Lindemann is very insightful in explaining the recursive steps of writing. The process that most struck me was her description of prewriting, namely, how a collective perspective influences a writer's judgment through "institutions, societal prohibitions, and cultural expectations (p. 26). So many times I've found myself finishing a sentence or a thought, only to backtrack on it because it may not be acceptable for no other reason than a societal, institutional constraint. The word "I," for example, has been labeled as inappropriate for most types of "serious" writing, and I'm sure many students would concur. Another example is the age old rule we were all taught - and continues to be taught - of never beginning a sentence with the word "and." Again, I see an ungrounded societal constraint. According to H.W Fowler's editions of modern English usage, and these book are considered an authority, it's perfectly acceptable to begin a sentence with the word "and."
Yes, "I" in a sentence can be substituted with something else. But why should it be? What if the writer wants that empowerment of communicating himself/herself that way... should he/she be limited within a boundary?
Societal and institutional conventions can be detrimental in a writer's desire to express oneself - and "I" is just one example of many. Whether or not a writer uses "I" in a sentence or "and" to begin one depends on the tone, audience, and message trying to be communicated. Based on these three factors, and perhaps a couple more, a writer should be allowed free range in expression without having to worry about persnickety peoples' comments of "oh...the word 'I' was used...that's so unprofessional." A couple examples of well-known, respected writers who use this supposedly abominable word in their writings are Mark Twain, Herman Melville, and Gloria Anzaldua - but hey, maybe they just didn't know what they were doing.
No comments:
Post a Comment