Jake Bowen Prof Padgett ENGL 1101 11/17/2013 Discovering Good Writing Writing has been around for

most of human history. It can be dated all the way back to the hieroglyphics that Egyptians used. You could even say that cave paintings were forms of writing because they generally told stories. Even though writing has been around for such a long time it is still debated what good writing is. This is mainly because every reader is different so they have different preferences on what they like to read and what they consider good writing. For me personally, I believe that as long as the writing "flows" then it is good writing. For most of my academic career I actually did not know what the difference between good writing and bad writing was. Originally I thought that as long as the proper grammar rules were followed, then it was good writing. That did not, however, explain how writers such as Shakespeare, who's writing made no sense to me, were considered great writers. His writing did not follow proper grammar rules so it completely threw off my whole theory behind good writing. In some instances he even made up words, yet he is still one of the greatest writers of all times. How could someone be one of the greatest writers of all time if they made up words in their writing? That completely blew my mind. It took me till my senior year of high school before I discovered what good writing actually was. All my years of English classes slowly built up to this discovery but it finally clicked for me after reading Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I chose to read this book for one of the assignments in my 12th grade English class. Before reading it I saw the
Comment [AP4]: So youre attributing all of his success to flow? Comment [AP3]: So this is it then? Flowy writing is good writing? I assume you will thoroughly define what flow means to you. Comment [AP1]: Okay, good title :) Comment [AP2]: This seems like an odd thing to say.

movie and loved it so that is why I chose that book. Surprisingly I actually liked the book a lot more than the movie! I have never liked reading very much but when I started that book I couldn't stop until I was done. That book completely changed my whole view on reading and writing. The difference between One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and previous books I have read was the way it was written. This book was written through the perspective of Chief Bromden, who was a schizophrenic at a mental hospital. The book basically broke every law that I thought writing had but I still considered it great writing and this was a first for me. It had terrible grammar at some parts, other parts would skip around and talk about random things, and finally it didn't exactly write the facts. I always thought that a writers job was to document things literally not figuratively. This book was written in such a way that you weren't supposed to take every detail as literal because Chief Bromden was a schizophrenic so details were exaggerated to a point that made it seem unbelievable. This is obvious in this quote from chapter two, When the fog clears to where I can see, I'm sitting in the day room. They didn't take me to the Shock Shop this time. I remember they took me out of the shaving room and locked me in Seclusion. I don't remember if I got breakfast or not. Probably not. I can call to mind some mornings locked in Seclusion the black boys keep bringing seconds of everything-supposed to be for me, but they eat it instead-till all three of them get breakfast while I lie there on that pee-stinking mattress, watching them wipe up egg with toast. I can smell the grease and hear them chew the toast. Other mornings they bring me cold mush and force me to eat it without it even being salted. (Kesey 10) The fog he is talking about is mentioned throughout the entire book but it is not physically there. Chief just imagines it but I think it was used as a way to describe the times where he kind of zones out or nods off. It is also apparent in this paragraph that he makes the place seem completely awful when in reality it's probably not that bad. Things are just exaggerated so much but it makes the book, in my opinion, even better.
Comment [AP7]: So Im trying to find a connection to your thesis. Comment [AP6]: Not sure what you mean by this. What writers? What genres of writing are you referring to? Comment [AP5]: Great, youre setting up a really interesting conversation here.

I then began my search for a new definition of good writing since One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest proved my last one wrong. It was at this point that my 12th grade teacher had me read Shitty First Drafts by Anne Lamott. In this story, Lamott talks about the writing process and how you should always write a really bad first draft by just writing whatever first comes to mind. She shows this in the paragraph, The first draft is the child's draft, where you let it all pour out and then let it romp all over the place, knowing that no one is going to see it and that you can shape it later. You just let this childlike part of you channel whatever voices and visions come through and onto the page. If one of the characters wants to say, "Well, so what, Mr. Poopy Pants?," you let her. No one is going to see it. If the kid wants to get into really sentimental, weepy, emotional territory, you let him. Just get it all down on paper because there may be something great in those six crazy pages that you would never have gotten to by more rational, grown-up means. There may be something in the very last line of the very last paragraph on page six that you just love, that is so beautiful or wild that you now know what you're supposed to be writing about, more or less, or in what direction you might go -- but there was no way to get to this without first getting through the first five and a half pages. (Lamott 1) At first I thought this was a terrible idea because I didn't think that you would accomplish the tasks of the paper. The more I thought about it, though, the more it made sense to me and the more it helped me develop my own theory on good writing. It helped me discover that by writing whatever comes to mind, ideas are generated that usually would not have been thought of before. This is when I came to the huge realization that writing was not just about completing the task. Writing is a form of expression that is not actually limited by numerous rules. Writing is freedom, not a restricted act. This, however, made me desire even more to define what good writing was as opposed to bad writing. I began to think about what all the great writers have in common with each other. At first glance it seems like they have absolutely nothing in common. Some had excellent grammar and word choice, where as others had very poor grammar but were still considered great writers. If
Comment [AP8]: but where do you draw the line between following rules and breaking them.

that was the case then why wouldn't every piece of writing be considered great writing? It is because good writing is actually measured in how well the writing "flows". By "flow" I mean the level at which the words go together to tell the story that the author is trying to express. Even though some of the good writers do not follow the rules of writing, they still assemble the writing in such a way that you can clearly see what they are trying to say. Bad writers are not good at expressing their message and therefore, it is common to not understand what the writer is trying to say in bad writing. This conclusion on good writing did not explain everything though. It does not explain why some people don't like good writing. If it is good then shouldn't everyone like it? This question went unanswered until this year actually. It wasn't until I read Stephen King's, On Writing, that I realized everyone is unique and likes different things. This is exactly why some people like the works of some great writers but not other ones. It is not the content that makes them great writers, it is how they express the content. This is shown in the excerpt, Some writers have enormous vocabularies; these are folks whod know if there really is such a thing as an insalubrious dithyramb or a cozening raconteur, people who havent missed a multiple-choice answer in Wilfred Funks It Pays to Increase Your Word Power in oh, thirty years or so [] Other writers use smaller, simpler vocabularies. Examples of this hardly seem necessary, but Ill offer a couple of my favorites, just the s ame: (King 115-116) These are quotes taken from two different pages but they went together so I combined them. Together they show how King believes that every writer has their own style and that is what makes them good. He said how some writers have large vocabularies and others have small ones but they can still be good writers just because every writer is unique. That is why writers such as Shakespeare can break numerous grammar rules and even make up words yet still be one of the best writers of all time.
Comment [AP13]: So before, did you think that every like and dislike the same things? Comment [AP12]: Or what you think is good writing. Comment [AP11]: Okay, so what is the connection to your thesis? Comment [AP9]: good, I like that you are defining your terms here, but I wonder if this could have come much earlier. Comment [AP10]: this phrase is just as ambiguous as the term your trying to define.

Furthermore, just because a piece of writing has little to no freedom to it does not mean that it is bad writing. Many times there are instances that restrict the freedom of writing such as memo's or email's to your bosses. If you used a lot poor grammar and added a lot of your own personal writing style into the memo or email then that would be bad writing. This is because the more formal something has to be, the less freedom you have as a writer. Grammar and the other rules of writing are only there to contribute to the credibility of a writer. When something is formal or needs to be credible then there is almost no freedom in writing style. A scientific report is another example of this. In a scientific report, it is very important to sound credible so proper grammar is mandatory. This will make it seem like the writing is boring and not good but that is not always true. As long as the writing flows well then it will be considered good writing even if there is little or no personal voice. Flow is the number one fundamental behind all writing. It affects the readers ability to interpret the writing and, more importantly, helps them judge whether or not they like it. As long as the writing does a good job demonstrating its message then it is good writing. In many cases, when people try to dress up their writing with fancy words then it makes the message unclear. It is better to just write from the heart and use your own style because when writing is genuine then it tends to be more interesting. Writing is a way to free yourself from all the restrictions that society set for you. Writing can take you pretty much anywhere you want to go. Jake, I think you do a good job covering various aspects of what you value in writing. I also like that you seem to have established a thesis in your introduction that is easy it identify. I do think that, while you have a clear thesis, this paper could use some focus. All of your paragraphs should be
Comment [AP16]: This seems off topic. Comment [AP15]: Im still not sure what you mean by this. Comment [AP14]: Good. So youre talking about he limitations of genre.

actively arguing for one central thesis, making use of various examples and discussion topics to support that one singular thesis. This essay seems to be running wandering though various loosely connecting topics as opposed to engaging in a specific thesis. Also I think a more clear definition of what you mean by flow would be in order, but while I think I understand what youre trying to say by flow, I think this one and only requisite for good writing seems a little too narrow. Again, the conversations you do have are interesting and are great ideas, but I need more focus, a single, clear message you want your reader to walk away with.

Work Cited Kesey, Ken. One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest. 40th Anniversary Edition. New York, New York: Penguin Books, 2002

Lamott, Anne. "Shitty First Drafts. Language Awareness: Readings for College Writers. Ed. by Paul Eschholz, Alfred Rosa, and Virginia Clark. 9th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2005: 93-96.

King, Stephen. On Writing : A Memoir of the Craft. New York: Scribner, 2000. Print.