So this is my first attempt at free writing with my new and improved setup for doing so. I really, truly do want to start writing more and to become a better writer by doing so, yet even with this personal incentive I find that writing lacks the concrete reward which my generation requires in order to actually attempt any task. Nevertheless I suppose that by writing this, here, right now, I am breaking the binds and forcing what I just wrote to be a lie, at least the part relating to me.
I find that the longer I am in Italy the more I crave American identity, or at least those things which I associate with America. I really want an oh-so-typically New England, Dunkin Donuts, coffee these days. When the weather is exceptionally scalding I will neglect the hot coffee, a coffee I enjoy the burn of, for those of the Seattle banding: Starbucks. A nice blended espresso beverage with more calories than any would suspect and less actual coffee than most would hope, a Starbuck’s blended beverage is a fine way to battle, or at least console yourself, against the summer’s worst. Moving away from cafe land, I find I also miss the possibility for movement. Sure I am almost as ‘free’ here as I am in America. I have a bike and almost the entirety of Parma sits within the radial ring of my bike, yet this is not the problem, the hindrance to my freedom to which I refer. Instead I am constrained by my ineptitude, my very foreignness to this region. Sure I am free to go bike somewhere new, but I do not really want to go somewhere new. People don’t really want to go somewhere new, instead everyone wants to go to the familiar, the safe, and almost always to the usual. Perhaps this insight into Americans, and as conjecture I claim insight into everyone, is striking or profound. Perhaps it is not. Regardless I still miss home.
As I have been writing the above, I have been considering an idea wherein I create a new blog. In this blog I would publish random writings of mine, much like this one, as a kind of platform for future development. Unlike my ‘actual’ blog, something I am concurrently working on, I would post on this ‘rough’ blog works that are largely unedited and in need of structure, revision, and perhaps even deletion. It would be naive to not suspect me of egotistical pleasure from this adventure, but the truth still remains. That is the fact that I can only receive pleasure from positive reinforcement; and although I do admire my own work to an unhealthy degree, it would still require the faintest amounts of actual worth for anyone to give a thumbs up. Therefore it is only in my romanticism where this here plan can pass for a narcissistic past-time. Instead I fear only insult shall come from this venture. I suppose that after giving an idea of what this so called ‘new’ or ‘rough’ blog would be about, that it is only fair to mention briefly what my ‘actual’ blog is all about. While admittedly still in only the most primitive stages, my actual blog should only have well edited and well structured posts. My goal in writing and then painstakingly revising each post is to simply learn the art of revision and editing. This very paragraph and post in general serve as evidence to my typical and quite unstructured* writing style. This lack of writing skill has always plagued my essays and formal works. And as, I believe, everyone with ambition attempts to improve their weaknesses and build on their skills, I am trying to do the same. If I can marginally improve my revision technique and can apply what I learn to future writings, then my entire blog would be worth it. For the sake of honesty, I for one am hoping for more than marginal improvement. And that is what my other blog is all about.
Is not my writing style quite, for lack of a real word, flowy? Ironically enough the criticism frequently given to me says something to the effect that my writing lacks flow and structure. At first I will confess, albeit sorely, that my writing does lack a firm structure, but never once do I consider my better^ writing as lacking flow. Well it comes that after further reflection that my shorter writing assignments may lack ‘flow’ when considered from a exterior, fresh perspective. The difference between an authorial perspective and the reader’s perspective comes from the manner in which each group reads the subtext, the little bits of nuanced information either explicitly stated or otherwise available to the author’s purview but not readily available to the reader’s. I would demonstrate an example of this type of translational loss, since written text can be considered a translation of ideas, no?, but I feel that such an example would be futile at best. Instead I must believe that every person who has written an essay or a nonfiction (or fiction, it doesn’t real matter) can relate to the frustration felt when ideas are not perceived in the same fashion as they are intended. It has always been this simple issue of intended verses actual perception which has caused my issues with flow. To this day I still largely, and perhaps wrongfully, write off this criticism to the brevity of the written work. I say to myself that if the paper had been a little bit longer, if I had given myself more words to flesh out my argument, well then the ‘flow’ would have been there. I feel as though this too is a symptom of the same laziness which has kept me from writing for many years.
*I wish I had a better, different word to place here.
^By ‘better’ I am talking about the works which I finish up and feel good about the quality and content. As a general rule these works generally are not well proofread let alone revised. This, again, shows some of my weak points as a writer.
- I do not read books, and therefore, I have nothing to write about. (outofmymind33.wordpress.com)
- Writing Advice From An Elementary School Cafeteria (journalistics.com)
- To Write (powersoccerextra.wordpress.com)