Tuesday, April 1st, 2025. Last night I couldn’t sleep, so for some time I stared at the blank ceiling, blank only because I know it is blank, as it was the middle of the night, a moonless night, with no other light filtering in from the shutters, and it was pitch black, and while staring at the blank ceiling, I fantasized about a couple entertaining an epistolary relationship, except instead of doing it over text or email or physical paper letters, they use medieval means of communication, like messengers riding horses for hundreds of miles to deliver a parchment to a recipient living in another country, or duchy, or kingdom, or whatever, or maybe riding horses for hundreds of miles to get to a port and hand the parchment to someone on a ship bound to cross the ocean to its destination, where they hand it to another messenger who rides his horse for hundreds more miles to finally deliver it to a recipient living on a different continent, and so I fantasized about a woman living in Cornwall, England, a beautiful woman with limpid green eyes, well-groomed, elegant, slender hands, and hair gathered in a braid, writing her thoughts with a quill on a piece of parchment, and together with her thoughts she writes about herself, about what she did that day or week, about what she plans to do the next few days, it’s raining here, she writes, and that’s a blessing for the countryside, but it’s been raining for the last three weeks and I feel so sad, she continues, the only thing that gives me relief is reading, and of course writing, and so I sit, from the wee hours of the morning, near the window with my book, and the noise of raindrops on the glass makes me feel secure that I can face my thoughts without fear, or interference, but what is fear, after all, if not a kind of interference?, she remarks, not only the noise, but also the sight of the streaks of water running down the glass, like thoughts that won’t stay, cannot stay, each one making space for the other behind it as if in a chain or a parade in constant motion, and they’re hard to catch, let alone turn into words, as essential as this process is, turning thoughts into words, making them still, and immortal, but I’ve been tormented by a recurring thought lately, she continues, one that doesn’t seem to pass and give room to the one behind it, one that’s stuck there and won’t go away, like a stain on that glass window, which is the thought of us and where our relationship is going and whether it wouldn’t be both wise and mutually beneficial for us to end it here, but as sad and painful as this decision is to me, and certainly to you too, I would love to read your words on it, my dearest, and she seals the parchment with some bright red wax and hands it to a messenger who happens to ride by, even under the pouring rain, because messengers never stop, they never rest, unless their horses get injured, which rarely happens, and the messenger rides his horse the couple of hundred miles to get to Plymouth, most likely, where he hands the parchment to a fellow on a ship that is about to set sail for Buenos Aires, Argentina, a destination that will be reached after about two months of navigation, if all goes according to plan and the weather is clement, and sure enough, all does go according to plan and once at destination the fellow on the ship hands the parchment to another messenger who rides his horse for almost nine hundred miles across the mountains and the border to Santiago, Chile, where the recipient of the parchment resides, in a small villa facing the Pacific Ocean, and on a slow Sunday afternoon hears a knock on the door, asks who is it, and a voice from the other side responds a letter from England for you, sir, and he opens the door, gets handed the parchment, closes the door, unrolls the parchment, reads his lover’s missive, goes immediately to his study, sits at his desk, quickly writes a response on another piece of parchment, seals it with abundant red wax, and hands it to another messenger who happens to ride by, because messengers never stop, not even on Sundays, not even on Sundays in Chile, and he rides his horse the almost nine hundred miles back to the port of Buenos Aires, where he hands the parchment to a fellow on a ship that is about to set sail for England, but this time the weather isn’t clement and it takes three months, not two, for the ship to reach its destination, and once there the fellow who took consignment of the parchment hands it to a messenger who rides his horse the two hundred miles to reach the farthest extremity of Cornwall, where the rain has finally stopped, and the green-eyed woman hears the knock on the door she’s been expecting for over six months, and she opens without asking who it is, certain as she is that a missive from her lover has arrived, literally snatches the parchment from the messenger's hands, shuts the door without even thanking him, hurriedly goes to her armchair by the window, sits, unrolls the parchment, and reads: OK.
This was great but the 4/2 entry could use a bit of editing. Kidding. Love this, and also, as you would expect, I disagree. I hope to respond to this sooner or later in detail (and it might even be fun to do some public letters back and forth).
This reminds me of Kerouac’s story; he was disgusted by the idea of editing, and remained unknown for years. On the Road was illegible, until Malcolm Crowley edited it 5 years later. By making it legible, he achieved international fame, and it ended up destroying him. There is a cost and risk of legibility, but that’s a different story I think.
“Editing is violence” is a powerful phrase, and speaks to the strength/disorientation of having your ideas/mind/self rewired. It’s something like an ego death. I personally think it’s valuable which is why I invite people to be as violent as they want with feedback (meaning, Im willing to start again from scratch if you can convince me, but I won’t just agree with anything you say so you’ll like it — I think there’s a stance to be open but extremely skeptical with all external feedback).
I think there a near-spiritual meta-ability in the learning how to detach from mental forms and be open to experience something with truly fresh eyes. Sometime this comes from within, but often it comes from time, weed, or, an editor.
I do agree with you that there’s a petty type of editing where you’re trying to appease a narrow/fleeting market need, but ultimately I think it’s up to the writer to hold their own internal vision for an idea when it makes exposure to a crowd. Maybe it’s not about total isolation/artistry and not about total market conformity/desperation, but as Emerson says, the sweetness of solitude among the madness of crowd.
I just wonder if it’s possible to honor both states: most expression deserves to be untouched, but some ideas are worth treating as a puzzle that you invite your friends to help you solve.
Hey Michael, good to see you here. I hope you're well. And thank you for this detailed comment, which I was kind of expecting, to be honest. As you might appreciate, this new series of mine is about unfiltered thoughts coming by randomly, and you can tell by the way they're written: all in one long phrase, mimicking the way one thinks -- and irritatingly so, at times (lol). Regarding editing, I obviously understand where you're coming from, and I've always thought you do a terrific job with your essay architecture (have to catch up on your work, though, as I've been super busy and largely absent here). I think one big distinction should be made between fiction and non-fiction, first and foremost. And my rant refers to fiction writing, essentially -- to that kind of writing where things should not be explained or coherent, or even come across as a whole that makes sense. In fact, this is the kind of fiction writing that I like the best: where things are said and not said, where there's much untold, and unfinished. This type of writing -- if it can be confined to a niche of its own at all -- to me, is impossible to edit. And my discomfort comes when someone does, solicited or unsolicited. Interesting what you say when citing Kerouac -- a distinction between something legible or illegible. I myself happen to believe that, in fiction (or a certain part of it), anything is legible, in a way. It's the decoding part that's the compelling one, to me. Much can be said, but I cannot really go on, as life duties call me. But, as you mentioned, it'd be nice to structure a back and forth in epistolary form -- a much speedier one than the medieval way narrated in my first entry, though. :)
I love the energy in Silvio's abandonment of concern for accepted forms, but also have great respect for the integrity of your study with regards to writing structure. I am personally far too lazy for the studious approach. But I hope the two of you duke it out here. That would be an enjoyable cage match.
LOL Rick! I won't be able to give you much satisfaction here. But I invite you to read my response to Michael, where I hope there will be a follow-up. :)
Nice comment Michael. I think there is an honouring of both that is possible, though I do strongly side with Silvio's thoughts here.
In my formal writing in academia, I edit and hack away at my student theses because it's an exercise in educating the students to write better in an academic style. They can learn some of that through reading articles/publications etc (I'm in the sciences), but I firmly believe a strong way of learning is through me hacking away with Track Changes in Word and them seeing what changes I've made and then applying such thinking to the rest of their chapters etc. And then we repeat that cycle over and over again, like a baking kneading dough, or some other such terrible simile.
But in fiction, as a writer trying to discover myself, I don't think I could learn if someone was doing my edits or suggested edits for me. This has to happen organically through my own process. That's how I feel, anyway. Plus, I love hearing of "successful" authors who write with almost no editing even of their own!
Love this metaphor - not just these words but starting with the crying (in Cornwall, no less!!):
“but also the sight of the streaks of water running down the glass, like thoughts that won’t stay, cannot stay, each one making space for the other behind it as if in a chain or a parade in constant motion”
Thank you so much, Kate! So glad you like that passage; I spent a little longer than usual on it, but then I had to go with whatever I had as time was kind of running out. Still a little swamped here, but I’ll be back soon reading your stuff. :)
Magical piece, Silvio. And much like with the previous post of yours that I read this morning, this has also been a balm I needed in my life. To blaze through and engulf your single sentences in one deep inhalation is exhilarating. The first part here is so great, with the notion of that epistolary exchange (as well as the "OK" ending!)... it feels romantic and beautiful.
I've just left my thoughts on editing in a reply to Michael Dean's comment. I'm with you, which I'm sure comes as zero surprise. ;) (Though for academic writing, some butchering of words for educational purposes is something I have found is often necessary for my students. 😆 But those are students who don't read and find wonder in literature, so ... sigh.)
I understand exactly what you mean when you differentiate academic from any other form of writing. So glad to see you in my camp! Although it's not really a competition here; it's just stating one's ideas. Thank you so much, my friend. I'm still underwater, but I'll be back properly soon (need to catch up with your stuff -- I'm so behind).
I whole-heartedly agree Sylvio. The editing rules of tomorrow will shape themselves around the established protocols that are challenged by the authors today who respond with integrity to the pulse of creative energy before the cattle chute of strategic expression.
I happened to be listening to Raphael Novarina's Minimal Piano (1 and 2) while reading the Tuesday April 1 diary, and to me, it was the perfect compliment to the mood. Really enjoyed this, as I'm enjoying the discourse it prompted in the comments!
"I fantasized about a couple entertaining an epistolary relationship, except instead of doing it over text or email or physical paper letters, they use medieval means of communication, like messengers riding horses for hundreds of miles to deliver a parchment to a recipient living in another country, or duchy, or kingdom, or whatever, or maybe riding horses for hundreds of miles to get to a port and hand the parchment to someone on a ship bound to cross the ocean to its destination"
Man, I love this Silvio. I wish you could see my grinning through this entire sentence! (And I've yet to read the rest. I had to stop to make this comment.)
You know, I always have a lot of doubts when writing these stream of consciousness rants, but then, in the end, I just go with the flow and I'm ok with it. So it's just so good to see that you liked this. Coming from someone whose writing I love and respect so much, it gives a nice boost to my writing self-confidence!
That “OK” at the end hit like a hammer wrapped in silk. Silvio, this whole piece is a masterclass in tone—lush, cinematic, full of melancholic momentum, and then that single-syllable detonation at the end. Brilliant.
As for your April 2 entry… whew. There’s a wild honesty in calling editing “violence”—and even if I don’t agree entirely, I respect the conviction behind every line. It’s like you’re wrestling not just with the industry, but with the soul of what writing is—expression vs. product, pulse vs. polish.
You raise a real tension. The best editors are like good midwives: they don’t try to change the baby, just help it be born with as little trauma as possible. But yeah, too often editing becomes cosmetic surgery, all for market aesthetics.
Haha, you've scratched an itch I've had about the How-To industry. I'm sure that people will even buy "How-to-die" instructions, if there were any. It's a world of producing problems and pitching solutions, which must be delivered in no more than 20 Doordash minutes.
I've come to the conclusion that it's because we (people in general) lack imagination, no longer know how to imagine, or don't want to put in the effort to imagine. Which also explains those who write what the readers want to read. We are plugged into our devices all day long. And we live either under the illusion that those how-to instructions will indeed make us better writers, or on autopilot to eat all the dopamine candies that are presented to us. I believe that we are machine-thinking. It takes genuine effort to resist becoming a machine now.
That being said, I'm all for editing because I want to become a better writer. Just have to find the non-narcissistic editors. There are rules to follow in writing, like grammar, syntax, punctuation (dare I say it?) to fulfill the function of writing - to communicate something. I don't think I'm doing that well in my drafts, and I need the eyes of someone who doesn't live inside my head before I publish anything, really.
As a side note, why are you against Elon Musk? Bring the spring cleaning to Korea PLEASE!!! Most problems in society are produced by the government. All sorts of stories, coverups, irrelevant data are used to make it seem like they are the solution, not the problem, but as the great Thomas Sowell said, “no one will understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.” The government is too big and has too much control over people. And it's definitely not someone already working in politics or in the government, or someone who needs money, who's going to do that job. They have too much vested interest. Cleaning up first, then adding the necessary (if there are any) is not a bad idea IMO :)
Jisoo! I know much of what I rant about resonates with you, dear. You say it better than anyone else sometimes: "It takes genuine effort to resist becoming a machine now." -- precisely! And I know you're all for editing. However, "because I want to become a better writer" -- I don't know what this means. I'm not referring to the way you wrote it, it's very clear. I'm referring to the general idea of "a better writer" (I even wrote a mini-series on it), which I believe doesn't really make sense. Yes, there are rules to follow in writing, but the discussion here floats on a higher level, if I may. Those rules you hint at are a given, and whoever wants to seriously write needs to know them. But, as Miles Davis famously said, only learning all the theory gives you the liberty to forget it, and do as you please. And I believe this is ultimately what makes some pieces of writing interesting: the fact that they don’t follow the rules. Anyway, this is kind of a long story, and we can discuss it more freely on our next Zoom call. :) Regarding Musk, I'm not against him. What made you think so? I just took him as an example to get that idea across -- the one about success and credibility being exclusively a function of money made.
Thanks for taking the time to comment so extensively!
But at the same time, regarding the legibility part and coding, it would also be ironic if humans ended up inventing a new, secret, coded language, learned only through paper documents passed via horses and birds as a way of resisting the machines from learning any further. 😂😂
Your writing very often strikes a chord with me and makes me think more about the topics you touch on. So besides it being very enjoyable to read, it also helps me to organize my own thoughts. I did read your pieces on better writer, and I’ve had this thought in the back of my head like, “but Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy are objectively and definitely much better writers than I…” But I now see what you mean. You regard writing as a form of art, and whoever brings their own art to impose on someone else’s art is an asshole. Especially if the person only knows how to paint-by-number. A criminal case, I agree. The road to becoming a great artist is a solitary path.
I just never thought of writing as art. I always thought of it as a form of communication and that writers were mediators and teachers. Even the novelists. I don’t know why, maybe because words have inherent meanings in them unlike paint and musical notes. And in schools, we are taught more about the rules of writing, like grammar and syntax, and writing as a means to convey our thoughts. Books are also primarily used for teaching and learning… So reading for me was always about what I get out of it. So I always thought of writers as thinkers, not artists. But there is indeed artistry involved in writing, in the fact that the author is creating a story or scene in their minds and portraying it with words. And also when the reader is reconstructing the words into images when they read. And to think of writing as an art form does allow for more freedom than when thinking about it as a lesson. But for me, the difference of nature between writing and other art forms, which is that language has a meaning built into it, makes me feel like I cannot do away with the obligation to make legibility a basic requirement for the act of writing to become writing (this is taking into account a previous remark about Kerouac). Conceptual art and writing seem different to me. There is of course, no right answer to this, but I wanted to share this thought - as you can see, you do sprout a lot of thinking :)
About Musk, I don’t think so highly of EVs (any of them), so it was a surprise to find out that he was regarded as an oracle and the sole holder of truth. Being referred to as such, I figured that it had to do something with his political involvement. He is certainly a savvy marketer and businessman, but beyond that, it was also really cool to see his rocket docking, so I personally don’t think that he’s only spitting out bullshit. Because I had these contradictory thoughts I was just curious.
Hey Jisoo, sorry I’m only now catching up with comments. Thank you for this thoughtful reply. You say my writing makes you think -- well, I could say the same about your comments. Writing, to me, is 100% a form of art; I’ve never had any doubt about it. And art is a form of communication -- I’d say the quintessential form of communication -- one that incorporates emotions like no other. We grow up in a society that holds a certain bias toward writing: we’re taught that “book” unequivocally means book, that the subject comes before the verb, and so on. All useful, no question. But we’re rarely taught that written words can stir emotions and responses based on hundreds of different factors -- just like a brushstroke in a painting can summon a million different feelings. Maybe the closest art form to writing is composing and playing music. We’re taught the rules, but then those rules are often forgotten to make room for what our emotional scaffolding dictates. Now, when writing is simply a means of conveying information, clarity is of course key. But beyond that, only the author truly knows what they’re communicating, and how. Of course, if you send me something you’ve written and ask what I think, I’ll gladly tell you what it did to me. But I’d be reluctant to say how you should have written it to appeal to the widest audience. I hope this all makes sense, and I’m really looking forward to our next Zoom call (which we need to schedule soon, by the way!).
April 1: Women are from Venus; men are from Mars! Whew, that was a lot of trouble for a 2-letter reply!!
April 2: I see what you’re getting at (oh so subtly) about editing, and I agree mostly; it should be done with a very very light hand, and be limited mostly to correcting typos! (And check with the writer - maybe the ‘typo’ was intentional!)
This was great but the 4/2 entry could use a bit of editing. Kidding. Love this, and also, as you would expect, I disagree. I hope to respond to this sooner or later in detail (and it might even be fun to do some public letters back and forth).
This reminds me of Kerouac’s story; he was disgusted by the idea of editing, and remained unknown for years. On the Road was illegible, until Malcolm Crowley edited it 5 years later. By making it legible, he achieved international fame, and it ended up destroying him. There is a cost and risk of legibility, but that’s a different story I think.
“Editing is violence” is a powerful phrase, and speaks to the strength/disorientation of having your ideas/mind/self rewired. It’s something like an ego death. I personally think it’s valuable which is why I invite people to be as violent as they want with feedback (meaning, Im willing to start again from scratch if you can convince me, but I won’t just agree with anything you say so you’ll like it — I think there’s a stance to be open but extremely skeptical with all external feedback).
I think there a near-spiritual meta-ability in the learning how to detach from mental forms and be open to experience something with truly fresh eyes. Sometime this comes from within, but often it comes from time, weed, or, an editor.
I do agree with you that there’s a petty type of editing where you’re trying to appease a narrow/fleeting market need, but ultimately I think it’s up to the writer to hold their own internal vision for an idea when it makes exposure to a crowd. Maybe it’s not about total isolation/artistry and not about total market conformity/desperation, but as Emerson says, the sweetness of solitude among the madness of crowd.
I just wonder if it’s possible to honor both states: most expression deserves to be untouched, but some ideas are worth treating as a puzzle that you invite your friends to help you solve.
Hey Michael, good to see you here. I hope you're well. And thank you for this detailed comment, which I was kind of expecting, to be honest. As you might appreciate, this new series of mine is about unfiltered thoughts coming by randomly, and you can tell by the way they're written: all in one long phrase, mimicking the way one thinks -- and irritatingly so, at times (lol). Regarding editing, I obviously understand where you're coming from, and I've always thought you do a terrific job with your essay architecture (have to catch up on your work, though, as I've been super busy and largely absent here). I think one big distinction should be made between fiction and non-fiction, first and foremost. And my rant refers to fiction writing, essentially -- to that kind of writing where things should not be explained or coherent, or even come across as a whole that makes sense. In fact, this is the kind of fiction writing that I like the best: where things are said and not said, where there's much untold, and unfinished. This type of writing -- if it can be confined to a niche of its own at all -- to me, is impossible to edit. And my discomfort comes when someone does, solicited or unsolicited. Interesting what you say when citing Kerouac -- a distinction between something legible or illegible. I myself happen to believe that, in fiction (or a certain part of it), anything is legible, in a way. It's the decoding part that's the compelling one, to me. Much can be said, but I cannot really go on, as life duties call me. But, as you mentioned, it'd be nice to structure a back and forth in epistolary form -- a much speedier one than the medieval way narrated in my first entry, though. :)
I love the energy in Silvio's abandonment of concern for accepted forms, but also have great respect for the integrity of your study with regards to writing structure. I am personally far too lazy for the studious approach. But I hope the two of you duke it out here. That would be an enjoyable cage match.
LOL Rick! I won't be able to give you much satisfaction here. But I invite you to read my response to Michael, where I hope there will be a follow-up. :)
Didn't know that about Kerouac. Wow.
Nice comment Michael. I think there is an honouring of both that is possible, though I do strongly side with Silvio's thoughts here.
In my formal writing in academia, I edit and hack away at my student theses because it's an exercise in educating the students to write better in an academic style. They can learn some of that through reading articles/publications etc (I'm in the sciences), but I firmly believe a strong way of learning is through me hacking away with Track Changes in Word and them seeing what changes I've made and then applying such thinking to the rest of their chapters etc. And then we repeat that cycle over and over again, like a baking kneading dough, or some other such terrible simile.
But in fiction, as a writer trying to discover myself, I don't think I could learn if someone was doing my edits or suggested edits for me. This has to happen organically through my own process. That's how I feel, anyway. Plus, I love hearing of "successful" authors who write with almost no editing even of their own!
Love this metaphor - not just these words but starting with the crying (in Cornwall, no less!!):
“but also the sight of the streaks of water running down the glass, like thoughts that won’t stay, cannot stay, each one making space for the other behind it as if in a chain or a parade in constant motion”
A delicious read, Silvio.
Thank you so much, Kate! So glad you like that passage; I spent a little longer than usual on it, but then I had to go with whatever I had as time was kind of running out. Still a little swamped here, but I’ll be back soon reading your stuff. :)
Magical piece, Silvio. And much like with the previous post of yours that I read this morning, this has also been a balm I needed in my life. To blaze through and engulf your single sentences in one deep inhalation is exhilarating. The first part here is so great, with the notion of that epistolary exchange (as well as the "OK" ending!)... it feels romantic and beautiful.
I've just left my thoughts on editing in a reply to Michael Dean's comment. I'm with you, which I'm sure comes as zero surprise. ;) (Though for academic writing, some butchering of words for educational purposes is something I have found is often necessary for my students. 😆 But those are students who don't read and find wonder in literature, so ... sigh.)
I understand exactly what you mean when you differentiate academic from any other form of writing. So glad to see you in my camp! Although it's not really a competition here; it's just stating one's ideas. Thank you so much, my friend. I'm still underwater, but I'll be back properly soon (need to catch up with your stuff -- I'm so behind).
Never any hurry, Silvio. If it helps, I'm utterly swamped too at the moment and struggling to stay afloat!
Trying to get some catching up done right now, in the silence of my 11pm here. :) Hope it gets easier soon for both of us, my friend.
I whole-heartedly agree Sylvio. The editing rules of tomorrow will shape themselves around the established protocols that are challenged by the authors today who respond with integrity to the pulse of creative energy before the cattle chute of strategic expression.
Thank you, Rick. It’s just my own view, I know many disagree. I respect them and I respect editing, but I’m simply part of the opposite camp. :)
I hope we'll see another article from you soon Silvio. I suppose you are busy or taking a break, but I'm looking forward to your return!
Thank you, Alastair. I was indeed taking a break, but I will be back publishing soon (hopefully).
I happened to be listening to Raphael Novarina's Minimal Piano (1 and 2) while reading the Tuesday April 1 diary, and to me, it was the perfect compliment to the mood. Really enjoyed this, as I'm enjoying the discourse it prompted in the comments!
Thank you so much, Stephanie! Now I have to check out Novarina's Minimal Piano. :)
"I fantasized about a couple entertaining an epistolary relationship, except instead of doing it over text or email or physical paper letters, they use medieval means of communication, like messengers riding horses for hundreds of miles to deliver a parchment to a recipient living in another country, or duchy, or kingdom, or whatever, or maybe riding horses for hundreds of miles to get to a port and hand the parchment to someone on a ship bound to cross the ocean to its destination"
Man, I love this Silvio. I wish you could see my grinning through this entire sentence! (And I've yet to read the rest. I had to stop to make this comment.)
You know, I always have a lot of doubts when writing these stream of consciousness rants, but then, in the end, I just go with the flow and I'm ok with it. So it's just so good to see that you liked this. Coming from someone whose writing I love and respect so much, it gives a nice boost to my writing self-confidence!
I think it's great you're experimenting with the full stream-of-consciousness writing like this! Have full confidence in the process. :)
That “OK” at the end hit like a hammer wrapped in silk. Silvio, this whole piece is a masterclass in tone—lush, cinematic, full of melancholic momentum, and then that single-syllable detonation at the end. Brilliant.
As for your April 2 entry… whew. There’s a wild honesty in calling editing “violence”—and even if I don’t agree entirely, I respect the conviction behind every line. It’s like you’re wrestling not just with the industry, but with the soul of what writing is—expression vs. product, pulse vs. polish.
You raise a real tension. The best editors are like good midwives: they don’t try to change the baby, just help it be born with as little trauma as possible. But yeah, too often editing becomes cosmetic surgery, all for market aesthetics.
Thank you so much, Anton, for sharing these thoughts. :)
Haha, you've scratched an itch I've had about the How-To industry. I'm sure that people will even buy "How-to-die" instructions, if there were any. It's a world of producing problems and pitching solutions, which must be delivered in no more than 20 Doordash minutes.
I've come to the conclusion that it's because we (people in general) lack imagination, no longer know how to imagine, or don't want to put in the effort to imagine. Which also explains those who write what the readers want to read. We are plugged into our devices all day long. And we live either under the illusion that those how-to instructions will indeed make us better writers, or on autopilot to eat all the dopamine candies that are presented to us. I believe that we are machine-thinking. It takes genuine effort to resist becoming a machine now.
That being said, I'm all for editing because I want to become a better writer. Just have to find the non-narcissistic editors. There are rules to follow in writing, like grammar, syntax, punctuation (dare I say it?) to fulfill the function of writing - to communicate something. I don't think I'm doing that well in my drafts, and I need the eyes of someone who doesn't live inside my head before I publish anything, really.
As a side note, why are you against Elon Musk? Bring the spring cleaning to Korea PLEASE!!! Most problems in society are produced by the government. All sorts of stories, coverups, irrelevant data are used to make it seem like they are the solution, not the problem, but as the great Thomas Sowell said, “no one will understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.” The government is too big and has too much control over people. And it's definitely not someone already working in politics or in the government, or someone who needs money, who's going to do that job. They have too much vested interest. Cleaning up first, then adding the necessary (if there are any) is not a bad idea IMO :)
Jisoo! I know much of what I rant about resonates with you, dear. You say it better than anyone else sometimes: "It takes genuine effort to resist becoming a machine now." -- precisely! And I know you're all for editing. However, "because I want to become a better writer" -- I don't know what this means. I'm not referring to the way you wrote it, it's very clear. I'm referring to the general idea of "a better writer" (I even wrote a mini-series on it), which I believe doesn't really make sense. Yes, there are rules to follow in writing, but the discussion here floats on a higher level, if I may. Those rules you hint at are a given, and whoever wants to seriously write needs to know them. But, as Miles Davis famously said, only learning all the theory gives you the liberty to forget it, and do as you please. And I believe this is ultimately what makes some pieces of writing interesting: the fact that they don’t follow the rules. Anyway, this is kind of a long story, and we can discuss it more freely on our next Zoom call. :) Regarding Musk, I'm not against him. What made you think so? I just took him as an example to get that idea across -- the one about success and credibility being exclusively a function of money made.
Thanks for taking the time to comment so extensively!
But at the same time, regarding the legibility part and coding, it would also be ironic if humans ended up inventing a new, secret, coded language, learned only through paper documents passed via horses and birds as a way of resisting the machines from learning any further. 😂😂
wouldn’t that be awesome? (lol)
Your writing very often strikes a chord with me and makes me think more about the topics you touch on. So besides it being very enjoyable to read, it also helps me to organize my own thoughts. I did read your pieces on better writer, and I’ve had this thought in the back of my head like, “but Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy are objectively and definitely much better writers than I…” But I now see what you mean. You regard writing as a form of art, and whoever brings their own art to impose on someone else’s art is an asshole. Especially if the person only knows how to paint-by-number. A criminal case, I agree. The road to becoming a great artist is a solitary path.
I just never thought of writing as art. I always thought of it as a form of communication and that writers were mediators and teachers. Even the novelists. I don’t know why, maybe because words have inherent meanings in them unlike paint and musical notes. And in schools, we are taught more about the rules of writing, like grammar and syntax, and writing as a means to convey our thoughts. Books are also primarily used for teaching and learning… So reading for me was always about what I get out of it. So I always thought of writers as thinkers, not artists. But there is indeed artistry involved in writing, in the fact that the author is creating a story or scene in their minds and portraying it with words. And also when the reader is reconstructing the words into images when they read. And to think of writing as an art form does allow for more freedom than when thinking about it as a lesson. But for me, the difference of nature between writing and other art forms, which is that language has a meaning built into it, makes me feel like I cannot do away with the obligation to make legibility a basic requirement for the act of writing to become writing (this is taking into account a previous remark about Kerouac). Conceptual art and writing seem different to me. There is of course, no right answer to this, but I wanted to share this thought - as you can see, you do sprout a lot of thinking :)
About Musk, I don’t think so highly of EVs (any of them), so it was a surprise to find out that he was regarded as an oracle and the sole holder of truth. Being referred to as such, I figured that it had to do something with his political involvement. He is certainly a savvy marketer and businessman, but beyond that, it was also really cool to see his rocket docking, so I personally don’t think that he’s only spitting out bullshit. Because I had these contradictory thoughts I was just curious.
Look forward to catching up on zoom soon :)
Hey Jisoo, sorry I’m only now catching up with comments. Thank you for this thoughtful reply. You say my writing makes you think -- well, I could say the same about your comments. Writing, to me, is 100% a form of art; I’ve never had any doubt about it. And art is a form of communication -- I’d say the quintessential form of communication -- one that incorporates emotions like no other. We grow up in a society that holds a certain bias toward writing: we’re taught that “book” unequivocally means book, that the subject comes before the verb, and so on. All useful, no question. But we’re rarely taught that written words can stir emotions and responses based on hundreds of different factors -- just like a brushstroke in a painting can summon a million different feelings. Maybe the closest art form to writing is composing and playing music. We’re taught the rules, but then those rules are often forgotten to make room for what our emotional scaffolding dictates. Now, when writing is simply a means of conveying information, clarity is of course key. But beyond that, only the author truly knows what they’re communicating, and how. Of course, if you send me something you’ve written and ask what I think, I’ll gladly tell you what it did to me. But I’d be reluctant to say how you should have written it to appeal to the widest audience. I hope this all makes sense, and I’m really looking forward to our next Zoom call (which we need to schedule soon, by the way!).
April 1: Women are from Venus; men are from Mars! Whew, that was a lot of trouble for a 2-letter reply!!
April 2: I see what you’re getting at (oh so subtly) about editing, and I agree mostly; it should be done with a very very light hand, and be limited mostly to correcting typos! (And check with the writer - maybe the ‘typo’ was intentional!)
Thank you, Rose! As always, I enjoy your comments. I'm glad you found this issue entertaining. :)