Prior to attending CSU, Chico, I never considered English had a major emphasis in courses that followed with curriculum involved in particularly literacy or rhetoric. Though I’m native to literature more than I am in either of these two fields, they twine together conceptually with looking critically at what my own theory of writing is, as a relative, individual schema that is variable and fluid rather than static in any given standard of a sense from one individual to a next.
There may be a few exceptions to the broad reach I’ve left to what I think of having a personal theory of writing, but this is with purpose. The one particular caveat I can see as contradictory is that of formal norms associated with our practices themselves in how we communicate in given written forms, such as how to address a formal email in a professional workspace, or in academia with standards contemporary texts of written proficiency such as the essay that have certain elements that are necessary, from a thesis to a progressive, critical structure of a certain focus or focuses before being surmised in conclusion.
So, yes, autonomy in writing is split in meeting accommodation of these type of activities in the sense that the structure for how they may be followed in practice is likewise a scaffolding or form that must be followed or applied in practiced to extent. However, like the article we read for class cited of writing as theory in a number of perspectives, words get their meanings from other words, as well as that writing is a knowledge-building activity. From my own literacy practices, the great majority of my own writing is either aimed at meeting rigors of academia in assignments, whether for short writing based assignments, presentations or essays. In my personal autonomy, I cannot rationally choose to avoid these assignments or not do them if I want to avoid failing said respective courses. Part of the expectation of a university student is that you meet these expectations of academic rigor, for better or for worse. But, in a student’s own personal autonomy, we also use words that are synthesized and answered critically in response to the questions, views and subjects given in turn to our classes and their respective assignments.
These varying modems of written text turned in to professors for their assignments are unique, much like a thumbprint, to every student. Personal autonomy here is what falls in line with words giving meaning to other words in the sense that while their may be precursors for the field, focus, and form that a student’s writing can be dictated, what a student writes and chooses to write are the words, thoughts, and strata of their own selves, and so from where forth, neither student is word for word identically the same in their articled written views, or in their writing, either. Whether to what degree of accepted variance, every student’s work is unique to themselves and separate, but albeit similar from the rest of their fellow students.
We have varying reasons, spaces, and ways we write, but our words regardless our each to their own of those who write them. Before written literacies, oral traditions of recitation were how civilizations and man kept track of their histories and all other subjects of content deemed necessary to their lives. Words as text in my opinion are in one aspect finite thoughts given infinite mortality when scribed from the personal whom they are derived. I see and also think of writing in terms of literacy as the convention rationally that followed oral recitation, and now has begun to be displaced by the varying mediums of technology with a particular emphasis in wireless communications and social media.
From social media site like Instragram, to websites, texting, and beyond, much of this is all assessable to people in their phones, tablets and laptops. There is a beauty to that, thinking of all these forms and means that we write and dictate our contentions for written communication. I also see this modern genesis as the tandem of both former practices of written and oral literacies combined from two made into one in the sense of the long-gevity one provided, and the interpersonal connection that both could stipulate.
So to me, I do not know if there is any particular ‘good writing.’ With everyone being so different in their views, thoughts and connections, I believe the merit of writing as theory should not be to be critical of objective criterion to how they write, but in their array of expression and critical inquiry of an a subject, if any such reason for so is needed, like in academia. Otherwise, I believe writing to be something that is to be fostered and achieved successfully through these modern means with an easier reach of accessibility than offered in prior generations and years. This is why with every one of our words being unique to ourselves that I see writing as theory being so open-ended, because with seven billion different views and beliefs, trying to box, conform or define specifics means for conventual writing practices beyond practical application of grammar is challenging, if not too challenging. Like with autonomous and ideological models of literacy, culture and sub-social norms also have their own affect to how each and every one writes.
That is why, in a pinpointed final scope of thought, I would say this to surmise my theory of writing: beyond being unique to every person in their conventions and expression, writing as theory should be seen as mediation of communication and connection. These practices, while they can be similar in majorities, are also unique and separate from one another. If there are any means of defining ‘good writing,’ regardless of format or style, I would say it has to be in the depth and aspect one synthesizes and presents their relative views in their writing. However, even that, thinking of what is ‘good writing’ is variant. How much depth/thought in a given sum can be deemed as proficient? I would say that, too, is also of personal dissent.