What is writing?

I loved this reading because it completely and utterly addressed the research question that I intend to work with for my Critical Photo Essay! I was excited to see that I'm not the only person questioning what on earth writing is, and how are we redefining and re-evaluating it as time goes on. I think we like to think of writing in the most traditional sense, where we see ourselves scratching letters on paper with pencil or a pen. Or typing black words onto a blank document. We see writing as the act of physically stringing words together to create sentences which in turn create statements and arguments. The beauty of this reading, particularly Johnson-Eiola, is that it questions this notion. This article calls into question what the difference is between writing and composition, and how to situate the role of writing within today's culture.

There was once again the separation between what is "truth" and what is "creativity." I found this to be interesting too. I know we've talked about this before, but I find it impossible that something factual cannot be creative and something creative cannot be factual. I simply find that notion too simple and ignorant. But the biggest part of this was that creativity was defined as producing something that had previously not existed in the world. That was intriguing to me because it brought me back to the question, then what is writing? Is writing creativity? Is writing the act of creating a unique text? And on that same note, the article brings up intertextuality again, and calls into question if there are any original texts left to be created? Can there be original texts anymore if all we do is break down texts "in order to reconnect them, over and over again" (208)? And if, in fact, there are no more original texts, and writing is the act of creating an original text, is there really writing? Which brings us right back to what the hell is writing anyways?! This all seems like such a hot mess.

I think that Johnson-Eilola brings up a really interesting quote, along the same lines of creation and writing and originality and shtuff, that got my brain turning in circles, a bit. "And despite the realization that our culture increasingly values texts that are broken down, rearranged, recombined, we rarely teach forms of writing that support such production. We unwittingly (of sometimes consciously) still think of writing as a way to help the self become present to itself, as a method for personal growth and discovery" (209). I find this quote awfully intriguing. You see, I think of writing as a way to express myself-- a way to grow as a thinker, as a writer, as a person. I think of writing as one of the many ways that I can take a piece of who I truly am and present it to the world in writing. Yet I also see where this quote is going when it says we increasingly value texts that have been cut, copied, and reassembled. We are most often asked to write pieces using "textual evidence." We need that copied quote from someone else in order to validate the point of our own writing. And when we are asked to simply give our thoughts and opinions, without the support of someone else's thoughts and opinions, we just don't know what to do. We don't really know how to handle writing for our own understanding and personal growth, yet we still like to think that writing is to help us better understand and discover and grow as a person. It's quite a conundrum.

I don't actually know what my point is, but those were my thoughts, particularly on Johnson-Eilola. I feel like I probably talked myself in circles a little bit, but that's kind of where my train of thoughts went over the course of reading these texts. And I realize that I've rambled on and one about one article and basically neglected the other, but it happens.