Writing in Architecture Research Paper

Architecture is a field that is all about the process. The journey from the start of a project to the final design is just as important to architects as the final product is. Though much of the process is designing visuals, writing plays an important part reaching the end goal. The question is, what does writing look like for architects?

Daily writing in architecture takes many forms. It can be personal journal keeping, informal emailing between coworkers, or more formal communication with clients.  

According to 5th year architecture student, Andre Ytzen, journals can consists of “key moments that [she] wants to remember or conversations, projects, the key ideas that [she is] trying to communicate.”¹  These may include any topic or event, as journals are a way of practicing thought process documentation.  Ytzen has “developed a system of simple sentences to describe something, instead of lengthy paragraphs that mean nothing.”¹ In architecture, since it is a highly visual field, it is more important that you get the point across than write beautifully. The length of the writing does not necessarily mean there is more information or ideas of importance. If something can be written clearly with few words, that is preferred. 

Journals can be an incredibly important part of a project because they document the thought process. It is important as a designer to have a lot of process work, especially when working closely with a client. If a client does not like a certain aspect of the architects design, the process work allows the architect to backpedal to a version, or ‘iteration’, of the design without that aspect and proceed from there. Having a documented thought process can aid the designer in following certain trains of thought that they may have forgotten otherwise. Designers often fall victim to tunnel vision, which prevents their design from reaching its true potential. If you get stuck on one idea and refuse to think of anything else, your project is limited by your narrowed vision. Keeping a journal allows you to go back and see whether your idea is growing and changing, or you have tunnel vision. It can also be helpful in communicating your though process to others if they can not quite see where you are trying to go with an idea. 

Most of the writing in architecture is concise and straight to the point. Since architecture, itself, is a very logical field, it makes sense that writing within that field does not come with any frills. While architecture requires a lot of creativity and out-of-the-box thinking, it is also strictly limited by things like materials, budget, and structural safety requirements. This makes it important not to beat around the bush.  The most important communication in architecture is visual. Drawings and models are the most effective way that architects communicate their ideas, and the most writing those include are the occasional label. Like Ytzen said, simplicity is more valuable than meaningless length.

Kevin Gallagher agreed with this statement, saying he “can’t be creative with his writing, [he needs] to be clear, concise, straight to the point.”² Gallagher spoke to me in an interview about the professional leadership and development conference he was co-hosting. He said that, in this context, he does a lot of technical writing and professional communication. His main job was to speak to Universities and organizations and inform them what to expect from the conference and what they could gain from it. He was, essentially, the recruiter for the conference. He emphasized the professionalism needed in the communication so that potential attendees of the conference can see that there was much to gain from the conference. Since he was working with a committee, they strategized through emails to make sure each person knew their part and “to make sure [they] were covering all bases.”² Before any communication with outside organizations, the committee would approve it “because it doesn’t look well on [the] organization if [Gallagher] sends an email and somebody else from the committee sends the same email.”² Gallagher’s statement reflects the written communication between an architect and their client. Professionalism is key. Emails between an architect or a representative of an architecture firm and a client are a more formal type of communication in order to preserve the reputation and ensure clients that their project will be treated with respect. A client must feel that they are hiring a firm that can do what they require. A building is a large, expensive projects and in order to gain rank and respect, a firm must maintain a professional reputation.

As in all fields, in architecture, it is critical to understand your audience when writing. Architectural writing can appear very dense to those outside the field, simply because of the large amount of jargon used by architects.  For a person who has no experience with design terms, Simon Guy and Graham Farmer’s terminology like “hierarchal imagery of space,”³ and “competing logics of sustainable architecture”³ mean very little. But to someone in the field of architecture those are commonly used terms and phrases. When writing to a client who might not have experience with architecture those are not the best terms to use to get your point across. This is where it is necessary to combine the techniques of Gallagher and Ytzen and use simple, straight-to-the-point vocabulary while maintaining a professional and respectful approach. 

Simon Guy and Graham Farmer write an argument for abandoning the search for an incontestable definition of sustainability in architecture. They present the six different logics, or focuses, of sustainable architecture and ask that readers recognize that, since all six are so different, they cannot be lumped together and defined as the same. 

 Their piece is a perfect example as using writing in architecture as a tool of persuasion. Their writing is very factual and strategic. Without any fluff, they give you the details and the implications of their issue. They make their case simply by explaining the reality of the worlds view of sustainability and its implications. Their intended audience is people in the field of architecture, so it is appropriate that they use architectural jargon and write very dense material. However, they write assuming that the reader has very little prior knowledge on their topic and, therefore, anyone can read the paper and gain a decent understanding of all the architecture-specific terms they used. 

This mirrors the means of persuasion Kevin Gallagher spoke of using to recruit people to attend his conference. In the field of architecture, all the cards are laid out on the table. The necessity for logical thinking in architecture translates into architectural writing in a way that shows just how deeply ingrained into an architect clarity is. Without clarity, architects would not be able to make building plans or renderings that communicate the idea to a client or coworker. Writing in architecture can’t afford to be frilly and dramatic because building materials and budgets are not frilly and dramatic. Their way of thinking translates into their writing in an obvious way.

Architects use writing as a means of communicating several different things. They use it to persuade other architects to agree with their opinion, they use it to show how they got from one idea to another when dealing with a design, they use it inform clients and colleagues of certain developments, they use it simply to document their own thoughts. They write for various reasons, but a clear, concise, straight-to-the-point style is consistent throughout the field. Architects value directness because it is a necessity in their field. 

Works Cited

1. Ytzen, Andrea. Interview. March 10, 2014. College of Design.

Andrea is a 5th year architecture student doing an independent study who also works at an architecture firm. She provided a lot of insight into what kind of daily writing and reading she does as an architect. She also spoke about how much writing architects do for research projects, which is actually not much.

2. Gallagher, Kevin. Interview. March 10, 2014. College of Design.

Kevin is a 5th year student in architecture. He spoke to me about a conference he is co-hosting next week and the kind of communication he is using to bring in speakers and to promote the conference to students and universities.

3. Simon Guy & Graham Farmer, (2013) Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: The Place of Technology. Taylor & Francis Online.

This article does not specifically talk about how architects communicate with writing, but it gives an example of a purpose writing is used for. In this case, writing is used to persuade other architects to change their view on a subject.

Annotated Bibliography

Ytzen, Andrea. Interview. March 10, 2014. College of Design.

Andrea is a 5th year architecture student doing an independent study who also works at an architecture firm. She provided a lot of insight into what kind of daily writing and reading she does as an architect. She also spoke about how much writing architects do for research projects, which is actually not much.

Gallagher, Kevin. Interview. March 10, 2014. College of Design.

Kevin is a 5th year student in architecture. He spoke to me about a conference he is co-hosting next week and the kind of communication he is using to bring in speakers and to promote the conference to students and universities.

Simon Guy & Graham Farmer, (2013) Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: The Place of Technology. Taylor & Francis Online.

This article does not specifically talk about how architects communicate with writing, but it gives an example of a purpose writing is used for. In this case, writing is used to persuade other architects to change their view on a subject.

Andrea Ytzen, Eric Stalheim, Marwan Gandour (2013) Infrastructural Resources. Iowa State University.

This is a paper written by 5th year students in architecture that shows the importance of visual representations of ideas in the field of design.

John Ackman & Scott Oates, (1996) Image, Text, and Power in Archtectural Design and Workplace Writing. Nonacademic Writing: Social Theory and Technology, pages 81-117.

This chapter of a book talks about how visual and textual communication play a role in real world communications in the workplace, specific to architecture and design. 

Subasinghe, Chamila. Interveiw. College of Design.

Cham is an architect and instructor at Iowa State who has lived all over the world. He has practiced architecture for many years. 

Textual Rhetorical Analysis

Sustainability in architecture has long been a point of discussion, though difficult to define. In the article Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: The Place of Technology, Simon Guy and Graham Farmer write to the architecture community in an attempt to change the idea of sustainability. They contrast complexity with simplicity in their choice of language and structure, and through this make their argument seem like one that should be obvious and widely accepted.

It is made clear that the intended audience is the architecture community in their plea to change the way sustainability in architecture is defined. Outside of this design field, the definition of sustainability is not really something that is highly sought after. Guy and Farmer believe that people need to stop looking for a concrete definition of sustainability because it is all dependent upon your perspective. 

Furthermore, they call for teachers of architecture to change the way they teach their students and challenge the search for one definition of green. They try to convince teachers to do this by painting it as a means for ore flexibility and reflectivity. They issue a challenge to students to engage their brains and become moral citizens. Naturally, when issued a challenge, people tend to see it as something worth the time and effort to overcome. If this information were to be used for the counterargument, it could easily be spun to make the work necessary to overcome the challenge look like a negative thing. The way Guy and Farmer present it, however, makes it a noble task. They describe the many opinions and perspectives on sustainable architecture as “not only valid but highly desirable (146).”  Their argument is for acceptance and the movement into a more “multivocal world (146).” 

Guy and Farmer achieve their intended purpose by writing their article in a structure that makes the dense subject matter easy to understand. The bulk of their argument is in the introduction and conclusion of the paper. They start of telling you exactly what they want you to learn from reading the article: the definition of sustainable architecture must be much broader and less concrete. They end by stating all the benefits of this new view of sustainability and calling teachers and students to action by changing the way they think. The middle of the article explains all the different logics of sustainable architecture and discusses the validity and importance of each. The simple structure of the article subtly implies that the argument’s validity should be easy to accept. It makes it seem like what they are writing is just common sense with a lot of fancy vocabulary specific to architecture. The contrast between the language used and the simplicity of the structure and argument works well because, rather than having a complex structure combine with language which could sound snooty, or simple language and structure which could sound condescending, the elements they chose balance each other out on neutral ground. This creates an air of humility about the paper that opens the reader up to their point of view. This humility combined with the non-argumentative confidence with which they write gives them a wise voice.

This article uses logic and contrasting elements of writing to convince readers in the architecture community to challenge the way they view sustainable architecture and to stop looking for a singular, concrete definition of green building. They expertly call teachers to action in a way that could change the future of design, and challenge students to open their minds. Guy and Farmer write with a quiet confidence that makes it easy to see the validity in their argument.

Visual Analysis

All design fields are highly visual. In the field of architecture there are a vast amount of types of visual communication.  Depending on the audience, the content of the visual piece changes.  Architecture combines design with practical science and math and this makes it somewhat difficult to decipher to someone who is not educated in that field.  Because of this, naturally, advertisements general public are going to be much simpler than communication from one architect to another. 

The simplicity of this visual piece by Andre Chiote suggests that it is aimed at people outside a field of design.  The piece is an advertisement for a brazilian art foundation. The building on the poster is the institute itself.  Though the image of the building and its interesting design suggests architecture, its minimalistic design points to a simpler purpose, which is to advertise the art institute.  

The biggest pointer that this is an advertisement is that the only information it gives is the name of the institute.  Though it is in portuguese, google translate told me that it is the Iber Camargo Foundation and it was established after the death of the artist, Iber Camargo. 

Now, with the knowledge of what the words mean, the aim of the poster becomes much clearer.  With the given visual information, we can assume that the poster is designed as an advertisement for the foundation.  With only a picture of the building and the name of the foundation housed in the building, the only conclusion that can be made is that the designer of the poster wants people to go to that building. 

The imagery says a great deal about the motive of the poster.  The fact that the only image is the building draws our focus immediately to the building and its unique design.  The building is the attention grabber of the poster. After it grabs the viewer’s attention, it creates enough interest to cause the reader to look at the words. 

The designers choice of color is also an interesting factor to analyze.  The inclusion of color tells us that the designer wanted to use it to draw the focus of the viewer, but the absence of multiple colors and the absence of any bright color tells us that the designer wanted the color to be a supplement to the imagery of the poster, rather than the primary focus. 

The color serves to make the viewer look, the building is where we naturally look first, and its form creates enough interest for us to look at the words.  The words provide just enough information to get the point across, but they leave enough out that the viewer has to engage with the poster. 

The poster begs the question, “Why should I go here?”  And the assumption by the creator that all viewers know what this foundation is and are familiar with this building gives the viewer the sense that it is an important building that they should have experience with.  The viewer perceives the institute as a place of prestige that they should go to if only for the ability to say they have.  We can tell the designer assumes this because he feels no need to persuade the viewer to go to the institute, his persuasion is the foundation itself. 

I would compare this advertisement to ads for the Field Museum in Chicago.  It is such a famous museum that simply putting pictures of it up entices people to go there.  It is just part of the chicago experience.  Though I have never been to Brazil, the attitude of this poster makes me think that the Iber Camargo Foundation is a prominent  institution in its city.  If this is so, then the only thing necessary to advertise it is its image and name.  It has already created a reputation for itself, and therefore, it can advertise itself with a self-important attitude. 

The attitude of self-importance given off by the poster transfers to the viewers and makes them want the credibility that familiarity with the Foundation would give them.  The poster is subtly persuasive.  By saying so little, it says so much.  Without realizing it, viewers see it in a positive light. If they are familiar with the foundation, they feel like they are in on something special and if they are not familiar with it, they want to be.  It presents itself in this poster as a place that everyone should visit.  

The poster is confident. There is a saying that goes, “insecurities are loud, confidence is quiet,” and this saying perfectly describes the effect of the advertisement.  It quietly says, “You need to come visit. It’s just part of the experience.” It makes you want to feel included. 

Its simplicity appeals to a broader audience by generalizing its topic, while at the same time it makes it so general that a certain knowledge is required to understand it.  That is the power of simplistic design.  

URL:

http://weandthecolor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ARCHITECTURE-Brazil-Funda%C3%A7%C3%A3o-Iber%C3%AA-Camargo-Poster-Design-by-Andr%C3%A9-Chiote.jpg

Visual Analysis Picture

I think through the minimalism of this picture, the designer targets a broad audience of people who are not educated about architecture. Because of the lack of detail in the top half of the picture, the eye is immediately drawn to the complexity of the building at the bottom. The simplicity implies that the focus should not be on the specific details of the building design, but on the overall effect of the whole building. If it were aimed at other designers or architects, the emphasis might be more on the details and the image would not be so simple. This picture is for the greater public.

Picture Link:

http://weandthecolor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ARCHITECTURE-Brazil-Funda%C3%A7%C3%A3o-Iber%C3%AA-Camargo-Poster-Design-by-Andr%C3%A9-Chiote.jpg

The fire

“He’s gotta be a cop.”

“No, he’s a marine.”

“Why would a marine be camping for fun?”

“I don’t know, he’s with his family!”

“No he’s a firefighter. He’s too built to be a cop and his posture definitely doesn’t say marine. Whatever he is he has to know how to make a fire.”

“Okay, then ask him. Our fire is pathetic!”

Haley and I looked at the smoking pile of wood that taunted us from the campground’s tiny metal fire pit. We had been attempting to build a fire for at least an hour, only to have the kindling disappear in a blaze that left the logs as flameless as ever. 

The sun was going down and with it, our hopes of warm baked beans and smores. We had been looking jealously at the hearty campfire just through the trees all the while, but our drive to prove ourselves on our first camping trip of our own held us back from asking for help. 

This didn’t stop us from speculating about the occupation of the father. We had made it a game. His above average fitness level made it less likely that he was a police officer, but we agreed that he was definitely some sort of public service worker. His posture and mannerisms indicated that he was acutely aware of his surroundings, but his genuine smile and gentle care of his son and wife said he was dedicated to serving people.  

After the what seemed like the 100th face full of smoke, we gave in to the call of warm camp food and wandered through the trees to ask for help. We never asked his profession, but when he pulled out a hatchet, we decided he was a fireman.

Summary Reflection

I’ll be honest, summaries are not my favorite kind of writing, but I understand the necessity of being able to summarize. The hardest part of summarizing is probably not the actual writing, but more understanding the reading you are summarizing. I tried using Rosenburg’s technique of reading the introduction and conclusion first to understand the main point that the author was trying to make, and I was surprised how much of a difference it made. I didn’t find myself rereading the same sentence over and over again or struggling to look for key words nearly as much. After I understood what the article was trying to say, it became easy to put it down in writing. 

I have done assignments similar to this in the past in the form of research papers, though those were less formal than ones written at a college level. The task was very similar because we wrote to synthesize information without adding our own bias. Something that would have made writing the summary easier could be a more specific goal. The topic was very broad, which was good because it gaves us the ability to choose something relevant to our majors, but slightly narrowing down the criteria might have helped. 

This assignment gave me a better idea of writing in architecture. Architecture is a field that combines art with science. Issues in architecture are not just that though. The architecture community deals with social issues in a way that I didn’t really understand before reading the article I summarized. 

Summary

Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: The Place of Technology by Simon Guy and Graham Farmer addresses problems with prevalent debates about the definition of sustainable architecture. Initially Guy and Farmer raise questions about the common misinterpretation that sustainable architecture is one broad subject with a singular view. In this article they argue that “green” design cannot be viewed as a simple concept due to the fact that interpretations and views of how to solve the planet’s problems differ vastly. 

The main problem, according to Guy and Farmer, is that because environmental protection is a social issue, there are so many conflicting views that lumping buildings together in the category of “sustainable” creates tension between competing environmental strategies and sparks debate over the definition of sustainability. They argue that the “search for a true or incontestable definition of sustainable buildings” must be left behind and traded for an understanding of “strategic diversity.” 

Once this is established, they go on to analyze six competing philosophies of sustainability in architecture. The six philosophies of sustainability are eco-technic, eco-centric, eco-aesthetic, eco- cultural, eco-medical, and eco-social.  Each line of thought focuses on a different aspect of environmental change and, therefore, the problems they address and the solutions they come up with vary. For instance, while the eco-medical logic concentrates on creating a “passive nontoxic” and natural environment that promotes healthy living for individuals, eco-centric logic works to create a harmony with nature and reduce the ecological footprint.  Both issues are something worth addressing, but because they approach problems so differently, they should not be lumped together into the same category. According to Guy and Farmer, sustainability shouldn’t even have a label, it should just be labeled architecture. It’s an “attitude” not a “prescription.” The tension between the different approaches is created by the rest of the world’s perception that not all buildings make an attempt at being sustainable. In reality, its just that the way one building is sustainable may contradict what one of the other philosophies argues is really the problem. While one tries to create a harmony with nature, another might try to create a unity for humans at the expense of some natural resource. The fact, stated by Guy and Farmer, is that both have valid reason to sustain what they aim to sustain and there will never be a definition that perfectly encompasses what it means to be sustainable by all the ideas of the six different philosophies. Instead, the idea of sustainability should be a flexible indefinite one. Sustainability is not just one idea, it is many. It is a lifestyle and way of thinking. Generally in architecture, all modern buildings sustain something. Therefore, the word sustainability loses its meaning and its power as a label. This is something Guy and Farmer believe to be good because without a label to lump the different logics together, the tension eases.

The authors of the article urge educators to incite student to challenge the definition of sustainability. This, they argue, encourages future architects to become moral citizens who are open to “process of negotiation, criticism and debate.” The importance of these processes makes itself clear in the building that are designed and built and the effect the have on this world and their immediate environment. They also conclude that power is in ideas and when the ideas of the world and especially designers are more capable of compromise, architecture can become more “humane and multivocal.”

CEO

FDI (Finerty Designs International) is an innovative landscape architecture firm that designs outdoor spaces for any purpose. 

To: FDI Employees 

From: Sophie Finerty, CEO

Subject: SAE 

Date: January 29, 2014

Dear Employees,

I am pleased to inform you that we will be joining with SAE to take on the exciting task of creating this year’s baja course for the Iowa State Racing Team. SAE is lead by Ali Daly, a mechanical engineer with a passion for designing cars for the team. She will be providing the information about requirements for the course and it is our job to bring her ideas to life. We have some creative license here, but ultimately, she will be making all executive decisions. Be brief and direct in your written communication with her and make sure all needs are met.

Sophie Finerty

Cheif Executive Officer

Writing in My Field

How would I find out how writing works in my field? Well for starters we have the internet, which I'm sure is overflowing with answers to that question, such as articles or statements written by architects. And aside from all that knowledge I could look up on my own, I have an entire building full of architects and designers that love to talk about their field and their work. The design building has an open studio policy that allows any student in any discipline to look at other students work and ask questions.

Rosenburg Thought Piece

Too often, I find myself having to reread entire paragraphs after my mind has wandered off to a place where scholarly writing does not exist and all that matters is what I am going to have for dinner. Academic reading has never been one of my strengths and after reading Rosenburg’s Reading Games, I have come to realize one of my biggest mistakes is treating academic articles like a novel and reading them start to finish, as if there is some big plot twist I am saving until the very end. Rosenburg’s strategy of taking apart the piece and finding the main point is so brilliant that it seems it should be obvious. 

I was especially enthralled with the idea of reading the conclusion before diving  into the rest of the article in order to better understand the introduction and the main point of the writing. It seems so simple and smart that I don’t know how I have gone my whole life without ever trying that. It seems that teachers generally try to help students out and teach them the best way to understand something, so it baffles me that I have never been taught any type of academic reading strategy like that. 

While I have yet to actually apply these strategies, I feel comforted just knowing that I now have a plan to dissect academic writing that always seems so daunting.  Rosenburg’s formula makes an incredibly difficult task a simple, step-by-step process. It makes academic writing less of a monster and more like a math problem; tricky at first, but fathomable when broken down into a series of smaller tasks. 

The outcome of reading academic writing has always seemed somewhat abstract to me. At the end you will come out with some sort of new knowledge, but there is no concrete level of understanding you must reach. Nothing is set in stone. Without a measurable goal, I always found it difficult to know when I was done reading or whether or not I had done what the teacher asked. Rosenburg’s strategies gave me a better understanding of the point of academic reading and an idea of what the outcome of my reading should be.

Portrait of a Writer

Writing is not perfect. I am not a perfect writer. I will never try to be a perfect writer because, to me, that is dishonest and I am a big fan of honesty. I like messy writing. I like scribbled-in notebooks and bad handwriting, which is good because my handwriting is barely legible, as many a classmate will attest to.  

I think that my personality as a writer matches my messy room and my disorganized mind. I realize that I have started a lot of my sentences with the letter “I,” which according to almost all of my past english teachers is a HUGE no-no. And there’s a reason for that. But sometimes following that rule ruins the honesty of a piece of writing. What I love about writing is that, in essence, it is just a really long train of thought cemented in reality by little black letters on a page. Sometimes those thoughts don’t even make any sense together, but as long as they have been written down on paper, you can refine and shape them into something that makes sense to the rest of the world, something that might be worth reading.

In my mind, the only writing not worth reading is writing assigned to students in order to practice following a set of rules, not to use their perfectly functional, thought forming brains to speak their mind and add to the collective mind of society. Specifically, five paragraph essays and formulas for what each sentence should contain. Of course, structure and rules are necessary to some extent to be able to eloquently express an opinion or explore an idea, but the way those rules were taught to me as a student was completely devoid of imagination and free thought. 

Exploration of essay structure was never an option until my senior year AP Literature teacher told me I was not allowed to follow a formula to write my essays. Only then did I learn that the content of the essay did not have to follow a formula either. I was pushed to choose my own questions to answer and write for the love of thinking, rather than for a grade. 

Reading this essay, you may be thinking that my writing is scattered, or that I did not fully understand the prompt because I have not specifically answered the questions. And to that I say, your opinion is not why I’m writing this. Of course I am writing this because I want credit for it, but I also write to organize my thoughts. I learned how to write to get a perfect score according to a rubric and for a very long time I hate writing because I thought that that was how all writing had to be. No new thoughts. None of my own ideas. No passion. 

While I try to follow what my teacher ask of me in an essay, I make sure I only write things I truly believe. As a reader, I don’t like to be tricked into agreeing with the writer with clever persuasion techniques. I appreciate reading someone else’s honest thoughts, so I try to be as honest as I can when I am writing. Honesty can be risky, though, because when writing for a grade, your audience matters a bit more than when writing just to make a point. For instance, with most teachers, I would never include my pre-essay paragraph because it is generally offensive and deemed inappropriate for academic writing. However, since the point of this essay is to explore my perception of myself as a writer, I feel it is necessary to share that I like to get my creative juices flowing by starting off my paper with a paragraph of my unedited thoughts at the moment. My thoughts upon starting this essay are as follows;

“Listen up fuckers. What you’re about to read is not going to be a pretty essay. Im about to fill this bitch up with a whole lot of  random crap that spews out my brain and im only gonna have one draft of this paper because I dont have time to do more because i am a big ol procrastinator and i suck at time management. alright. Now that you know the truth Im about to get down to business and use proper language and shit. Right after i go to class.”

This exercise helps my to get more comfortable with the topic at hand, and also starts me off in the habit of being perfectly honest.  I used to sit at my computer for an obscene amount of time trying to come up with a riveting “attention grabber” that my teacher would not find boring or overused.  Needless to say, I had to come up with a new strategy and that’s when the “honesty paragraph” was born. 

Each time I write I start to understand a little more about what writing is about and why there are so many people who love to write. I do not consider myself a great writer by any standards, but neither am I insecure about writing. I am in an ongoing process of discovering my own voice and refining my writing technique, and I accept that I have plenty room for improvement. At the same time, I can look back at my writing in the past and see how far I have come, not only as a writer, but as an individual with opinions. 

I don’t think I will ever be perfect, or even as good as I could be, but isn’t that what it is to be human? To always be growing and learning? There has never been a human being who knew everything there was to know and I doubt there ever will be. 

Like Socrates once said, “The only real wisdom is knowing you know nothing.” Of course he didn’t say it in English, but you know what I mean. The biggest step I have taken so far in discovering who I am as a writer is admitting that I am really nothing special and not being upset by that. Everyone wants to be the best, but if that is the only reason we continue to do something, we will never be content, because obviously, we can’t all be the best.

I guess what I am really trying to say is that who I am as a writer is honest, and that’s about it. I am who I am, but not who I have been in the past or will be in the future. 

Goodman Thought Piece

In order to understand my thoughts and reactions to Goodman’s article, “Calming the Inner Critic and Getting to Work,” I feel that I must share a bit about my background as a writer.  My imagination has spent the past two years in all-out war with my inner critic. 

My junior and senior year of high school I took two advanced placement english classes, one focused on language and the other on literature, respectively. My teachers for those classes are two of the most brilliant people I have ever known, but vastly different.  My junior year teacher is the most one of the most strong willed, intelligent and argumentative women I have met. She spent the year drilling us on arguing a point and analyzing writing to its death. I learned about rhetoric and how to read deeply into things and then use that to demolish someone else’s argument. 

So naturally, I spent that year with my inner critic on full blast, picking out every little mistake I made in my writing and hating it. This made the next year a bit of a shock when my teacher demanded that I shut it off and read literature just for the love of literature and write what I truly thought and felt about it. He treated each piece of writing as if it were a mystery to be solved, not something to be argued with. 

That year I learned to understand writing better than I ever had before and so reading Goodman’s article reminded me that at the core, writing isn’t about doing something that’s never been done before or making something that others will marvel at long after you’re dead. It’s about organizing all the jumbled thoughts in your head, creating new characters and stories out of the parts of life you are trying to understand. Goodman talks about when a writer loses herself in her writing and forgets about the world and, though I may not be a world class writer, some of my best personal growth and best writing has come from when I forgot the world and the audience and just wrote in a desperate rush to put my racing thoughts on paper.

 There’s just something about not caring about the outcome and only focusing on the process that makes writing into something beautiful, instead of something forced and academic.