Laura Miller's May 11 essay for Salon.com, "Bad Writing: What Is It Good For?" drew me in immediately, not only with the counterintuitive idea that lousy writing might serve some redeeming purpose but also with its subtitle: "crappy prose is our most abundant resource, so let's put it to work." No one with my snarky sense of humor could possibly fail to read on.
Okay, I was a little disappointed not to find suggestions about some really tangible use for bad writing. I've been wondering, for example, if there isn't some way to stuff novelists' first drafts, instead of golf balls and rubber tire shreds, into the unstoppable ex-oil well currently making the the waters of the Gulf as murky as The Talented Mr. Ripley's soul. Talk about your "Junk Shot"!*
Nevertheless, the always intelligent Miller is true to form here, describing one defining characteristic of bad writing as the fact that the writer doesn't doubt its quality, yet also reminding us that what writers think is their worst writing isn't, or at least isn't always. (Cases in point: Kafka, who Miller mentions, and Virginia Woolf, whom she doesn't.) If you're intrigued by the mystery of bad writing, your own or anyone else's, her piece is well worth a read.
*For the record: I am not making fun of the terrible catastrophe afflicting the Gulf and all of those entities, both human and -non, being injured by it. But I admit that I am making fun of the names BP gives its proposed fixes, which make already questionable plans sound even more implausible.
No comments:
Post a Comment