Why is writing fun?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (124 of them)
This is probably gross, but the feeling most like finishing a great piece of writing is equivalent, in my mind, with taking a tremendous and happy poop.

Remy (null) (x Jeremy), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 02:34 (nineteen years ago) link

Which would explain the popular 'constipation' and 'diarrhoea' analogies.

Autumn Almanac (Autumn Almanac), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 02:36 (nineteen years ago) link

Don't trust writers who organize their thoughts in dot-points, as if they're rules. For instance:

Don't write what you don't believe / like. This is an undergraduate plight. I can't tell you how many papers I grade by people who don't believe in the shit they spout. "Marx was right when he said .... " written by a blonde sorority chick from the OC who drives a Lexus with gold-tinted windows won't convince anybody.

Um, you fucking idiot. Was Marx poor? No. Could he manage to maintain a critical distance between his own circumstance, and that of an economic theory (with social repercussions?). Yes. Oh boy, it would've been fantastic to have papoers graded by a tutor who judged you not on the strength of your ideas, but the colour of your hair..
Dick.
Also, Maria, be careful about taking advice from writers. It's a product, not a process. respect those who've published widely, well, and made money from it; that's what writing as a profession is.

paulhw (paulhw), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 03:17 (nineteen years ago) link

1) Suck a fat shit, paulhw.
2) Learn to separate exaggeration from actuality.
2a) I predict you're the type of douche who writes a terrible paper and blames the grade on the professor's bias.
3) You're bitter because you're balding, I bet.
4) respect those who've published widely, well, and made money from it; that's what writing as a profession is. Yeah, like Dan Brown and RL Stein and Franklin W. Dixon. Also: if you're interested in music respect musicians who're widely distributed, popularly acclaimed, and rich; that's what music as a profession is.

Remy (null) (x Jeremy), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 03:31 (nineteen years ago) link

i hate it, when I wrote on a regular basis it was fun for about six years, then as I got better it got harder, and more painful, and more difficult, and was finally just not worth the bother. the last piece of fiction I wrote was the best thing i ever wrote, but it was two pages long and took eight months. fuck that! it just takes too much out of me.

kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 03:32 (nineteen years ago) link

2a) I predict you're the type of douche who writes a terrible paper and blames the grade on the professor's bias.

See, the funny thing is that Paul IS a professor.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 03:35 (nineteen years ago) link

Far out.

Remy (null) (x Jeremy), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 03:36 (nineteen years ago) link

Hey Remy,

I'm not exagerrating. Many of the most important writers (academic, literary) are not somehow "representative" of those they write about. In fiction it's called imagination, and in academia, it's called research.
Not bald, and I grade papers. I would fail yours, cos you're a dumb fuck.
Also: didn't claim that music that's good (necessarily) sells well; but most music writing that's good is popular for a reason. Grow up kid, and accept the fact that you've got a long way to go, and few excuses for that distance...

paulhw (paulhw), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 03:38 (nineteen years ago) link

(See, Paul, the funny thing is how completely wrong you've got Remy's character and age pegged...)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 03:43 (nineteen years ago) link

I thought this was the thread about WHY WRITING IS FUN. I see I'm in the wrong room.. I'll be off then.

Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 03:45 (nineteen years ago) link

No Trayce, god Trayce, it's about how abusing the living shit out of other people is fun. Keep up lah.

Autumn Almanac (Autumn Almanac), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 03:47 (nineteen years ago) link

my big hurdle (or, what?, since hurdle means you jump it, eventually) is the not-knowing, the "you've got to write your way into it" heavy lifting. coming up with the word-to-word, sentence-to-sentence matter is ok, but the large arcs are impossible for me to imagine. i have so little Trust in (what? myself, "people," creation, etc) that i don't follow the initial curve of an idea out to the point where it starts to make a whole shape. Big Picture thinking, i can't stand it. Formulae never work for me, either, i just resent them; that said, a little book called The Thirty-Six Dramatic Situations is incredible fun.

Basically, I have no patience.

f--gg (gcannon), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 03:50 (nineteen years ago) link

Curious George Rides a Republican (Rock Hardy), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 03:52 (nineteen years ago) link

get it while it's hot

f--gg (gcannon), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 03:56 (nineteen years ago) link

1. People value music / culture writing here a little uncritically at times (c'mon, I love many blogs, but let's start to be as hard of 'em as we are on, say, Rolling Stone, or any indie zine...)
2. Academic writing (about philosophy / culture / music etc) isn't necessarily "academic". A lot of people assume that it's instantly outdated, or written by older people (I'm 29!), but (like good writers) people like me worked really, really hard to get a tenure track position in the humanities at a place like NYU...and comments about Marx / blonds / SUVs just rile me, cos it's really not my experience with talented kids who are also trying really hard (and they're not all rich!)
3. For me (to return to the topic), I like writing (though I don't think I'm nearly as good at it in a conversational / fun way as nearly all of you) because I like words, I like ideas and the ways they can be organized, I like the way words built on words, I like the tap of the keys under my fingers, I like seeing my ideas on paper / screen (although I cringe when I see 'em - like hearing your voice on tape!) and I also know that I'm not good at much else!

paulhw (paulhw), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 04:01 (nineteen years ago) link

My hand get sore when I write for more than about 15 minutes, thats why I paint I guess. I also detest long-answer essay tests.

kate/baby loves headrub (papa november), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 04:15 (nineteen years ago) link

Paul, I'm glad you're not exagerrating. I hate when people exagerrate. And I don't understand why you think I said you were exagerrating. 2) Learn to separate exaggeration from actuality. refers to my OWN post - in the sense that I feel one should only write about what one cares. Go back and read: I double dog dare you.

And yes, I'm being a dick. I'm actually sorry. I get like this when I suspect somebody's talking down to me. Here's why: I expect I can speak freely about my observations on writing without being called-out as - and I'm quoting you here - "a fucking idiot" for announcing a personal demon: writing on a subject on which one doesn't really have a true considered opinion. Especially given my experience, writing successes, and own personal academic shading. In proper circumstances I'll namecheck any hip culture theorist/ movement from Adorno to Zhdanovshchinan dissidence, but I don't need to trot these out to justify my positions.

Disingenious discourse (meaing writing as a strictly intellectual exercise, currently the vogue of liberal-arts educations in middle-upper class US circumstances) is pointless, masturbatory, and the entire problem with contemporary academia. Professors who require binary or dichotomic response as 'thought exercise' or 'skillbuilding' or 'to test your knowledge' should be dragged into the street and shot for condescending cruelty. In direct contrast to your experience (with talented kids who are also trying really hard (and they're not all rich!), I find that the majority of all the papers I grade are written in a way which supports uncritically (or challenges cursorily, and vaguely) the professor's presumed position. There's no heart, spark, vibrance, or true thinking in most of them - which is absolutely in polarity with the stunning (if unrefined) creative prose I read. The cases which prove me wrong - academic papers strongly written and truly smart - are ALWAYS written by somebody who has a vested, outside, and extra-academic interest in the subject matter. Thus my post: write only what you care about. Dumb blonde OC girls - and I mean this as at type with whom we're both familiar - aren't only dumb, blonde, and lexus-driving. They can be poor, righteous, and and recovering metamphetamine addicts. Point is: they're writing cold and distant jargon to appease a machine, and with no connection to their individual person. This is, as far as I'd make a moral statement: wrong.

Also: I've never claimed to be a great mind (though I doubt I'm a dumb fuck) but the thought of being graded by a man who would lambaste a stranger without personal provocation as 'dick' and 'fucking idiot' for free expression of their ideas is hardly a model of academic integrity.

Remy (null) (x Jeremy), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 04:18 (nineteen years ago) link

Hoho, how the tone changes ("a model of academic integrity").
Ok, you're all over the place:
In direct contrast to your experience (with talented kids who are also trying really hard (and they're not all rich!), I find that the majority of all the papers I grade are written in a way which supports uncritically (or challenges cursorily, and vaguely) the professor's presumed position
Agreed. But this "position" canot be built (effectively) out of nothing. No good professor provides students with an obvious way to recite back to them what they (may have) said. If you're in the situation of marking papers where that's happening, you're working for a very average teacher.
Your idea of "disingenuus discourse", as snappy as the phrase may be, has little to do with me. I'm an editor of the arts and letters daily website (aldaily.com), which invented the bad writing competition (judith butler being a famous winner), and which has 1/2 million daily readers. Denis Dutton and I (the editor) *hate* vogueish leftist writing.
and btw, I didn't lambast you without provocation. your ideas provided ample ammo.


paulhw (paulhw), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 04:38 (nineteen years ago) link

xxpost;
NYU? That might explain something.

I have to say, as a non-writer, Jeremy's advice seems pretty sound to me. And he writes pretty well on this thread, even though it was all he could do to activate and reactivate testicular bravery on a thread of mine the other day. In any case, my background and training is in math and science and the nature of such writing is very different from writing in other contexts-the ideal of mathematics writing is the shorter (and more impersonal) the better. In order to write about any non-mathematical topic without sounding like a third-rate sci-fi writer I've had to relieve myself of the notion that everything has to adhere to the rigorous standards of a proof and, to protect myself from problems coming from the other direction, learn to write about what's interesting to me and what I know something about, as opposed to giving a pale imitation of what I think "the (imaginary/idealized) grader" wants to hear. In any case, at the risk of appearing disingenuous, I have to admit I still can't write for much longer stretches than what it takes to fill up one of the tiny message boxes on this board- I assume such stamina comes with practice of some of the good habits mentioned on this thread.

Ken L (Ken L), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 04:39 (nineteen years ago) link

whoa paulhw, you do aldaily? respec! you'll turn me neocon yet.

f--gg (gcannon), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 04:41 (nineteen years ago) link

and btw, I didn't lambast you without provocation.

You so did.

Autumn Almanac (Autumn Almanac), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 04:44 (nineteen years ago) link

thanks, erm, --f--gg. I guess!

And Ken L: NYU? That might explain something

Have you studied here? Do you know how hard I worked to get here from a tiny town in New Zealand by now? Sorry, I wish I had a sense of homour right now, but I bet you work womewhere that I can't add an "that explains something" so easily to, right?

paulhw (paulhw), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 04:46 (nineteen years ago) link

whoa paulhw, you do aldaily? respec! you'll turn me neocon yet.

Hahahahaha! (I actually kinda like John McWhorter, though!)

jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 04:50 (nineteen years ago) link

Curious George Rides a Republican (Rock Hardy), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 04:52 (nineteen years ago) link

Oh, ALDaily. I've been reading that for how long now? It's been around about seven or eight years, hasn't it? I suspect ingesting all those articles on the worst of academe made quite an impression on me - when I was still fighting the good fight to get through graduate coursework I never felt like I had a duty to struggle to understand bad, jargon clogged, impenetrable academic writing.

Er.. aside from that, currently wondering why is there such hostility here. That's kind of the mood I'm in after trying to work on a piece of academic writing - I've done so much of it, and it's just killing me how much I've come to dread and hate every aspect of the entire process.

daria g (daria g), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 05:06 (nineteen years ago) link

hey paul, marx was nortoriously poor by later in his life and constantly in debt. (he borrowed from engels, who wasn't).

and you don't like LOTR so yr. advice on writing is sorta suspect.

(http://denisdutton.com/rings.htm) !!

anyway the best part about (academic) writing is turning little bits of rage and chips on shoulders into lengthy and subtle arguments so well couched, defended and constructed that yr. huge irrational chip-on-the-shoulder about a particular piece of dickery passes for established and incontrovertible fact. mad props to the smug magisterial sweep of the masters of the grand old style in rhetoric. today's neo-cons are a pathetic, defensive, and shrill imitation of the classix!

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 05:10 (nineteen years ago) link

also, http://www.hnn.us has replaced aldaily as my source of academic gossip, scandal, and useful news. this is, i suppose, a result of disciplinary specialization as much as anything else.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 05:13 (nineteen years ago) link

I agree with Dutton on LOTR. I only saw the first one, it was pretty to look at but I can't say much more about it, really.

I don't know what you're trying to say, Sterling, nor how to respond.

My favorite academe source would be "Thomas H. Benton" on the Chronicle of Higher Education's website, who's written columns on "thinking about grad school in the humanities? don't go!" and "Is grad school a cult?"

daria g (daria g), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 05:16 (nineteen years ago) link

sterling are you doing a degree somewhere? sorry if that's personal, but i've always like your stuff here and i wondered.

f--gg (gcannon), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 05:16 (nineteen years ago) link

Yeah, I kinda know what you mean, but how come? The language? The ideas? Or the combination (which oftens fits badly)?
So if you've done lots of it, how come you're finding it ever-harder? (and i'm really interested, because i also hate writing about...4 days a week)...
Like others have said ^upthread, I try to set work-guidelines. 500 words / day is what I aim for, but I also give myself allowances for reading / thinking / being useless.
One of the reasons I love to click off my paper onto ilx.or is because i really love the humour and fun that so many writers bring to this forum. Lots of people here have a way with a sentence / quip, which is something I'd love to possess!

paulhw (paulhw), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 05:16 (nineteen years ago) link

And I'd love to finish my thesis (I am/was in the math dept. at NYU) but it doesn't look like it's going to happen!

Ken L (Ken L), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 05:19 (nineteen years ago) link

And I secretly love when my internet connection drops for a week or so and I can't post to ILX because I usually end-up turning out a brand-spankin'-new spec script.

Remy (null) (x Jeremy), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 05:22 (nineteen years ago) link

Sorry, x-post - my questions were for daria, up-post (not the last, but before that...).
Sterling, I can see ,why you'd prefer hnn. that's cool...
but as fopr this: academic writing is turning little bits of rage and chips on shoulders into lengthy and subtle arguments so well couched, defended and constructed that yr. huge irrational chip-on-the-shoulder about a particular piece of dickery passes for established and incontrovertible fact is a bit silly.
Academic accountability is as alive and well as ever (ha! say the conspiracists!), and (at least in New York - and to be honest, I don't know much about the rest of the American academic scene - ) straightforward right or left "rage and chips" have a hard time in journals and conferences all over...

paulhw (paulhw), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 05:25 (nineteen years ago) link

No longer an xpost: To be frank, several years' of trying to deal with an academic environment that is indifferent to anything I do, say, or think approximately 90% of the time and sternly critical and a complete joykiller for the rest of it. I am a fairly scatterbrained person generally and yet I think I tend to bring a real spark of creativity to the subjects I tackle - fresh angles are still to be found on exhaustively-studied epic poems in Old French! - but what is the point? I'm not able to keep myself going independently and just suck it up and slog on through; some people are, and I do admire them.

Really, trying to find a place where there wasn't one for me, in the academic world, has messed up my life on so many levels. It's nobody's fault that at this point writing research papers makes me want to stab myself in the eye. But there's something else, something about academe qua institution, that manages to take a bunch of people who I find, personally, to be brilliant, engaging, friendly, and great company and turning them into a collective in which grad students and adjuncts are treated like shit and almost everyone is working the flat-affect day in day out, because they're just plain miserable.

daria g (daria g), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 05:31 (nineteen years ago) link

Amen, sister!

Remy (null) (x Jeremy), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 05:33 (nineteen years ago) link

It all starts with reading. There has to be some type of writing you enjoy reading. It doesn't matter if it is Dr. Seuss or Dylan Thomas, you have to like reading it. Once you identify certain kinds of writing that amaze, fascinate, delight or edify you, then you have some motivation to rip them apart and learn what makes them tick. You have to care. You have to want to know how its done.

The only way to satisfy yourself that you really know the tricks of the trade, that you understand the occult secrets, is to do it yourself. All writers start out by making imitations of works they love or admire. Once they learn how to make good imitations, they know the first elements of the craft.

When you've found the ability to tinker words into nice shapes, fitting shapes for the purposes you have in mind, then you may or may not move on to the next stage, which is to couple your craft with your life, your thoughts, your substance, the ideas that give your life meaning.

You take these ideas and you clothe them in words. The words will be the right ones for the ideas. For example, if they are ugly, brutal ideas, they will take an ugly, brutal form - and there is a kind of beauty in that. It doesn't matter what you write, so long as you write of the ideas that speak to you in the words that do them justice. Lawyers write lawyerly words. Sadists write sadistic words. Comedians write funny words.

The 'fun' of writing is in the art of it. If the art of writing doesn't grab you as worth your while to learn and master, then go carve marionettes or chop cars or whatever it is that calls forth the same love and care and fascination in you. I just happen to love words.

Aimless (Aimless), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 05:34 (nineteen years ago) link

One of the reasons I love to click off my paper onto ilx.or is because i really love the humour and fun that so many writers bring to this forum. Lots of people here have a way with a sentence / quip, which is something I'd love to possess!

See Paul, this makes me a little sad, to get back to what I saw the thread topic as (Fun in writing). You seem like someone who has as you say worked very hard to get where you are - and as an Aussie myself I can totally understand and respect what you've done.

I on the other hand only have a diploma in writing and editing (TAFE course), which I did in my mid 20s. I have never been to uni and wouldnt know an academic essay or how to write one if it up and slapped me. In fact I cant stand academic models of thought - I see the same stuff echoed all over, and it makes me cold and want to turn away with its lack of emotion and life.

I just like playing with evocativeness, with invoking moods in my readers, and hell it seems to work, from the responses I have had. I'd rather than than dry academe any day of the week, even though I make no money ad have no fame at all from the doodling I do.

Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 05:36 (nineteen years ago) link

Also. what daria and Aimless said.

Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 05:37 (nineteen years ago) link

Sorry scuse my typing - low blood sugar, I have a bad case of the shakyfingers.

Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 05:37 (nineteen years ago) link

That Aimless, he tricked us, he asked us to recommend him some poets and the next thing you know he comes back and is writing rings around everybody.

Ken L (Ken L), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 05:43 (nineteen years ago) link

There is still lively and interesting academic writing.. sometimes it takes patience to work your way into it. For instance, if I hadn't been forced by a paper topic to struggle through this Deleuze piece from Yale French Studies several times just to get a handle on it, I wouldn't have seen the spark in it & kept it stored as a reference for later work. I don't know what is in vogue right now in English language studies, but I've been enthralled by some work in French on the 17th century, absolutism and sovereignty, as well as some French historians on ancient Greece, especially tragedy. But there's nobody I have to really talk to about this stuff, because of the obscurity of it in the US. It wouldn't be dry if there were.

xpost bit - On writing - I'm still trying to crank out one last paper. It may be too late, but I've told myself I have to finish it. But just as a practical matter, writing in a language that isn't one's native language can throw more roadblocks into an already painful process. So that may be no small part of the problem. I've done professional copy editing and proofreading and have an incredibly picky editorial eye for English, so it certainly caused me some severe guilt/shame problems to be constantly producing work in another language, which inevitably had grammar problems I was helpless to correct.

daria g (daria g), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 05:47 (nineteen years ago) link

paul -- i mean that all good writing has an agenda, and often it's rendered v. v. subtly but simply infuses the nature of the argument. the point is to take the rage and subordinate it to disciplinary rules so that you and the other foax can engage in the productive (and generally progressive) process of scholarly discourse that typically transcends any one argumentative standpoint, no matter how well reasoned. also, left & right v. seldom have to do with these chips on shoulders. ppl. can get rilly passionate about other things too, like cycles of wheat prices across europe in the 16th century. & actually there were like three political agendas at play in that debate too, if you knew the characters involved and the subtle places to look!

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 05:49 (nineteen years ago) link

xpost:
Wait daria, am I correct to understand that you are writing these papers in French at the academic level? Holy calamity!

Ken L (Ken L), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 05:51 (nineteen years ago) link

Ouais. My French seems to have deteriorated in the past year, but yes, I did that, or tried. I shouldn't be so down on myself. These days, the American public education system being what it is, most of my peers suck at writing in their first language.

And if Stanley Fish is right and the next big thing in academe will be studying religion, again I feel like it's a real shame that I can't survive in the environment - it was one of my interests within my field (and I took it quite seriously, really trying to see from the inside of an entirely different worldview from several centuries past) and would that I still had it in me to be a responsible, motivated, hard-working student, I'd be wowing them at the MLA in four years. I've always been good at predicting the trends.

daria g (daria g), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 05:57 (nineteen years ago) link

Actually, that's my advice. Try writing it in French! Or Russian, or Spanish or something. Then, when you're about to start breaking glass in your room again because it's so goddamn difficult, switch back to English. Everything will be SO EASY! It'll be all sunshine and roses!

daria g (daria g), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 06:00 (nineteen years ago) link

Why? Is writing fun?

Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 06:05 (nineteen years ago) link

xxpost: I think that's actually good advice.

xxpost:I could never really get into Stanley Fish. I much prefer his fictionalized counterpart, Morris Zapp.

Ken L (Ken L), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 06:08 (nineteen years ago) link

I don't know much about what Fish does (I'm allowed to not know much, I did French), but when I read the piece I just linked, my feeling was that his general impression as far as where people's interests and energies will be going was accurate. Politics and religion and the intersection of the two.

When Jacques Derrida died I was called by a reporter who wanted know what would succeed high theory and the triumvirate of race, gender, and class as the center of intellectual energy in the academy. I answered like a shot: religion.

Precisely. Also, I am kicking myself for having spent my time in undergraduate philosophy courses reading aesthetics and "high theory" when I should have been reading Machiavelli and Strauss and such. Foucault was worth the time, though, he's as handy as the jar of crushed red pepper I use for cooking just about anything.

daria g (daria g), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 06:27 (nineteen years ago) link

Seems like this thread is crying out for- the Pinefox!

Ken L (Ken L), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 06:30 (nineteen years ago) link

Then nakedness is only one eldritch state of many.

xp

pomenitul, Friday, 12 July 2019 18:34 (four years ago) link

Writing became more fun when I finally incorporated it into my daily routine. Once the initiatory act no longer required intentional effort and just became a thing I did regularly like eating or weeping in despair for a fallen world, I was able to forget about the more mechanical parts of the process and just, like, roll with it, baby.

Logy Psycho (Old Lunch), Friday, 12 July 2019 18:58 (four years ago) link

(This is what makes my contributions to ILX so very, very chefkiss.jpg.)

Logy Psycho (Old Lunch), Friday, 12 July 2019 18:59 (four years ago) link

the only good writing is posting

Pretty much. What did people even read before message borads existed?

Logy Psycho (Old Lunch), Friday, 12 July 2019 19:02 (four years ago) link

Shredded Wheat nutritional panel is only good for maybe 2-3 close readings and then I'm out.

Logy Psycho (Old Lunch), Friday, 12 July 2019 19:03 (four years ago) link

Try the romance copy on the opposite panel. Real tear jerker.

Evan, Friday, 12 July 2019 19:05 (four years ago) link

i think twitter has made me a better writer in some way. especially the 140 era (rip). not sure about ilx. my academic writing is strong relative to my peers and i take great pleasure in it; it’s a fun game to try to inject just the right amount of style while maintaining the dry tone and technical correctness

flopson, Saturday, 13 July 2019 18:18 (four years ago) link

Writing became more fun when I finally incorporated it into my daily routine. Once the initiatory act no longer required intentional effort and just became a thing I did regularly like eating or weeping in despair for a fallen world, I was able to forget about the more mechanical parts of the process and just, like, roll with it, baby.

― Logy Psycho (Old Lunch), Friday, July 12, 2019 2:58 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

this is probably the biggest influence of ilx, in terms of writing. reading ive aped all my styles from you guys

flopson, Saturday, 13 July 2019 18:20 (four years ago) link

Contemporary English's (acquired, not innate) tendency towards dryness and consummate transparency drives me up the wall, although it's a useful corrective when grafted onto other, less cost-effective languages.

pomenitul, Saturday, 13 July 2019 18:31 (four years ago) link

I like rite gud

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 13 July 2019 20:00 (four years ago) link

“Writing is like the life of a glacier; one eternal grind” - my man John Muir

brimstead, Sunday, 14 July 2019 22:21 (four years ago) link

Def

calstars, Sunday, 14 July 2019 22:23 (four years ago) link

Muir's livelihood was grounded in the money he earned from his writing, mostly for periodicals. Hence, the eternal grind.

A is for (Aimless), Monday, 15 July 2019 02:40 (four years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.