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?
