blog 3- writing

This weeks reading for me seemed to be rather ambiguous and for no apparent reason. The main argument I think they are trying to make is the nature of writing, how difficult and abstract writing can be and that it should even be apart of the sciences.

One of almost a dozen metaphors/analogies Metcalfe and Game use to explain writing is that “it takes a lot of will-power and hard work to be creative” (Metcalfe and Game 1996, p99) and to back up this argument they provide a quote from Benjamin “poetic work resembled a physical effort” (Metcalfe and Game 1996, p100). I will admit as a rational, 21st century, Australian male I am not very creative especially when it comes to literature. However at the risk of sounding ostentatious and/or narcissistic I do know what a physical effort is. I have climbed Mt Kilimanjaro (Africa’s highest mountain) as well as other significant mountains and I find it insulting to compare writing or anything to do with the arts to a ‘physical effort’.

To the rational person the next metaphor may seem odd but to the pretentious, mentally detached human beings Metcalfe and Game are this metaphor fits perfectly. The metaphor they use to explain writing is, riding a horse. They do explain the metaphor of course and it does make some sense. However it is a poor one and just suggests you could make an analogy out of anything (i.e. peeling an apple is like flying a space shuttle. I’m sure Metcalfe and Game could tell us how they are similar)

I do however agree with one thing they say and it also happens to be something that is explained clearly. That is the ritual one does before one writes. They give examples of the dishes must be cleaned before you sit down at your desk and write. This is definitely true for me but my ‘ritual’ which is cleaning my room/desk is for procrastination reasons, nothing to do with ‘clearing my head’ or anything else profound

In conclusion Metcalfe and Game intentionally go out of there way in this essay to confuse the reader. This essay is without a doubt the only one I have read that has more metaphors than paragraphs. The arguments were somewhat vague along with the entire document which does not help Metcalfe and Game when they are trying to assert that writing should be treated as a science. Even though they say no ‘formula’ should be applied to writing I feel it would have been a stronger argument if they tried to come up with one or at least argue a formula should be created.

Bibliography

Game, A. & Metcalfe, A., 1996, ‘Writing’ in Passionate Sociology, Sage, London, pp 87-105.