Thinking twice before publishing

A reader doesn’t know what’s in the heart of the author, but can only tell by what’s put on paper or delivered to the screen. That’s why it’s essential to make sure written communication is transparent and says what it is supposed to. A slight omission here and there may produce the wrong meaning, although the writer has good intentions. Looking back, I know I have done this sometimes, but since I’m more aware of it, I am aiming to make sure my work always says what it’s supposed to.

What will he do next?

The humble writer or artist and filmmaker for that matter, may shy away from publicity or at least attempt to. But, underneath, there may be a liking to the question, what will he do next? Will it be as good or better than the last thing they made? That’s when a writer and artist gets a little inkling they have made it. But what will be next? A widely received disappointment? After the artist has gained acceptance?

Putting away a story

It’s with reluctance that I put away some stories. Something about them just won’t go. It’s not the writing quality, but the sense that there was unfinished business. Something was left undone or unhinged. One can’t go back, of course, but the slight pain one feels is regret. It happens once or twice, on the big stories. But this post is saying: I’m putting it to death and down to experience.

Researching I enjoy

I don’t really enjoy the the kind of journalism one must do in reporting on a real life story of currency. But I like researching things that require time, effort, and don’t depend on timeliness. Like researching the films from 1965, but with a kind of ‘scientific’ aim in mind. I do see, however, that investigative reporting is crucial to an informed society when it’s done well and accurately.


The purpose to write may not be planned, but in their quest, the writer may submit to places they never thought they would. When this happened to me, I was worried that I wouldn’t get paid a greater sum. The publication looked a little obscure and unknown from where I stood. But in the words of a wise old mother, literally giving a piece to someone, that may be discarded by others, is a volunteering kindness.


The surface of my review, written in 2000, looked fine, and sounded good. But then I saw flaws and blemishes and I should have known better. It’s like the coach ironing out any deficiencies in an otherwise acceptable even good performance. On the looks of things, my review appeared good, but looking closer, there were things to improve on. However, I’m forgiven, and can only get better.


Reviewing is a popular genre, many people do it these days because they can, with the availability of the world wide web at their disposal. Back in the day, it was left to a select few. In this climate where one can post a review at leisure, one can write about any kind of film they like, depending on the website’s policy. This is what I did, but mostly I did the recent films. If you’re reasonably serious about doing it properly, it’s a better look to review what’s relevant now in the marketplace. Keep things up to date. As well as review the older stuff. For me, these days is more like a review here or there at leisure…while I sift through the trailers to see what’s worth watching.


In the previous post, I called Dinner at Eight a sheer delight, but I never use the word delightful in everyday speech. A guy I volunteered for once said he never used the word delightful in everyday speech, in response to me reading the word from a script in a segment for a radio show. I actually said the word delightful because I was reading from, not speaking to. For me, the word delightful has its uses in reading from and in writing, but not everyday speaking. One’s formal, the other’s not. One is presentation, the other is relaxed. Both forums, I think, require a difference in approach. One is like acting, the other is natural. These are the mediums we use.

Merely interesting?

When an article is merely interesting. If its my article, I deny it. Because I believe, rightly or wrongly, that articles need to be more than interesting. But there are two types of interesting which sort of makes up for it. A stimulating interesting in that one is always engaged in the article, that while it doesn’t jump off the page or screen, is always stimulating. And a dull interesting, in that the way it’s done isn’t that imaginative, but is always readable.

Goes on and on

Have you ever had the feeling a piece of writing goes on and on, especially in the middle, when it seems the writer is searching for words to fill in space? Words with empty spaces. Hardly inventive and arousing. Less than simulating. Should be overcome with a dose of ‘color’ and factual information to spice things up.

The right word

“States” could have been “suggests”, “odd one out” should have been “unmarried”, “among them” could have been edited out. Some of the minor pitfalls of my early work. Some words I may have used thoughtlessly yet there was a better word that I could have used, to better reflect the meaning and the overused words could have been expunged. The minor pains of my early writing. But carefully measure the text so it better reflects the meaning.