When I was scouring through older articles of mine last year, I announced I had the thought that my early stuff was better than the latter, and that I wanted to recapture a bit of the old way. Well, it’s like putting new wine in old wineskins. Somehow, it bursts.

I’ve since thought better of the older stuff. Good old.

On older interviews

The interview I’ve been typing out on my word processor is really quite an older one that I never used, because of one reason or another. I always wanted to keep it — without really knowing if it would come to anything, which was a pain — but I am glad I have kept it, as I will be posting it on my Church Mosaic series at some stage.

Not finished, yet

I wasn’t looking forward to typing out a transcript of an interview I have recorded and on tape, that’s been kept away for several years. But it turned into an easy to transcribe process. It’s just in the getting to the destination, that is the finishing of typing out the transcript, that can make me slightly impatient. I still have some work to do yet, but I’ll get there.

You didn't tell me

Yes, you were right that time, correcting that quietly, so I wouldn’t notice the error, was quite noble on your behalf. You didn’t want to tell me. Because you didn’t want to pay attention to the flaw, which would reflect badly on me, if you had ever told me. Yes, an editor’s work is thoughtful. But I found out, and here is the finished product! You told me, “good job”. Thank you.

Is it okay for a writer to change style?

I’ve asked myself this question and answered a resounding no. A writer should have a consistent style. But, if I compare my review of 28 Days Later, written in 2003, to my review of 28 Weeks Later, written four years later, I am resigned to the fact that they have different styles. This is really disconcerting to me, as it shows a flaw. All I can think of, is that a writer may use different styles of writing for a while, then settle on one style. This style becomes natural. In the end, a writer or some, if not many, writers must go through this phase. It’s a natural part of the writing life. One must write to know how one wants to write–and sometimes if not many times this plays out in the publishing world.

Takes a little time

I would have posted another in my church series today (Church series here), but I came across the taped interview of one of the articles I have already published on that blog. I thought I need to publish the whole interview. This would take time to transcribe. So, when that’s done, I’ll be posting that as my next post, which shouldn’t be too far away.


I’ve found building an organized if not overly cohesive series of articles, my “church series” of articles, required a little shifting around of articles. So that the order of them might have some logical sense. This is gathering momentum, now.

The way of the Write

This week has been seeing several devotions sent off to the same publisher, which is a record of a sort, but seeing one I did a month ago rejected by the same publisher. However, two weeks ago, one was accepted for publication–by the same publisher. That is the way of things. The way of the Write. At least this time. And two of the ones I sent were recovered from the rubbish bin, which was pleasing to see they didn’t come to waste.