Saturday, January 17, 2009

Prose Ailment (Or Virus Or Disease Or Something)

My writing has been suffering lately, and not in terms of content and volume, but in terms of style. It's lacking that quality that used to make it sparkle. See? I just said "used to make it sparkle." That, if anything, is an indication that something is wrong.

What I mean is that my writing has become turgid; simple; unrealized garbage. My writing used to speak both in what it said and how it was said and now it seems to perform only the former. Gone are the days, it seems, when I would write in a way that would inform my topic, or inform something, anything. My prose is now simple, straight, direct, and lackluster. It's nearing obscurity and normality. Examples are abundant in the majority of my last 10 or so posts.

I don't think I'm the only sufferer of this disease - "inferior writing." I think it's a common disease (or virus or whatever; I'm no linguist, I won't attempt to identify it's biology) among writers in my generation (or, in my case, people who aspire to be writers). Lots of what I read has that quality where it could have been written by anybody, by some random person. I've no way of telling who authored most things I read, today, and that's bothersome.

Perhaps the reason things got this way is this: in an age of ever-increasing information volume-flux and the abundance of mediums through which to communicate and transfer this information, people are demanding, possibly subconsciously, writing that is more direct, straight, and narrow, writing that doesn't dance around a point for the sake of dancing, writing that doesn't speak in awkward sentences in order to further the point of the piece. People who read blogs and other mediums want prose that is easy to understand, easy to ready, and that gets to the point without meandering through the woods first, even if there's an intellectual and artistic purpose behind such meandering - for instance, the way I'm meandering and repeating myself in this paragraph in order to emphasize the antithesis of what I'm identifying.

People have no time for art, anymore, especially in writing. Writing is perhaps the most difficult art to consume appropriately, because it takes the most time. Or at least that's the pathology. People feel they can look at a painting, a drawing, a sculpture, whatever and get whatever there is to get in a relatively short amount of time, and then move on to the next victim piece. And the same can't be said for writing, which requires applied reading, thinking, and re-reading in order to comprehend whatever the hell is being said. It's much faster to look twice and three times at a piece of marble than it is to re-read Moby Dick. So folks don't have time, they say, to do "art writing" - which to their mind is anything not related to the media and the news.

For this reason, blogs, to attract attention and a healthily dispersed demographic, tend towards journalistic writing as opposed to artistic writing, which causes a decrease in the volume of good writing out there. And hence the explanation to my current prose woes.

As you've no doubt discovered, I've regained some of my prowess in this very blog post, but it all seems unnatural, a little off, somehow, to be writing fluidly and artistically after indulging in garbage newspaper script, a practice that came much too easily for me to be at all comfortable about the future.

The information influx, Total Noise to David Foster Wallace, is having a profound effect on everything, and we - I - keep discovering new consequents to its antecedents.

11 erotic poetry prompts:

kell January 17, 2009 at 1:46 PM  

jeff, you realize that this leaves all of us who know that you read our blogs thinking that we are dumb and cannot write. thanks.

The Filthy Logician January 17, 2009 at 3:01 PM  

Well, it wasn't my intention to say that, nor do I believe it, but I can see now (quite obviously) how moronic this post must have come off.

Go me.

I was merely trying to point out that people write differently based on the medium their using, and that blog posts are a medium that sees people write in a way that's different from, say, a Norman Mailer novel or a Gore Vidal essay. Those two guys spent hours writing and editing, whereas Us Bloggers write it as we see it, and as it comes, and that's how it gets posted.

But, as usual, I fucked everything up.

Unknown January 17, 2009 at 4:52 PM  

what is this? I started reading but then it was long and round about so I stopped and started watching TV. :)

Steven Philippi January 17, 2009 at 11:05 PM  

You learned how to use strike through. Good job.

Lets say that the modern era lacks time for artistic writing. Time is more precious than ever it seems, but then again, the things we utilize time for can be questionable. Like me reading your blog for example when I could be reading some Hemingway.

I am glad I don't type in my blog or would feel stupid too. Go Jeff. GET SOME... or not.

The Filthy Logician January 18, 2009 at 1:55 AM  

Thanks philippi.

There's the unintentional buffoon (Paul Blart: Mall Cop) and there's the unintentional jackass (Jeff Weyant).

Honestly, I've been noticing this more and more. I keep stumbling into situations where I'm a jackass but didn't realize it. Do actions have to be intentional to be jackassery?

Oh, and Andrew, you're the best.

kell January 18, 2009 at 2:18 AM  

no, you can be an unintentional jackass. i'll hate you just the same.

The Filthy Logician January 18, 2009 at 2:52 AM  

Yeah, you're right. If I say something disparaging but don't realize it's disparaging, it's still disparaging. I, then, admit jackassery.

kell January 18, 2009 at 7:05 PM  

jeff, we're all kidding. you're not a jackass. fully.

The Filthy Logician January 18, 2009 at 7:27 PM  

Cool. I'm still convinced I'm an unintentional jackass, but I'll your word for it.

JCWIII January 19, 2009 at 9:52 AM  

you an intentional jackass actually :)