Elizabeth Wardle makes the argument that all writing pertains to a specific audience and purpose; she’s absolutely right. To this end, it validates Catherine Savini’s advice to tackle writing assignments by breaking them down as solvable problems. Savini points out that some writing prompts are flawed; they’re simply not complex enough to write at length about. They leave it up to the student to find an issue to write about by raising their own questions on the topic.
With all of that in mind, it’s important to remember that you’re writing for an instructor of some sort. When you’re picking away at a prompt for clues on what you should write about, that is for your benefit. However, you must also be “sneaky” about it; you must remember to satisfy the instructor by not going overboard with “defying” the original prompt, and certainly not by pointing out any flaws that you may have found in your pursuit for questions.
I write this with the notion that academic assignments – especially pre-college – are a different kind of literature than anything out in the “real world”. That said, this sort of logic applies for literature at large. Writing can’t be taught in general, but across the board, there’s a certain care that every writer should consider when thinking about an audience. You are essentially performing for them – especially if the audience has experience, they’re looking for something that will keep them engaged and satisfied. It is not just writing prompts that are problems you need to solve; sometimes, you need to figure out what the “problem” is before you proceed.
In short, the connection between Wardle’s and Savini’s words is that writing is a long balancing act between author and audience satisfaction. Although there’s no way to make everyone happy, you can at least satisfy a specific group – or a specific person, even.
Leave a Reply