Analysis Of Mary Pipher's Writing To Change The World

Mary Pipher claims that “all writing is designed to change the world” in her book Writing to Change the World (2006), and supports this claim with many examples of poems, songs, and novels that have impacted the world in significant ways. This claim, taken out of context, can seem overly bold, but Pipher considers even the smallest changes to a reader’s mood to be a change for the world. This simplification makes it easier to apply her claim universally, but it still suffers in credibility when the word “designed” is inspected closer. Take, for example, Bob Dylan’s “Blowin’ in the Wind,” a song that was not constructed with a specific intent, but still rose to fame as a protest anthem. Was this song designed to provoke change, or did it just

Citing musical artists such as “Tori Amos, the Indigo Girls, and the band Ozomatli” as clear-cut evidence that their writing was designed to change the world, and even if these artists do not influence change the fact remains that their music was designed for it. Then there are those who both design their work for change, and succeed in making that change, such as Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring leading to the ban of DDT. These writings have clear messages and intents that can be judged effective or ineffective after their exposure to the world. This claim of Pipher’s may easily apply to works like these, but it does not take into account writings that are not constructed (or designed) to serve a specific purpose. This is, of course, unless Pipher’s claim is so vague that it proposes the entire language of writing is inherently change-provoking in one form or another, so that no matter what is written or who has written what, there will always be at least some small change that comes from writing. If this is the case, and Pipher is truly just capitalizing on the “butterfly effect” in writing, then why was this claim even bothered to be

Pipher posits that change writing serves as an invitation for debate, while propaganda serves as a forceful carpet-bomb of answers. This is something I can entirely agree with. Change writing can be the source of critical thought, while propaganda is the blatant hammering of viewpoints into those with their intellectual guard down. Writing that provokes change (change writing) will contain the presentation of a subject and many of its facets, pros, and cons. Writing that propagates change (propaganda) will contain a one-sided presentation of a usually-offensive subject, and it is designed with a specific and unethical persuasion in