Deeming the writing of fiction more challenging than the writing of what is not, I wish to write things that are true, not writings that narrate a story, but writings that expound on a subject, works in the form of essays or articles, or works in the form of blogs posts or books. This, however, I cannot do easily, knowing nothing of nearly all things, and needing to research to a great degree. And for that reason I ask you this: How can I research a subject properly, having never done so before, but having once in course in college written a paper based on my own ideas.
Zion, I'm going to say, you're clearly trying for cadence here, and it's not working. Your normal post writing is much better than this. As for your actual question, just write stuff. Do you know how to make scrambled eggs? Do you have an opinion on a local restaurant? Write.
1. I was not finished revising. I was also having trouble writing in my natural writing style, of which there seems to be many. I'm not sure if I fixed the problem with my original post, but I know it is not in any of my natural writing styles. I had written a very bad draft of it originally, and was trying to figure out how to phrase certain things, not just with cadence, but in any clear and smooth way. As I was revising, I got carried away. 2. I feel like I don't really know anything or have anything to write about. One thing I know is computer programming, but I haven't done that seriously for a long time. I certainly don't want to write cooking instructions. One thing you can be glad about is that I attempted to write a first draft of my post without revising for the most part. Only after I had the post drafted did I do any serious revision.
FYI, this post, the one I'm responding to, is just fine. When you write naturally like this, your writing is fine. And, write about anything. The goal should be to write. You can add other goals later.
Yeah but the problem with that kind of style is that is has no weight or resonance in it, and it sounds plain, ordinary, and not to far from being characteristic of whining.
You might be surprised by how many people like to read that kind of thing. It's certainly what I prefer to read; I'm not interested in cadence or any other literary techniques. Just take me on a journey with enjoyable characters and a cohesive plot and I'm all in. And I know for sure my readers don't care about that either, else they would not be buying my ordinary, plainly written books that are quite absent of weight or resonance. Just take a chill pill and write, dude. I promise, it can even be fun if you give it a chance.
I believe that you are wrong on all of those points. I'm curious--in another thread you said that you didn't see a problem with the style of JK Rowling. But that is a clear and straightforward style. This seems inconsistent.
But doesn't each author among most authors have a unique writing style? And weren't some styles copied from others and some developed over time, not something they received at birth? So if there are manifold styles of writing and style is based on choice, why should I write in a style that emerges from writing with no regard for it, producing a work unpolished and simple, far from having the dignified sound of even the styles of numerous authors today, albeit not those which I most prefer.
Because it sounds like that style comes most naturally to you (according to the cadence thread), and by floofing it up with all this mumbo-jumbo, you're not being authentic when you write. You can't write from the heart and create a compelling story that way. I have a feeling I'm talking to a brick wall here though...
Zion, do you understand that when you're acquiring a complex skill like writing, there are many sub-skills involved? Do you understand that insisting that every project be one that demands mastery of ALL of those skills is a strategy doomed to failure? If you wanted to be a concert pianist, would you reject all piano teachers because they try to start you with simple things like scales, and insist instead on starting with the most complex pieces? If you wanted to learn to make classic French patisserie, would you insist on starting with a multi-tier wedding cake with pulled-sugar decorations? If you wanted to learn to sew, would you reject the exercises intended to teach you how to use the machine, and the later exercises of making a simple pair of shorts, and insist on starting with a strapless bias-cut satin evening gown with forty pattern pieces? Because that's what you're doing. You are refusing to learn the basics, because you imagine a someday future where you have advanced beyond those basics. But those someday skills are based on a grounding in the basics. Really, Zion, do you understand that masters don't start with master-level tasks?
People are not being authentic when they write in meter either. The only difference between that and what I am aiming for, is that the rhythm I am aiming for is more irregular. Now you are speaking of mumbo-jumbo, implying that what I have in mind requires mumbo-jumbo. I don't mean to be inauthentic, but I don't consider style to be a marker of authenticity, but a choice made by the writer. You seem to be telling me to write as though I were simply talking, but this, which I can already do, is not what I am aiming for. There are many authors, even in recent times, who did not write as though they were speaking, and the existence of such writing demonstrates that without mumbo-jumbo such writing is possible. So why do you try to discourage me from achieving my goal, rather than focus on the real problems present in my writing, things which are not the products of my goal, but those things I do by habit when trying to achieve it. I may not be a published writer, knowing all things that make good writing, but no one can tell me that in the King James Bible, the prose is not authentic and dignified. The prose in that book sounds nothing like everyday speech, but it is the style of this prose that I wish to emulate. I do not wish to emulate its grammar, but to emulate its cadence. Now some of you told me that I could attempt this as long I wrote a rough draft first. Now you all are telling me not to bother. But the odd thing is, I have written prose that had cadence before, though not the cadence of the King James Bible, and it was not the cadence of ordinary speech. And many authors throughout English history have written in a cadence that differed from ordinary speech. So why do I have to write like I talk, even though when I seem to do so, I do not really sound how I talk?
But even when not polishing for cadence I still have trouble getting my words to flow smoothly. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. In those times they don't, I end up making a mess.
Well that does make sense. But then why should I not practice by writing single sentences with cadence, and then paragraphs, and then compositions? If there are two categories of skills: content skills and language skills, why should I practice content skills first? If you can give me a good reason, I will likely change my approach. Or maybe you weren't talking about content skills, but less difficult language skills?
Yes, I'm talking about less difficult language skills--where did I talk about content at all? Or are you saying that when I suggest that it should be possible for a reader to at least guess at what a sentence means, that's a large "content" demand?
Another analogy: becoming a master chef requires many skills. But it is mandatory, through that learning process, that the food be edible. Becoming a writer requires many skills. But it is mandatory, through that learning process, that the writing have some discernible meaning. If you want an art that doesn't require meaning, writing is not the art.
Well I have a book called "Keys to Great Writing" or something like that, which doesn't speak much of cadence, but nevertheless covers "music", encouraging variety in sentence structure and use of subordination. It also talks about economy, precision, and action. I also have a book called "Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace". When I write clearly, I think that is due to my study of these books, as it is also when I write clearly and gracefully. But sometimes I can't get my words to flow smoothly, even when not aiming for any rhythmic effects, and there doesn't seem to be much in these books that deal with that. But do you think I should focus only on clarity, and not at all on music or grace? Or should I focus on both, but not go beyond that to rhythmic effects which cannot be explained by parallelism or variety in sentence structure?
