In class on Monday we devoted considerable time to the subject of authentic writing. The question what is authentic writing was posed to the group but we never reached a conclusion. We could not decide what truly authentic writing is, or even which types of our own writing are authentic. Writing with a grade was initially disregarded as unauthentic; but when we came to the subject of writing for a living or money we also dismissed its authenticity. We discussed the authenticity of writing for fun but once again decided that it was not authentic because it had no outside motivation. The banter then moved to our WRIT 1522 writing. Ideas were presented and shut down, we chased our tails for a while longer, finally choosing to rest on the issue of our our writing for Project Angel Heart. Once again we reached no conclusion. The lack of payment was considered a score for its authenticity, but the reality that we are in fact without choice in the matter once again sidetracked the conversation.
What a conundrum eh? Well, I'd like to actually find out what types of writing are authentic to each of you. If anyone feels confident enough to make a case for what kinds of writing are universally authentic it would be interesting to hear also.
P.S. If anyone would like to, they should address what types of reading are authentic as well.
17 comments:
I'll be completely honest here: I think that we made the issue far more complicated than I believe it to be. In my opinion, a piece of writing is authentic if the writer truly cares about and believes in what he or she is writing about. That is the simple truth.
The question then becomes how we as readers identify an authentic piece of writing. The simple solution would be to seek certain characteristics that we identify with authentic writing; that is, if it seems like the writer is passionate about a piece of writing, than it can be labeled as "authentic." However, a good writer can seem enthusiastic and persuasive about a subject he cares nothing about whatsoever. One could also argue that authentic pieces of writing will be of higher quality, as the writer cares to put more effort into it. However, the same counterargument could be made that a good writer will produce a higher quality of writing regardless. In short, there is no true way for a reader to be sure of a piece's authenticity.
Is there, then, a kind of writing that is universally authentic? I would argue that there is, and it comes in the form of the love letter. A love letter is motivated by passion, even when it would not otherwise be in one's character to write one. I personally believe this to be the one source of assuredly authentic writing. Yet, authenticity is by no means a guarantee of quality. To be honest, I'm still unconvinced that the issue of authenticity in writing is worth considering.
I very much agree with Frazer in his definition of authentic writing. If a person is told/forced to write something, I do not believe it can be considered authentic. Similarly, I do not think money provides an ample motivation for authentic writing. Such works are the source of personal interest and passion. A person must be moved to write because of her own curiosity and caring. This may seem very idealistic and I am also willing to concede such interest exist under circumstances that imply finical gain or mandatory writing. From my own personal experience, however, the only writing I ever produce that I reread derives from something I created on my own initiative.
I also agree with Frazer that identifying such writing becomes a primary concern and his proposed method is very appropriate. I would only add one thing: if all else fails, give the writer the benefit of the doubt. The messages in our various readings will have much more meaning if we simply assume the writer is sincere. Her particular motivation does not need to affect the meaningfulness we draw out of her work.
If someone agreed with my reasoning here, I would be curious how they would answer this question: how can authentic writing be inspired in a class room setting? Does assigning writing prevent it from being authentic to the writer?
I believe authenticity is defined by the context. I think authentic writing is that which the author believes will serve some purpose. This purpose can range anywhere from a good grade to a paycheck to public awareness. But as long as a piece of writing can be used to achieve some gainful ends, it can be deemed authentic.
On a side note, my personal opinion is that the writing we will be doing for Project Angel Heart is not exactly authentic. As stated in the Deans chapter titled "Writing in the Community", most student projects for non-profit organizations were heavily revised and used as prototypes which would later be better developed, or simply not used at all. Because organizations such as Project Angel Heart have paid professionals that do this sort of work, it is highly unlikely that the work of unpaid, unprofessional undergraduate students would be of any direct use to them. While this may be of use to students who plan to go into communications or journalism, its utility to others can only go so far.
The reason that we never reached unanimity probably has to do with the fact that everyone has a different definition for what “authentic” entails. When I write “authentically” there is a passion or an interest behind my words. I can still create a genuine piece, even if it’s for a grade, as long as that emotional strain comes through. “Authentic” writing puts me at ease because I have expressed myself thoroughly and honestly. My research paper doesn’t illustrate genuine interest and passion. This is probably because I just don’t like writing research papers; it doesn’t help empty myself onto paper.
Though I hate to be redundant, I’d like to echo the idea that “authentic writing” must be rooted in genuine desire and interest. In this case, any genre of writing can be authentic under certain circumstances: journal articles, academic essays, novels, informational brochures, and—yes—even classroom assignments. I don’t believe it is fair to make a blanket statement that all of the writing we do as students for either Project Angel Heart or any other class is necessarily un-authentic. If the author is truly compelled by the subject and passionate about its impact, the product can be considered authentic.
Travis: I thought the question you posed about authenticity within the context of a classroom was quite interesting. Personally, I think that universities are trying to inspire authenticity by giving students open-ended prompts that deliberately leave room for modification and change. If the student is given authority to shape the direction of the writing assignment, chances are that it will become a piece of writing that will engage the author and inspire genuine interest and passion. There is, however, a “Catch-22”: open-ended prompts are difficult to grasp, especially for younger students who are, for example, in the early part of high school. Without rigid guidelines and formulaic requirements, high school freshmen and sophomores would easily be overwhelmed. Moreover, automated and obviously unauthentic writing is an unfortunate but necessary requirement before moving on to bigger, brighter, and more “authentic” assignments. The challenge is to learn how to successfully move past that “unauthentic” phase instead of becoming entrenched in it.
I, like many of my other classmates have to agree with Frazer. I too believe that it is the desire, motivation, and passion behind a piece of writing that make it authentic. In general, writing assignments, classwork, papers, and other mandatory assignments simply aren't at the top of everyone's interest list. Occasionally they may strike a chord with a certain student. However, most assigned pieces are written because they have to be either for a grade at school or pay at work. These pieces did not stem from a personal desire to expose ones feelings or inner thoughts, they were forced out much like Sarah discusses for her research paper. Honestly, although I enjoy the topic I chose, I too dislike research papers. Frankly, they stress me out and often I feel that I am recombining others thoughts rather than presenting my own argument.
I also agree with Frazer's argument that a truly remarkable writer is able to cover the lack of authenticity through making the paper genuine: factual and possibly emotional depending on the context, without actually having a passion for the topic.
I believe that a piece of writing can only be authentic if the writer truly has a passion for their topic. Without this passion and a desire to share their information, their piece will lack authenticity and more likely than not, they will not enjoy writing it nearly as much as they enjoy their authentic works.
Mainly because I have nothing else to say on the topic of authenticity, I would like to pose this question to everyone: If we agree that authentic writing requires that the author is not writing for a grade, or money, but for some other intrinsic motivation, and this blog we religiously post to is basically for a grade, couldn’t it be said that this discussion of authenticity is unauthentic in itself?
I pose this question because I find it a tad bit ironic that we are using this blog to discuss authenticity of writing. I can only speak for myself in saying this, but I assume that others share the same thoughts when I say that I really don’t care at all about this topic. I write blog posts because it’s an assignment, and I am motivated by earning a good grade for our class. I do care quite a bit about some of the blog topics, but I find it comparable to pulling teeth when trying to write comments on others. (To clear the air, this is not at all a negative reflection on whoever posted the original topic for that week; it is just the nature of academia that not every individual will be passionate about other’s ideas).
So, to get to my point, I’m just wondering what everyone else thinks about this. Following the definition of authenticity we have vaguely outlined above, is anything we write on this blog authentic? And if not, how can we make it so?
I’m not trying to be the annoying person who poses inconsequential questions that lead nowhere and add nothing to the argument at hand. But hey, maybe nothing I just said is authentic anyways.
i have an absolutely awful feeling that everything I'm about to say has already been said by everyone else who has posted on this blog. Does that make my writing authentic? Just kidding.
I think that for writing to be authentic, it needs to have emotion and passion behind it, just like Sarah D said. however, i think what really makes a piece of writing authentic is what the writing is and in what field it is. For example, this blog is not going to be going into any academic journals any time soon, because that is not the purpose of this assignment. and you won't see entire research papers and dissertations written on this blogging site. it just comes down to the placement of the writing in my opinion. all writing has the potential to be authentic within its own field.
just in case that didn't make any sense, here's another example. a piece of writing detailing the processes and results of a scientific experiment is an authentic piece of writing within the scientific community; however, take that same piece of writing and put it in an english journal, and you might as well publish a page full of dribble for all the authenticity it has in that journal.
bottom line- it comes down to the situation the writing is used in.
I think that the biggest question that needs to be answered is "What constitutes authenticity?" For all intents and purposes, I find it absolutely vital to answer that question before proceeding. Thus, I will define authenticity as a piece of writing performed in a piece of writing that is credible with integrity and written from an informed perspective.
Like Frazer, I think that this discussion has become way more complicated than it should be as most pieces of thought out, researched writing are authentic. Experience is not necessary for a piece of writing to be authentic it only augments it. We cannot simply prescribe to one author's belief on the word especially considering that the quality of being authentic is self-qualifying as well.
Strange as this may sound, I think the only way to produce truly authentic writing is to not think of it as writing. Let me try to explain: haven't we all developed ideas about what writing is and what it is meant to achieve? Maybe these ideas are not clearly defined in our heads, but I think most of us know how a research paper should "feel" or how a poem should "feel" based on past experience. In this way, writing becomes a task or a medium of expression that fits a fairly set pattern of thinking and speaking to an audience.
As a student of creative writing, my best pieces of fiction have come as the result of NOT trying to write anything or think of something to write. Pure imagining of atmosphere and emotion for its own sake, for my own amusement, invariably results in some of my better projects. I think the more academic and community oriented brands of writing could work the same way. If we are really tuned in to what we actually think about something, and unafraid to expose the true development of our thoughts, the language we chose will be different – more intuitive, expressive, authentic.
The other side of this, of course, is that in some instances writers must write in a way that does not express their inner thoughts and feelings. Can this type of writing be authentic? Possibly. A very clear sense of the purpose of the writing could produce authenticity even in this instance. Ultimately, I think the root of this issue is writing itself. What is writing really? Words on the page? A way to hammer ideas into a reader's head? Or is it something else entirely? I think when we each find a satisfactory answer to these questions, we're found the reservoir of our most authentic writing.
It is difficult to come to a consensus about the definition of authenticity. I choose to take in it its simplest terms: anything real. In this regard, writing can be authentic in many ways. Of course, as my classmates have stated, if one is especially passionate about a subject that makes it real for them. But I think that any writing can be real as long as it stems from some sort of thought and/or motivation. Even papers that are written purely for grades or for money can be well thought-out, relevant, and thought provoking. This can make even these types of writings authentic. So I guess what I’m saying is that there are two sides of any kind of writing to look at. Writing can be deemed authentic either by its passionate origins or by its applicability to the reader. Both are real in some way to someone.
I agree with most of my peers when they say that “authentic” writing has some type of passion or interest that drives it; however, I don’t believe that is the sole characteristic that defines “authentic”.
Anything can be authentic. Regardless of whether the topic is liked or disliked, interesting or boring. When a person writes anything, it is authentic. My post about this topic is authentic, because it is how I feel. That is real. Somebody makes something up about a topic they don’t care much for. That’s authentic. The facts and the information may be incorrect; but, as writing style goes, it is pretty truthful.
Through everyone’s writings, their personality and attitude toward the subject can clearly be observed. Personality and attitude are real. You can fake that you are moody and edgy, or that you’re always happy, but that’s you. That’s authentic.
From Comic strips to advertisements to scientific research papers, it is all real. There are no lines defining a person’s beliefs or attitudes as incorrect. Writing is a physical expression of this, and therefore, no writing can be “unauthentic”.
I have to agree with Frazer and Jon here and say that we have complicated this issue beyond necessity.
To me, authenticity in writing is simply voice. Can you hear your voice in a written piece? Agreeing again with Frazer, are you passionate about the piece? Then regardless of the intent or purpose, whether you are being paid or not, whether you were forced into it or not, if you can still hear yourself when you read it back, then your writing is authentic.
Here's Sarai Glass's comment:
I very much agree with Travis and Frazer. Authentic writing comes from the heart. If the writer has a passion for the topic, authentic writing truly comes out. I do however, think that authenticity can be developed. Writers for newspapers are often told what sties to write about, but I think that what makes them good writers is the ability to jump into that site, and make it authentic. I would even argue that writing assignments taken for grades can be authentic. I won't deny that often times writing in an academic situation is not authentic, but something like this blog and the writings we will do for Project Angel Heart, I think can yield very authentic writing. As far as a universal authentic writing is concerned, it could be something like a biography, or writing dealing with emotions. Any writing about human emotion I feel is also very authentic. All across the world humans will share emotion, and writing focused on human emotion will be written, as well as perceived, as authentic writing.
Kristen is right. We all have those voices in our head that we read in--either that our I'm crazier than I thought--and each one always takes on a certain character. For me, I know that the character in this story that I identify best with, whether I am reading or writing the piece, always seems to get my voice. With the rest they get my impression of Voldemort if I think they are particularly evil, or my imitation of Professor Umbridge when I find someone particularly annoying and petty.
All joking aside, I think when I am writing something, if I can read it in my own voice then I know that this topic is important in someway to me, or the values locked within the writing are dear. I know this seems arbitrary, and a little silly, but it is something I always look for in my writing. In a way, its a kind of Authentic-O-Meter that keeps my papers rooted. Again, I am very crazy.
Another response from Sarai Glass:
Authentic writing is any writing that comes from the heart. Writing about something one is passionate about is authentic writing. It is writing that expresses true feelings and thoughts. Authentic writing can range from a personal letter written to a friend, a family member, or a lover, to a biography. Authentic writing is when written text is used as a medium to convey real human thought. I do believe that authentic writing can be created. This is what makes a good writer. Writers who work for newspapers and magazines are easily able to put their heart into a story, and the result is authentic writing. The question of payment for writing is not what makes the writer a great writer- it is his or her ability to make all of their writing authentic. As good writing is hard to come across, they should be paid. However, just because they are paid for what they do does not make it unauthentic. I think the same can be said for academic writing. I won’t sit here and say that most aca demic writing is authentic, because it hardly ever is. Most students are writing to the audience of a professor, and desire to achieve high markings. As a result, students’ real thoughts are hardly ever conveyed, and what comes out on paper is a reflection of how a student feels that he or she should be writing to receive a good grade. The same is said for the student as is for the journalist working for the New York Times- authentic writing can be created. If each and every time I was given a writing assignment, and I really put a lot of thought and heart into it, no matter what my position was, I could develop a very compelling and passionate piece of writing that was truly authentic, although I may not be writing about something I would personally choose. Universally authentic writing I think can be anything writing about the human experience, such as emotion. Humans can relate emotionally, all across the globe. A person in love in Asia feels the same way a lover from Euro pe or Africa feels. Writing about emotions is universally authentically read as well as written. Authentic writing is the most enjoyable type of writing to read as well as write.
Post a Comment