|
5 Types of Writers
A counter-discourse to the dreamy writer
by Erica Balkum
Homo sapiens sapiens, i.e. anatomically
modern humans, possess a skill that marks the species above any
other animals, the written language.
Intrigued by our unique cultural trait, I
set off to explore the world of words and enrolled in a Masters
program for creative writing. Armed with an anthropology
degree, I looked upon myself as famed anthropologist, Margaret
Mead; however, instead of a quest to study the native Samoans, I
researched the prototypical writer.
The first days were culture
shock. A foreign language presented itself in the form of
literary quotes, critiques of writers, and book reviews.
Previous to my expedition, I retained an ethnocentric perception
of writers that stemmed from a romantic discourse about writers
society. The predominant theory, borne in academia by
non-writers, conceptualized writers as dreamy, nonsensical
people, who expressed themselves through a process many
non-writers failed to understand. Writers were considered one
dimensional members of a larger mainstream culture. However, in
my study, I discovered a new approach that counters the former
discourse. The following are five categories of writers that I
found in the North American academic culture.
1. Writer instructus / successis
are the leaders of writers’ society. These leaders, often
professors, have attained status through reputable writing
skills and their ability to nurture other writers. They are
recognized by a leadership charisma, much like the ‘Big Men’ of
the Venezuelan Yanömamo tribe. These Big Men exercise a unique
technique in hunting that elevates them above other men, just as
w. successis does in story composition and grammar.
Frequently, w. successis are found leading writing
workshops or holding book signings.
2. Writer criticalus are classified
as the common critic. The extreme self-confidence, which they
possess for their poor writing skills, sometimes allows them to
move higher into society by building their reputations.
However, when their writing is adequately critiqued, their
position is disposed. They are temperamental and abusive
towards other writers. Many scream poetry in dark coffee shops
or attend free movie screenings.
3. Writer reculsiva are writers who
have recognizable achievements, but lack charisma to rise higher
in writers’ society. W. reculsiva contribute important
fictional pieces; but some, like fantasy and science-fiction
writers, avoid tribute in the larger society. The !Kung arrow
makers of southern Africa, who make the tribe’s necessary
hunting arrows, reflect a parallel personality. Both the !Kung
arrow makers and w. reculsiva maintain a distance from
distinction to elude having their position contested in their
respective societies.
4. Writer poorskillis is the lowest
level of writer. Lack of achievements and low-confidence mark
this writer. They frequent all writing events, including book
signings and writing workshops, in the hope they can eventually
raise their status. There is little compensation for their
writing, but they usually excel in other trades in mainstream
society. Unfortunately, their movement in writers’ society is
limited to the w. criticalus level.
5. Writer nonskillis is considered
a violator of writers’ society’s cultural rules and,
subsequently, are not publicly acknowledged as a writer.
Grammar, form and punctuation are disregarded in their
practice. While not formal writers, they are defined as writers
because of their excitement and thoughtfulness in conveying
their written message to others. I discovered this fifth type
of writer when interviewing non-writers. They are commonly
traced to mass email anecdotes or blog websites.
As a participant observer in
writers’ society, I maintained rapport with all five categories
of writers to explore the fullest possible view of their
society. An annual faculty reading festival at a large
university was a particularly informative experience. Skewered
chicken, fine cheeses, fruit platters and wine created an
atmosphere of feasting (similar to the summer feast of the
Australian Aborigines (how so, just the feast or are there other
cultural consistencies?)). I interviewed a number of writers
and began to generate my revised categorical theory.
According to my informants,
which included a sampling from w. instructus, w.
criticalus, and w. pooskillis, writer’s society
hinged on two aspects: praise and rejection. Praise enabled a
writer to increase their rank in their society and was essential
for acceptance. Rejection was abundant and stunted advancement,
if not properly taken. It became clear that rejection was the
greatest obstacle and definer in writers’ society. A common
joke prevails, of needing drugs and alcohol to face the critical
writing process. However, unlike the dreamy writers discourse
that hypothesized this weakness, few writers, if any, were drug
or alcohol abusers.
The motivator for my informants
to join writers’ society was the writing. Writing was
considered a fulfilling activity, which resembled the fervor
Inuits have held for seal hunts. Imagination was considered the
only true limitation in their society, although mobility in
classification was in relation to perceived talent. The
unifying link between writers and the most distinctive aspect of
writers’ society was the pursuit to understand human nature
through the transmission of ideas in the written medium.
Subsequently, this brief ethnography has shown a categorical
counter-discourse to the singular romantic classification of
writers.
|