Writing. What?

1) How did you used to see, and how do you now see, the relationship between writing and following rules? Do you associate rules more with one kind of writing or another, or not really think much about rules at all, or think about rules in all your writing? (Again, try to give me, if you can, how you thought about this when you entered college, and how you think about it now, and if your thinking hasn't changed, that's fine, just say so.) 

   When I entered college, there were two types of writing. There was the writing I did for school, which was dictated by rules and formats. I hated that writing. I felt suffocated by it. I didn't think there was a possibility to add creative insight to a school paper, because I was shot down by high school teachers when I tried that. The other type of writing was the writing I did on my own. This was creative writing. There were no rules. That was the binary of the school writing. I was doing everything at home that I wasn't allowed to do at school. 

   In my first two years at the University of Portland, everything was dictated by rules. Not just my writing. I think my writing reflected that. I tried to rebel -- to write things for myself that were raw and unrefined and full of "fuck" and angry. The things I did for school there were bland. I detested it. I felt like I wasn't allowed to write what I was thinking.

   Everything changed when I started school at MSU. Here was a place I was allowed to see that not all academic writing was dictated by rules. Through my classes, but especially my work at the Writing Center (most importantly, the conversations on writing that I was involved in there) I was enabled to see that all writing comes with some sort of rules. We have spelling and grammar, and citation formats and word counts. However, I realized this was a place that I could express myself in a balance of both worlds I used to create for myself. My academic writing could be creative. My creative writing could be academic. I wouldn't call them "rules." Instead, I think I would call them "examples," or "guidelines," because I refuse to prepare cookie-cutter work anymore. If I'm not learning anything from it -- and I'm not excited about what I'm writing -- why the hell would my professor and peers want to read it? I think there are different guidelines based on discourse, but I think that all of them are flexible, and are becoming more so every year. 

2) What did you and do you think is the role of personal opinion in writing? Is there writing that should be more personal and other that shouldn't be? Is there writing where opinion isn't allowed? Is there writing that should be as purely objective as possible, and if so, can/should that writing also be personal?

   Personal opinions are incredibly important in writing. After working in the Writing Center, I am absolutely determined to help writers that I talk with to understand that what they think and feel is important in what they are writing. There is a balance of authority that is played in writing -- You can't just provide a senseless argument with no facts or substance, only fueled by anger or affection. I think there is a place for personal opinion in the balance of writing tools. 

   There are discourses in which personal opinion is often disregarded as "unnecessary." Stereotypically, I think of the math and sciences. But, this is a stigma around writing that we are beginning to push against and question. Writing is necessary in all disciplines -- and I think that with it, there is a necessity for personal opinion in those disciplines as well. The balance of tools used to create the writing may be different based on discourse, but the opinion is still present. 

   The objectivity of writing is most commonly associated with academia in my mind. I think of research papers, lab reports, etc. But I don't think that personal opinion need be absent from these modes of writing. Instead, I think that it may be a little more challenging to determine how opinion is balanced with that objectivity. But, it's still there. 

3) Are there places or scenes of writing that you associate more with the personal and opinion-based writing, and other scenes you associate more with objective and impersonal writing? If so, what are differences in those scenes -- what are they associated with?

   I think that when writing revolves around sociology and/or anthropology -- people, culture, etc -- it is generally thought to be more personal. When I think of the sciences and maths -- I think of writing as more objective and impersonal. These are the corners we have backed ourselves into when we discuss writing. We set up these discourses to be separate, when in reality, they all revolve around the same conversation about writing. They are more alike than we deemed them to be -- and it took us an awfully long time to realize that. 

   Now, though, I think the question lies with where we go from here. How do we continue to change this discussion on writing in the discourses? How do we break down the barriers we built ourselves, and help others to embrace the tools that writing has to offer? When you figure that out, be sure to fill me in.

   Hope this helps, Doug!