As part of human nature, we like to group things and make rules for them to help us understand them and not forget. We have regulations and rules for everything from government laws to the correct way of eating watermelon. We have this constant demand for instruction which only amplifies as civilizations prosper. They can work sometimes and keep things in order, but at this point, they’ve become an obsession. Creating rules for wiring is an example of one such crazy obsession. Writing is one of the most complex human creations that can’t and shouldn’t be defined by a set of rules. There is a variety of purposes for writing and we as humans defeated any purpose it has because we’ve made authors limited to what they want to say. They constantly ask themselves “Does this make sense? Who is my audience, and will they understand? Is the tone appropriate?” They are constantly being restricted by these rules.   

Moreover, I’ve always viewed writing as a form of communication between people and an idea. However, as this semester comes to an end, I’m utterly disapprove that one’s creativity and thought process could be summarized by a theory of writing. Nobody is the same, no one writes for the same purpose, same audience, or have the same stance in a political issue. There might be some points of similarity and but never fully the same, there is always the slightest spot for disagreement for everyone. Thus, people should write to write (with a purpose) instead of fulfilling a set of qualifications, which results in the lack of uniqueness and a generic piece of “work”.

One of the pieces I wrote for the English 110 class, is a research essay about unreported crimes. Although I am proud of the essay (mostly because I had a good grade) because I believe that I laid out the facts and the evidence correctly, and had a strong stance in the essay, “administrations and police forces have to understand that as some crimes decline, others rise.” It’s clear that I am completely against the police force’s efforts in handling sexual crimes, or the lack thereof, and made it my purpose to get the government to take proper actions. In another sentence, I also wrote that “the administrations demonstrate that they care more about defending their public image rather than fighting for the justice of the people.” Here it is evident that I have a critical tone of the police force as I argue that they are not doing their job which is to fight for and protect the people. Overall it was a good piece of writing, but it wasn’t my favorite; it’s generic. Why is it that I chose to write in a ten-page long research essay rather than a poem? Why didn’t I use any informal language to talk about the issue? Why couldn’t I just curse out the stupid police officers? Why couldn’t I show that I was angry at the government and instead I had to be professional about it? Because this is what we defined our writing as, being  about serious and likable topics, long and boring pages filled with formal and repetitive words of phrases because we have to restate our thesis every second, and because we have a word count that we needed to reach. Overall, because I had these restrictions, I couldn’t get all my emotions across to my audience, I couldn’t get people to feel the anger I had while writing that paper because it’s part of the rules to be formal and professional. As bizarre as it may sound, I believe that we should make talking about important topics less serious and more satirical and with no rules or restrictions. First, because it doesn’t bring trauma to people when talking about it and, people will pay more attention to unconventional things with a hidden message.

    Another piece that I wrote this semester is for the Psychology 102 class, which is the Fun Paper, which is everything but that. These papers are the exact definition of what writing should not be. The paper is full of instructions and is laid out specifically how the professor wants it. For instance, every single student had the exact first sentence, “the purpose of this paper is to evaluate the correlations method as a means for examining the relationship between functions of the left and right hemispheres.” Along with the set of questions, we have to answer following this sentence, it is obviously clear that this is pure depletion of creativity. The students are writing thousands of copies of the same paper. Alongside that, the students are expected to have the same answer for each question, otherwise, they don’t receive credit. For instance, when answering the question about the function of the hippocampus if you don’t put the answer exactly as “processing conscious and new memories” and wrote any other variation of the answer, you don’t receive the credit for that questions. As I hinted previously, for whatever an author writes, there needs to be a purpose. There was no other purpose of such paper other than violating the students’ grades and taking away valuable studying time. However, to get to the purpose of this paper, this simply proves that we have ruined writing and made it extremely instructional. The student could be learned much more from reading a textbook or getting to write the paper freely. However, with all the specifics, we were all utterly confused about what we were writing, and what the purpose is. To truly write, an author should never ask some questions. 

In conclusion, these rules and regulations keep writers in a confused state because they feel like they’re lacking by having to follow certain rules when they’re writing. Everyone is skilled at a certain type of writing and they’re constantly limited to a style that is predesignated. Everyone should be free to choose the writing style they believe best fits their purpose, they should be free to express themselves regardless of tone, language, genre, etc. Therefore, there is no true meaning of writing, it should be specific to each person and not universally defined because that’s when we restrict and confuse authors. Once again, the most beautiful pieces are unconventional, uncensored, and unrestricted because they truly represent every aspect of the author’s purpose. As a human, my thoughts shouldn’t suffocate in the confined state that modern day instructional writing has imprisoned me in!