Writing?
I find it odd that though I normally have several thoughts during any normal day, some of which would make good topics for an essay, when I sit down to write one, I run out of steam very easily.Perhaps there is something in this that is worth exploring.
What is so different about a chain of thoughts that seem so fluid and well connected when they are floating around in your head but become so disjointed and insubstantial when you try to pen them down? Somewhere the test of putting something on paper (or in print if you prefer) makes it hard for the survival of any thought that has insufficient substance. You cannot elaborate on an ill-concieved idea. The best illustration of this is when you're forced to expound, impromptu, on something you do not know well. As you fumble through what you're saying you realize how little you have actually thought about it and how difficult it is to articulate something that has no data, no links and no references in your brain. Perhaps this is what writers also face when they move to that part of the plot where they are still undecided in their own minds.
Even as I write this I realize that a pattern begins to emerge. An idea that you have not thought about sufficiently is not something you can expound on. Conversely it should also be true that you should be able to hold forth at length on a topic that you have spent time thinking about. While a lack of articulation ability may hold you back from public speaking, writing however, needs a lot less preparation and is a lot more forgiving to mistakes. You can reword and rewrite a line that you are not satisfied with, until you are.
It seems to follow that writing can serve as a tool to crystallize your thoughts into something with form and substance. Having to explain them out in print automatically makes you define them a lot more clearly in your own head first. Even as you complete one sentence and begin the next, the test of having to sound rational and connected forces you to strengthen the links between your thoughts and imposes the test of coherence. Reading what you have just written makes you realize the inherent correlation, or lack therof, between the thoughts that are coming out of your brain.
If a single, well thought idea could form the basis for an essay/article, why is it that many, including me, frequently run out of steam midway? How many times have I started writing on an idea that seemed promising, but eventually lost its charm halfway and resulted in a unfinished (and unposted) essay? I think I post only half of what I write mainly because the other half remain unfinished, forever perhaps.
I think the reason there are so many unfinished works is intimately connected to the reason behind some essays being more appealing than others. It has to do with the quality of the idea. If the idea is well thought out and has sufficient substance in itself, it leads you to the end. If the idea is weak in substance, all the thought that you put into it only serves to increase the amount of rambling text you will produce before you realize that you cannot go any further because you are getting nowhere.
As with all things I'm sure there is some middle ground. An idea that has less merit in itself, but an overdose of thought injected into it, will perhaps result in an essay that is atleast engaging in parts. An idea that has merit but very little thought will probably still do enough to kindle the reader's interest.
I was not sure where I would end up when I started this, but there is enough here to go on, so I shall post this for the moment and add to it when I get back to this train of thought.
posted by Yaseen Mehter @ 7:55 AM
0 comments
