A tale of an editor

Sometimes, the best way to write is neither with prosaic structure nor with the free-flowing lucidity of poetry but in a way as to conspicuously avoid either of them.

Either form has its demands; prose famously requires the content to be specific, or it doesn't read well, whereas poetry that is long sentences broken down with periods reads like it has been forced. Apparently, volition matters.

If I were to grade the degree to which ideas have been presented cogently in either format, prose would score a 10 and poetry would score a 1. You get the picture.

However, the issue arises when the writer notices that either form of scripture (non-theologically speaking) requires the cogency-grades to be uniform within the piece. When a piece of poetry becomes suddenly specific or when a piece of prose becomes suddenly abstract, and then gives way to a change of ideological concentration, it feels as if the writer him/herself does not have a clear picture of the message being conveyed.

It's only a surprise that so many writers have not embraced the free-flowing style of writing that does not make any such demands as cogency and "the big picture", among other things, because then it means that they know what they're writing about.

However, when writing as if playing a text-based RPG, writing in my opinion transcends the form of being a tool of conveyance to being a lens through which the reader is able to view the writer's thought process. That way, the dialogue is more personal and concentric.

Most of the time, I don't know what am writing. I put pen-to-paper - or the more likely fingers-to-keyboard - and keep writing until I think I might be saying something. When I think I've put down the decisive punch-line, I scroll back to the beginning of the piece and begin editing.

Essentially, it is a detestation of editing. Editing is the formalized sleeve of commercialism that cloaks literary expression. With editing, periods, commas and, regrettably, apostrophes become really important quickly (there's the regret because of the Marxism question). I think they're really rather necessary, like in this piece.

Even so, I'm using it because I know the role they play in the expressionist form of things: I use them because I know what really the apostrophe does, what really the comma can do, and what the period never did. Such an understanding of things, I think, must be internalized at fundamental and essentially pedagogic levels.

When a piece is edited and then published - in a newspaper or in a blog - it reads as if the interaction is being actively limited to the content matter. However, I like it all delimited. Like in this piece.

Like in this piece, indeed.

*

Looks I've delivered the decisive punch-line. Now to get down to some editing.

*

Sometimes, the best way to write is neither with prosaic structure nor the free-flowing lucidity of poetry but in a way as to conspicuously avoid either of them. Either form has its demands; prose famously requires the content to be specific, or it doesn't read well, whereas poetry that is long sentences broken down with periods reads like it has been forced. Apparently, volition matters. If I were to grade the degree to which ideas have been presently cogently in either format, prose would score a 10 and poetry would score a 1. You get the picture.

However, the issue arises when the writer notices that either form of scripture (non-theologically speaking) requires the cogency-grades to be uniform within the piece. When a piece of poetry becomes suddenly specific or when a piece of prose becomes suddenly abstract, and then gives way to a change of ideological concentration, it feels as if the writer him/herself does not have a clear picture of the message being conveyed.

It's only a surprise that so many writers have not embraced the free-flowing style of writing that does not make any such demands as cogency and "the big picture", among other things, because then it means that they know what they're writing about. However, when writing as if playing a text-based RPG, writing in my opinion transcends the form of being a tool of conveyance to being a lens through which the reader is able to view the writer's thought process. That way, the dialogue is more personal and concentric.

Most of the time, I don't know what am writing. I put pen-to-paper – or the more likely fingers-to-keyboard – and keep writing until I think I might be saying something. When I think I've put down the decisive punch-line, I scroll back to the beginning of the piece and begin editing. Essentially, it is a detestation of editing. Editing is the formalized sleeve of commercialism that cloaks literary expression. With editing, periods, commas and, regrettably, apostrophes become really important quickly (there's the regret because of the Marxism question). I think they're really rather necessary. Even so, I'm using it because I know the role they play in the expressionist form of things: I use them because I know what really the apostrophe does, what really the comma can do, and what the period never did. Such an understanding of things, I think, must be internalized at fundamental and essentially pedagogic levels. When a piece is edited and then published - in a newspaper or in a blog - it reads as if the interaction is being actively limited to the content matter. However, I like it all delimited.

Apparently, volition not only matters but also shows.

*

That was simple. Only had to remove the "Like in this piece" bits and group the sentences.

*

What, haven't you met a hypocrite before?

A tale of an editor

Sometimes, the best way to write is neither with prosaic structure nor with the free-flowing lucidity of poetry but in a way as to conspicuously avoid either of them.

Either form has its demands; prose famously requires the content to be specific, or it doesn't read well, whereas poetry that is long sentences broken down with periods reads like it has been forced. Apparently, volition matters.

If I were to grade the degree to which ideas have been presented cogently in either format, prose would score a 10 and poetry would score a 1. You get the picture.

However, the issue arises when the writer notices that either form of scripture (non-theologically speaking) requires the cogency-grades to be uniform within the piece. When a piece of poetry becomes suddenly specific or when a piece of prose becomes suddenly abstract, and then gives way to a change of ideological concentration, it feels as if the writer him/herself does not have a clear picture of the message being conveyed.

It's only a surprise that so many writers have not embraced the free-flowing style of writing that does not make any such demands as cogency and "the big picture", among other things, because then it means that they know what they're writing about.

However, when writing as if playing a text-based RPG, writing in my opinion transcends the form of being a tool of conveyance to being a lens through which the reader is able to view the writer's thought process. That way, the dialogue is more personal and concentric.

Most of the time, I don't know what am writing. I put pen-to-paper - or the more likely fingers-to-keyboard - and keep writing until I think I might be saying something. When I think I've put down the decisive punch-line, I scroll back to the beginning of the piece and begin editing.

Essentially, it is a detestation of editing. Editing is the formalized sleeve of commercialism that cloaks literary expression. With editing, periods, commas and, regrettably, apostrophes become really important quickly (there's the regret because of the Marxism question). I think they're really rather necessary, like in this piece.

Even so, I'm using it because I know the role they play in the expressionist form of things: I use them because I know what really the apostrophe does, what really the comma can do, and what the period never did. Such an understanding of things, I think, must be internalized at fundamental and essentially pedagogic levels.

When a piece is edited and then published - in a newspaper or in a blog - it reads as if the interaction is being actively limited to the content matter. However, I like it all delimited. Like in this piece.

Like in this piece, indeed.

*

Looks I've delivered the decisive punch-line. Now to get down to some editing.

*

Sometimes, the best way to write is neither with prosaic structure nor the free-flowing lucidity of poetry but in a way as to conspicuously avoid either of them. Either form has its demands; prose famously requires the content to be specific, or it doesn't read well, whereas poetry that is long sentences broken down with periods reads like it has been forced. Apparently, volition matters. If I were to grade the degree to which ideas have been presently cogently in either format, prose would score a 10 and poetry would score a 1. You get the picture.

However, the issue arises when the writer notices that either form of scripture (non-theologically speaking) requires the cogency-grades to be uniform within the piece. When a piece of poetry becomes suddenly specific or when a piece of prose becomes suddenly abstract, and then gives way to a change of ideological concentration, it feels as if the writer him/herself does not have a clear picture of the message being conveyed.

It's only a surprise that so many writers have not embraced the free-flowing style of writing that does not make any such demands as cogency and "the big picture", among other things, because then it means that they know what they're writing about. However, when writing as if playing a text-based RPG, writing in my opinion transcends the form of being a tool of conveyance to being a lens through which the reader is able to view the writer's thought process. That way, the dialogue is more personal and concentric.

Most of the time, I don't know what am writing. I put pen-to-paper – or the more likely fingers-to-keyboard – and keep writing until I think I might be saying something. When I think I've put down the decisive punch-line, I scroll back to the beginning of the piece and begin editing. Essentially, it is a detestation of editing. Editing is the formalized sleeve of commercialism that cloaks literary expression. With editing, periods, commas and, regrettably, apostrophes become really important quickly (there's the regret because of the Marxism question). I think they're really rather necessary. Even so, I'm using it because I know the role they play in the expressionist form of things: I use them because I know what really the apostrophe does, what really the comma can do, and what the period never did. Such an understanding of things, I think, must be internalized at fundamental and essentially pedagogic levels. When a piece is edited and then published - in a newspaper or in a blog - it reads as if the interaction is being actively limited to the content matter. However, I like it all delimited.

Apparently, volition not only matters but also shows.

*

That was simple. Only had to remove the "Like in this piece" bits and group the sentences.

*

What, haven't you met a hypocrite before?

Water, Sacrosanct

Deep down in the understanding
of the instance of resistance
there is a sleeping fire not waiting
to be awakened but eager to consume
in the process marking a fine line
between the wise and the knowing

Cautious would be those waiting
to throw a stick into it
to empty an ampoule of ghee into it
for its tongues of heat are infinite and eternal
never having once known the fatigue of toil
or distance, and in that truth, it became a power

Of the labouring masses because of its strangeness

Between each of the self-indulgent embers
and the next is an acute space of demand
and vice that act together like willing prostitutes
but never compliant to achieve a common goal
individually, and through pores that open and close here
is an osmotic pump that mobilizes the arrogance

Of those doused in blood into a different hell
that is only silenced by humiliation
Their every breath rises and falls with some terrible purpose
that they blanket themselves with in order
to seek comfort because freedom is a strange thing to them
In fact, it is the eyelessness of their masters

It is the very thing they have chosen to destroy

For the sake of their children not because
it causes physical harm – even though it does
for in knowing that blood is thicker than water
they know what causes pride and what kills it
dissolves it into an ocean of wisdom that is never
never permitted to come together in a war for food

If time healed all, then revolutions would become moot
and the Fire could be ignored till the day it went out
with an ostentatious “pop” only to remind its wardens of
the opalescence clouding their judgment, only to remind
its keepers that the time has also come for the shells to crumble to dust
money cannot ever buy happiness nor can be it traded

For another life, but in the absence of marked and ratified paper

What buys bread and what buries the dead
what is the memory of effort and what was left unsaid
It's important to feel the pain brought on
by one’s wounds not because it's a mistake to learn from
but because it's a reminder of the lessons still remaining
to be taught only because there are mouths still waiting to be fed

Desires must be procured, wants must be attained
but the needs must always be earned, and that's where
we all begin before an inner corruption seeps through
the oil that feeds the Fire only to leave us lashing out
against the Universe of humanity that's agreed to be our refuge

History's taught us less than what it could've by not teaching us anything at all