How can a writer let humanity flow in their stories? How does a writer share the human touch that the readers need? If people are not relating to you humanly, there may be something missing in the relationship for them. Therefore, the “human side” rather naturally flows including when one is only using words in writing. For me, what is natural in some writings is being real and transparent. Being human is being real to the core (not having to say that all the time). Ideally, I am not pretending to be human for the sake of getting published (it won’t work and the editor will notice), but to be honest, while sharing those relatable human traits (liking coffee at 7AM) that make the reader relate while the emotional pull makes them empathize with somebody real.
Paying attention to my writing, reviewing it, is essential to identifying a misplaced emphasis.
Reviews are written forms of communication so a reviewer needs to communicate. A reviewer needs to write clearly to get a point across. A reviewer of films, stage, and music, and stuff like that, and books and all that kind of thing, really has to commit to an opinion of a work to get their point across. Why? It’s clear. Following one point through to the end makes for transparent writing. The reader understands the point of view easily. For years, I lacked the decision-making power to commit to an opinion and express that. My voice came through, but not my point of view. I expressed or described my impressions of a film, but not really articulate a point of view clearly. But, I believe, coming down on one side can make for the better writing. And one must be believable with their point of view. Does it ring true? Does the writer believe in it? So, conviction in one’s view is of the essence and the reader should know if it sounds authentic.
Getting dropped as a writer requires emotional maturity to accept. Cut to the emotionally distraught writer in the throes of accepting being dropped.
The pace that I write seems to be a matter of “self-image” dare I call it the New Age. In other words, I mean, that I see myself as I write; not New Age at all. I am seeing myself, quite unnicely I might add, in light of how fast or slow I write. If I write fast, I feel I have good “self-image”. If I write slow, I feel like I have a poor “self-image”. Of course, that is a generalization and I write at the pace that flows at the time and that depends on how much thinking I must do. Whether fast or slow, what does “self-image” matter when I am writing? And at the pace the suits me at the time. What does it really matter?