all the hoops through which writers have to jump. I just like writing. It's something that comes naturally to people. Sure, some people work on it and get good, but overall it's a gift that you either have or you don't.
This stance is something that I've had to forget about to a certain extent in my time at college. Taking many classes that force (allow?) you to write everyday tends to water down the creative aspect of writing and make you focus on the structured, formulaic side of it.
I'm not saying that people who have that gift of writing should just sit down at their typewriter and start blindly churning out words in whatever intoxicated state they're in (whether it be caffeinated or otherwise. we are, after all, journalists). But people who have that gift should be able to just sit down and write a good article.
Rules have their place. Structure has its place. Editors have their place. But sometimes, good writing can be good writing, for no other reason than it just is. Maybe it broke a rule or two, maybe the lead was too long, maybe a couple sentences were passive; maybe there were only two sources. But even though a piece broke a couple of those "rules" we must abide by in class, it made for a good read. Because the quality of writing cannot be judged by yes or no questions or hard-and-fast rules. Because, like art, the quality is determined by each individual who sees it.
This was an enjoyable read.
ReplyDeleteWhile in theory I agree with the idea that not all writing has to follow the "rules", I feel that this may have been carried to an extreme in your last sentence.
To definitively state that the quality of the art or writing is determined by EACH individual viewer is to disregard the authority of those who know and understand the rules and "their place" in favor of absolute relativism.
That being said, this was a good blogpost. :) I mean that.