Maybe it's just because I've barely practiced, but I feel as thought a direct rendering of some thoughts simply don't possess the rhythm I'm looking for. Somehow in the past, I managed to write this: I have no idea how I was able to write this and why I am unable to replicate the effect. I did this five years ago. I read the book, "The Elements of Style". I struggled for half an hour to come up with the first sentence, (this above is the second paragraph), which I revised away. I put into practice all the rules of the elements of style, and I revised the same paragraph over and over again. But the odd thing is, these sentences have no circumlocations or any indirect way of speaking. They are completely concise. If I wanted to change the thoughts in the paragraph, I would have to substitute some of the words, thus destroying the rhythm. That bring me to this sad point. It seems that somehow certain thoughts are not able to be express in certain voices without indirect phrasing, and for some strange reason the thoughts in that paragraph just happened to be thoughts that, when expressed, come out elegantly. A passage from the Bible to consider is this: It seems perfectly concise to me, yet it has excellent rhythm, We can of course attribute much of the elegance to parallelism, but each clause in itself have perfect rhythm. If we take the thought: For I wish to befriend you, that I may converse with you, and that we may abound in our thoughts to each other. Well, it doesn't sound as awful as I intended, but I've done much worse. This example did not work. For some reason it did not come out so bad. But the point I am making is that often I try to be concise, but the phrase doesn't come out rhythmic and I hate it. I want to sound eloquent and beautiful, but not all thoughts seem to be expressible in the manner I wish. Any thoughts?