If you haven’t noticed, which I’m sure you have, everything‘s become computerized. But as a lesson in writer’s ABC, as a writer, you can’t say everything. That’s what they will tell you and it’s right.Continue reading “A bit of ABC”
Sometimes, slight sense of irony in a sentence can add color to what would be a pedestrian line of writing and irony can brighten an otherwise flawed expression. It’s simply about the “art of writing” when one observes art in a piece that seems flawed.
Art of writing may be fused throughout the whole, ordinary, unexceptional flawed piece, to give it an air of mystery and aloofness. It is flawed prose in one sense, but how the piece is structured or designed gives an illusion of art through each line. How one does this is tweaking; in sum, making it sound interesting.
Styles can cross over into a hybrid style. It’s not only science that has hybrids. It’s languages as well. In my case, the English language, as a writer of English. I have lamented about some elements of my “Later style” and celebrated the style of the “Early” days, but when coming to the present day style, I’ve noticed it’s really a hybrid style. I’m recapturing again the early style, but the “Later style” has left traces as well. It’s about consciously applying the early style, but I still instinctively paint in the “Later style” as that is what I have been doing for about twenty years.
Writing can be an instinctual process. Sometimes, I may not be thinking too much about what gets put down on paper or how my words are looking on the computer screen. The writing can get ahead of me.Continue reading “Watch your language”
“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.
It’s the little things in articles that appear to show that the author or writer is really human amidst a mix of words.Continue reading “Being human”
I’ve heard it said that it’s better not to use cliches in one’s writing and it’s better to say it a more imaginative, colorful way. Eschewing that rule, I used two cliches in a 200-word article I wrote some years ago and I didn’t mind.Continue reading “Cliche or inventive?”
I don’t know, but why would one put a capital letter on a word that doesn’t need it? I’ve been told to never put a capital on a word within the sentence that does not require a capital.
Most words within a sentence are lower case and the capital comes at the beginning. So, why would one put a capital on a word that doesn’t need it? Unless it truly does?Continue reading “Mistakes happen”
An editor has the ability to put a rough edge in a sentence into context, so it sounds just right.Continue reading “Language matters”
There are writings out there that won’t give us the extremely hard words, but rather throw out the more difficult ones. And when these words do crop up in all sorts of writings, the repetitive nature of seeing and hearing them again and again makes me remember them. So I know what they sound like, what they look like, and how to spell them. This is no trick, it’s just the way it is, and I think it may work for others like this as well. And if I don’t know the meaning, I will endeavor to look it up.
Does a word or string of words catch on more colorfully when sung by someone than reading them in the quiet of one’s soul?Continue reading “The colours in song and verse”
It’s really a hassle to pause reading a book and look up the meaning of a word one doesn’t understand. But I’ve done that as you probably have, too.Continue reading “What does one do with words one doesn’t understand?”
I guess there can be many words that describe what one is thinking or that describe the image in one’s mind. But the word I used today was just right to describe the image in my mind.
The word I used was “astounding” which means ‘surprisingly impressive or notable’. The meaning fitted the image in my mind, so I used the word.
However, I didn’t have to use astounding in my writing. Could have extended the sentence out so readers can get what I mean with more words. Like saying, “This is surprising. I never expected it to be as impressive as it turned out. Just astounding.”
Hey, I may use that instead.
If one can stumble on writing with the music of language as one’s friend, one has an ally in writing. For the music of language plays like a piece of music in a piece of writing. How one gets to play music through writing may be a mystery. For some it comes natural. If one can play music when one writes, one has a wonderful thing. When one knows one writes with the music of language, one can hone and work on it to one’s satisfaction, and play beautiful music when one writes.
There are so many words to learn that randomly pass through, I’m left catching up with the words I should get to know.
A good word is hard to find. Well, at least, if the contenders for word of the day are temptress, sadomasochist, glacial and precarious. Temptress and sadomasochist have all those dodgy connotations and they sound horrible. Glacial and precarious fare better, but are kind of dull sounding words that lack spark and imagination, a bit pedestrian and straightforward, and that need a context to lighten them up. Which is what a context did for those words. As for the other two, well they stand out for all the wrong reasons, with a context or without a context. Therefore, as I came across those words in my reading, it was a dull and dirty day at the office with a little compensation that the duller words fared better. But the word of the day is “sarf” which wasn’t in my dictionary, I will have to look it up on google, but it sounds cool.
Sometimes, one’s internal reality doesn’t have the words. But there are words for it.
I went along with my internal reality on some topic but without the words to describe it. It was this and that, but none of it seemed to fit. Until I cottoned onto it. By describing it with the right word, I understood what was happening inside myself. I defined it.
The word I used was powerful because it was the right word to use to describe the reality going on inside me. It all clicked. It was all right.
So, words aren’t empty, carry-less vehicles of expression. The correct words described reality perfectly.
As I was reading the book of the prophet Ezekiel, I came to verse 34 of chapter 27. There was the word “foundered”.
The sentence around the word makes the word pretty easy to understand.
The sentence is, “Your cargo and your crew have foundered with you.” In other words, they’ve gone down.
When I looked up the meaning of foundered, the first two dictionary definitions applied.
First, foundered means ‘fill with water and sink’. ‘Fill with water and sink’ is precisely the obvious meaning.
Second, foundered means: (of plan) fail. The failure of a plan is exactly the right theme.
It’s wonderful that foundered means precisely what it means. A word chosen carefully and artfully at just the right moment and which does not contradict the context.
Reading is a writer’s handbook, for the ways words are written are the ways the writer can write, templates for pieces, spices for the writing life. Then one knows the ways of writing that can be done, but one settles in to one’s style, and then their work is done.
The word repudiate means to deny, refuse to recognize.
On the news, repudiating often comes in the context of politics and goes like this.
A politician is on the defensive when asked about some controversial matter. “I repudiate that!” the politician says. No, it’s more like, “No comment” or “I deny that.”
The media seems to love politicians using repudiate in terms of “I deny that” or “I refute that”. But no politician actually says “I repudiate that!”. It is too much of a mouth full.
Why is repudiate even in the English language if most people refuse to use it? I think repudiate is mainly used by lawyers in their defense of a client. “He repudiates that!”
But there was a guy I saw on television who used it when being asked by a reporter, “Do you accept the charges against you?”
He said quietly, “I repudiate the charges.”
His comment went viral. Repudiate became a sensation for fifteen minutes. Its fifteen minutes of fame. That’s because hardly no one used the word, but he did.
I guess people still love that underused word very much. Repudiate has that exotic appeal in the right context.