Writing: the Subjects
A lot can be read about what it takes, means, requires, or qualifies a person as a writer.
From “someone who inscribes a text,” (akin to walking or speaking), to publication and critical acclaim (akin to fame and riches).
As I see it
Uttering tends to search a subject, (what words are “about” is as various as the universe) and a style or voice (how it will inscribe).
From there it’s simply performance: arranging or placing the selected words in a medium with a measure of physicality, sense-ability, somewhere capable of being perceived.
As far as I can think it, when these few elements are satisfied what we are engaging is “writing” as a product of “writer.”
He chooses a form of English he has acquired through hunting and gathering, a language institutionalized and socially invested in him with measures both beyond and within his control.
He searches a subject to say. Already subjective (as he is the one searching with what language he has or is able to acquire or create) his utterance will always contain an “I” – both shaped and formed by his responses and politically constructed by his social milieu. In other words, there are always more than one “subject” in every utterance. At base, at least three: the language, the user, the construction and arrangement.
He’s already overwhelmed with the largeness of the simple subjects inescapable to human languaging, and he’d thought to write about rocks (geology) or time (epistemology); romance (psychology) or events (history; ontology).
Subject-fields are vast, you understand.
Having sought to describe an object (desk or stone) in space (again scientific theories / epistemology) each signal latent in language subjectivized: using language creates subjects, no objects remain but are subjectively engaged. Language is an invisible bridging, a liminal skin, connective absorbent tissue, subjectively creating subjects-in-relation.
This, apparently, its object.
Thus uttered…a story.
N Filbert 2012