Tradition Versus Modern

There's been a lot of talk in my various writing groups lately about writing style. There are many stating that untrained writers are using "writing style" as an excuse to write bad and avoid learning the writing rules. The opposing argument is that the formally trained writers are suffocating the creative process of writing.

Obviously, this argument is divided into two camps of writers. The first group are people who have followed an education or training/learning path of formal English education. They have a passion for writing, but also a passion for the rules of writing. I think of this group as the Traditionalists.

The second group are those who have the same passion for writing, but haven't focused their education or training in the formal education. These people learn by sight and instinct. They know good writing from bad but can't tell you the why of it. I think of this group as the Modernists.

Both the Traditionalists and the Modernists are passionate about the art and craft of writing. Their difference comes in approach, which fit their individual personalities and are the core strength of their writing styles.

Modernists have the strength and creative angst to break through the latest rigid rules of writing and to form a new method of expression. They are cocky enough to do it without apologies. Traditionalists have the respect of the founding rules that transcend the various evolutions. They are cocky enough to fight off the desecration of those basic rules.

Both groups have qualities that the other can learn from and hopefully one day appreciate. As with the late 1700 through mid-1800, and then again through the 1940-1970s there were evolutions of writing that changed the way readers look at the core stories of values, morals, and, well...life.

Hope my little rant wasn't too much or too boring. Good writing all!