A Feast of Granola Bars

December 25, 2007

Whatever I commit to writing in this blog is something that I've thought about for some time already. True, I write spontaneously; I don't plan whatever comes out of the keyboard. All I do is hold one thought, a nameless and amorphous thought that has been floating around in my head, and I try to make it solid, to bring it into material existence using words. There are a lot of tumbling, bodiless thoughts in my mind. The purpose of this blog is to give them life.

 

However, I don't see myself as a good writer. I can admit that I write better than average in the sense that I know how to manipulate words, how to make them say exactly what I want said. But writing isn't all about words. In fact, writing has little to do with words the way painting has little to do with paint. You can use crayolas, color pencils, oil paints, water colors, but the medium is only a medium without an idea or a thought to direct its impression on the canvas. You can use interesting idioms, intelligent figures of speech, artfully placed commas, strategically placed periods—but they are only words, and without an idea or a thought to direct them on paper or on a screen, they will remain only words forever—disembodied and meaningless

 

I am not a good writer because my ideas are too vague. I would even go so far as to say that my ideas are uneducated. I haven't read enough. I haven't studied enough. Reading my past creations make me cringe because they are painfully juvenile. You see, good writers are those who have brilliant ideas, ideas no one has thought of before. It doesn't matter if the ideas are written down in simple words so long as they are understood. That, for me, is the essence of writing.

 

It would help if the writer knows his or her spelling, grammar, idioms, figures of speech, commas and the like. It's easier to bluff if the writer knows how to wield these things because a lot of people are easily impressed. But who will the writer be kidding? Deep inside the writer knows that he or she is only regurgitating what other people said or wrote. Deep inside the writer knows that the creation is only a rag doll sewed in with scraps of forgotten or current ideas by other people. Tell me, where's the joy in that?

 

Oh, people can tell you "I like what you wrote" and that would make you feel good because you think that whatever you create is original and fresh. Why shouldn't you? You gave a bit of yourself to it; it is yours, yourself. But give it a few months, a few years. Read it again. If you are a real writer, someone who thinks and therefore evolves, you'll realize that you're not good at all. That's where your inspiration should come from: the drive to improve. Once you think you're a good writer, you reach a dead end. 

 

I suppose you wouldn't want that.


Posted by lizette at 7:07 pm | permalink

Previous Comments

Amen to that.

Posted by J at December 25, 2007, 10:26 pm

at least you have good cadence. your writing is easy to read :)

Posted by jayvee f. at December 26, 2007, 1:43 am

You’re an excellent writer, liz. And you’re doing a very good job in fishing for compliments. :-P

I never thought of myself as a good writer, so I must actually be one!

Booyah!

All right, I don’t mean it. I think my previous entries are the pinnacle of physics-defiance, in that they suck and blow simultaneously. It would only be a few days before I think my most recent blog post is blowsuckmatazz, though I always admired my MAD SKILLZ of CREATING NEW EXPREZIONZ Wahaha my laughter is the dopest crack! Fo’ sho! (I read Urban Dictionary too much)

But I will never revise my stance regarding our country’s immigration office, if it doesn’t change for the better.

Posted by Kris at December 26, 2007, 11:11 am

there are no more “new” ideas.

Posted by paul at December 27, 2007, 3:38 am

i refuse to believe that.

Posted by lizette at December 27, 2007, 9:39 pm

Me newther.

Posted by Nightdreamer at December 27, 2007, 11:22 pm

amen and amen.

about no more “new” ideas: there is nothing really new as what may be new now may be considered old and passe later. the converse may also be true. also, what we consider new today is just the offshoot of a long process of experimentation, of innovation. an idea becomes new not because it’s the first time it comes into being (as i have said, there is nothing really new) but because of its positioning, timing if you want, in a cultural space and time.

happy new year!

Posted by amikus at December 28, 2007, 11:12 am

i understand that context of “new”, amikus.

if i say, for example, that my friend Niko Batallones writes an awful lot like David Sedaris, or David Sedaris writes an awful lot like Niko Batallones, isn’t that a new idea? it might not be the brilliant kind that changes the world, but it is an idea, and as far as i know, it’s new.

saying that there are no more new ideas isn’t an excuse to go on recycling old ideas indefinitely. as long as the world is plagued by problems however simple or huge (like how to cure cancer, how to stop aging, or why is it that narwhals have tusks), there will always be room for new ideas and there WILL be new ideas. i think that when the universe is perfect, humankind will stop churning out new ideas to force nature into submission and to understand it.

Posted by lizette at December 28, 2007, 2:29 pm