“Why I Write” Response to Readings

What resonates with me most about these readings is the egocentric reason for why each of them write. I liked that they were both up front and honest about their reasons; which seemed to be shared in the sense that it is an attempt to understand themselves, the world around them, and deal with the tormented part of them that never rests, and inspires them to write in order to release it. They each said that if they knew the answer to what they were looking for, they would have no reason to write. They also both mentioned struggles in their life that they felt lead them down the path to become a writer. I have noticed the same things among most artists and have thought about why that is quite a bit.

What I disliked about the readings, was the level of self awareness or obsession that I heard in their voice. I understand writing about yourself tends to cause that, but I sensed a level of conceitedness that I disliked. I also get annoyed by their voice in the sense that it seems so formed and professional, their abstract details and distant metaphors don’t entertain me but annoy me. I have never been impressed by poems that seem to make no sense, or writing that uses rhetoric that seems more interested in sounding good rather than being genuine. Its hard for me to explain why, but if I have always thought if you have something to say, than why coat it in hard to understand jargon or rhetoric?

One thought to ““Why I Write” Response to Readings”

  1. I definitely agree with you on the point that both authors, particularly Orwell, uses a lot more rhetoric than necessary to present their ideas. Flowering sentences up is a nice technique make writing more appealing and interesting, but if you overdo it, as I think Orwell did in his piece, it only distracts the reader and makes the words less genuine and significant.

Leave a Reply