The Case Against Conversational Writing
“In I. Asimov: A Memoir, Isaac Asimov compares writing to glass. He notes that stripping color out of glass was ‘the great triumph of Venetian glassmaking art.’ It took until the 17th century to master, and the technique was so valued that it was kept secret for a long time after. Asimov was often criticized for his lack of distinct style, and the point he was making in this metaphor is that writing simply and clearly isn’t the absence of style—it’s hard work, and the ability to do it is a skill.
Asimov goes on to liken poetry to colored glass mosaics: they let some light in but their primary purpose is to evoke emotion. When students attempt to write their prose conversationally, the style they often adopt, like the color in stained-glass windows, is so preoccupied with capturing the emotion and rhythms of speech that it fails to illuminate meaning so much as gets in the way of it. While it’s clear to most of us that the ‘conversation’ of ‘writing conversationally’ is meant as a metaphor, students often receive the advice literally rather than figuratively. In the most extreme examples, I’ll even see students insert an abundance of placeholder words—the same words I’m editing out of my interview—into their prose. We rely on these words when we talk to indicate to our listener we aren’t done, only taking a breath or composing our thoughts. In writing, however, we don’t need to worry about being interrupted, and we have plenty of time to search for the right word.”
More on why students shouldn’t be encouraged to write like they talk over at Splice Today.
