Analysis Of Donald Murray's 'All Writing Is Autobiographical'

Being truthful on an objective voice within our writing is something that can be impossible because of how we express ourselves with our personal experiences and the way people interpret it. We can’t say that our writing or our voice does not have originality because it is a buildup of other people’s thoughts and discourses. Your “unique voice” is not really just your own voice according to James E’ Porter. Donald Murray says that writing is always something personal, so in all sense he thinks, all writing is autobiographical. Murray does not refer to autobiographical as someone telling a story about themselves, but more about the nature of the text and on how it contains traces back to its writer.

Donald Murray in “All Writing is Autobiographical”,

states that everything we write about is autobiographical. He comments that each individuals writing is influenced by the collection of different personal experiences and their own perceptions on how they view the world. Murray comments that we have a different way of looking at the world and the language in how we expressed ourselves is shaped back to our life and experiences. Another thing that Murray states is that we, as writers, often return to the same topics in different conversations because it keeps returning us back to family and childhood [Murray 58]. He confesses how he would write for therapy and how writing autobiographically allowed him to write a more meaningful life based off of what he went through. Murray also mentions how a writer learns about themselves through their feelings of writing. He made sure people recognized the fact that he was enthusiastic and satisfied with his work throughout his writing. Murray arguments allowed me to analyze that our experiences shaped our work even when we are asked to write objectively.
I certainly agree with what Murray’s arguments say due to the fact that most of the time the writing traces back into what the writer believes to be correct and that supports what he explains throughout his writing. He states that everyone will be asked to write about the same topic objectively; however they will have different arguments that will frame their work differently and choose the diverse format in which they write from one another which represents who they are. Murray’s other point of view is mentioned in a poem in the article, in which everything he writes on there is not true. Murray states, “The poem that was for a few seconds imaginary has become autobiographical by being written.” (Murray 61) He discusses how some of the statements he says on there are false, on the other hand those false statements are still autobiographical because even though they did not happen in reality they still came from his imagination and was put into writing. Although his imagination derives from him, its does not make him any different from writers who believe to be correct based off of their own interpretation in their writing.
When I look back at the writing I have done, whether it was in an English class, work, or any other writing assignment, it all reflects and traces back to who I am.

For example, the time I had to write a research paper on the death penalty. Even though the essay’s main purpose was to inform my audience on the two different sides of the death penalty, my essay drastically leaned towards the side of being in favor for the death penalty. After reading Murray’s article I realized the reason why my research paper was in favor for the death penalty. I input my beliefs and personal experiences from reading about other criminal cases which influenced me to lean towards a side instead of staying objective. I can identify myself as a very autobiographical writer because I believe I write better when I can relate to the topic of the writing. If I feel I can relate to the main purpose of the writing with my personal experiences I feel more comfortable with the excerpt I’m writing because it’s going to be influenced by my

life.
In the article “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community” James E’ Porter main argument isn’t that plagiarizing is wrong but in how plagiarizing is more inevitable.

He brings in the point of intertextuality which means that all texts contain traces of other texts. He is summarizing it as how we understand the concepts of the text and how they are based on other concepts of what other people have stated already. Writers have to reference other writer’s text ideas, in order to build upon them and also be able to get some credibility. The reason is if you are going to give information about a specific subject, the author must first be able to absorb the knowledge of the subject from other texts and that’s when intertextuality occurs. Porter names two different types of intertextuality which are iterability and presupposition. Iterability is mainly composed of traces of other texts that help the audience comprehend and understand in a sense to constitute its meaning. (Porter 89) Presupposition refers to assumptions in how the text makes about its readers and the contexts. (Porter89) The idea of having a unique voice is an illusion because intertextuality makes it difficult for a writer to be original. Porter believes that instead of writers creating new concepts, the writer should instead change the way the discourse community thinks. A discourse community is a group of individuals bound by a common interest, who communicate through approved channels and whose discourse is

regulated.
I do believe that instead of trying to be original we should instead learn how to write for a specific audience or in this case a discourse community. At this point trying to be original might be difficult because you have to think of ideas nobody has ever written about. Writers get ideas from other texts because they want the readers to believe what they are saying is credible. So writers will combine different ideas that were established by other people so that it can be accepted by its discourse community. Porter presents an example that supports his view on intertextuality. He mentions how Thomas Jefferson gets that most credit for writing the Declaration of Independence. What porter claims is that Thomas Jefferson has combined other text. The work of a number of historians and composition researchers, suggest that Jefferson wasn’t the creative writer or the original framer.(Porter 89) They mention Jefferson’s original draft seem to have borrowed traces. Jefferson’s most memorable phrase “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” had appeared in numerous political documents before. Just how Jefferson borrowed traces for the declaration of Independence and presented them to the right community, Porter recommends that we should do the same. Porter suggests that writers shouldn’t look for those original ideas, but to write or borrow traces efficiently and effectively to find an appropriate discourse community where it can be accepted.
In my case writing criminal justice topics do influence my ability to communicate ideas and create meaning. To write about a topic and be accepted one has to have researched other criminal cases and borrow traces from people who have been in the field for some time and make conclusions or include concepts derived from what they have said. If the writer just starts talking about any topic in the criminal justice community without any sort of traces whatever the writer is saying is not going to have any value. Instead if you borrow ideas from judges, attorneys, police officers or any other type of law enforcement officials your view of the topic will be credible. In these discourse communities the writer must be qualified to talk.
In these two articles together, I understand how in my writing, I always write autobiographically. How I can’t keep myself out of my writings because we write in the language in which we express ourselves and have been chosen or shaped by the experiences we have lived. I also comprehend that we should not worry so much where our ideas are coming from but instead in which direction they are headed. Write for an audience that’s going to accept and understand your point of view. The two authors of the articles have contradicting ideas. Murray concludes that when we write we don’t write objectively and that we bring ourselves into or writing. Porter argues that when you input your ideas and experiences to your writing, it’s not your writing and that you are using intertextuality. So if we combine them, these authors tell us that we always bring ourselves into our borrowed writings because we are taking someone else’s ideas and are being woven together with our personal experiences.