3 ms·

I'm in the opposite boat. This style nicely mimics how I think. I find the types of fragment in the article align with the boundaries of each unit of thought in

I'm in the opposite boat. This style nicely mimics how I think. I find the types of fragment in the article align with the boundaries of each unit of thought in a manner that quite clearly approximates my internal dialog. I think your examples does a disservice, as your breaks do not follow such rules.

jvanderbot 3y ago
Writing down "How you think" is not good general-audience presentation of information. That's probably Journalling. "Writing" is probably supposed to be general-audience presentation of information. By avoiding all rules of presentation, you invalidate everyone's ability to quickly digest the information. I tried to scan this as I usually do, and was forced to read each excruciating, disjointed, malformed line one by one to get to the point. What a mess.
- itishappy 3y ago
  I do not agree with your definition of writing, nor do I think that was ever the authors intent. Works quite well for me. To each his own, I suppose.
- throwaway626 3y ago
  [dead]
- squirtlebonflow 3y ago
  Disagree entirely.
LegibleCrimson 3y ago
This style mimics how I think, but my thinking is a disorganized mess. Before giving my thoughts to somebody else, I usually consider them, sort them, and put them into a form that is easier for somebody else to understand. Usually, this includes a reread and editing. I agree that this writing style mimics thought. I don't want to read disorganized thoughts, though. It's not a huge issue, because the length of this piece is quite short, but if I were to do several minutes of reading this style of writing, I would find it very exhausting, and I probably wouldn't retain most of it, because the lack of organization inhibits my ability to fully internalize it. Most of my disorganized thoughts that I don't really mull over (ie. thinking the same thoughts repeatedly in different orders, and considering many different aspects of them) or organize into a written form, I also don't retain. I lose them forever. If I was sharing them with somebody else, I don't think I'd keep them in the format that's most easily forgotten. For personal journaling, it's fine enough, but I don't find it really a compelling write-up of the age-old premise "Don't overthink it, just get started. If you overthink it, you might never finish, or might even never really start." It's not really much different from the famous "Shitty First Drafts" paper[0]. [0]: https://wrd.as.uky.edu/sites/default/files/1-Shitty%20First%20Drafts.pdf https://wrd.as.uky.edu/sites/default/files/1-Shitty%20First%...
- ncr100 3y ago
  > my thinking is a disorganized mess Ouch! The expectation that your thinking is encyclopedic in its comprehensiveness and structure is a pretty tall standard to live up to in my opinion. I feel empathy for you.
  - LegibleCrimson 3y ago
    That's not the expectation. The expectation is that everybody's thinking is a stream of thoughts very specific to the person and context. It's not naturally conducive to another person's consumption, or to long-term or comprehensive understanding. My thinking is a disorganized mess because that's the nature of thought in the first place. Your thoughts are everything you are experiencing or considering as you experience or consider them. The vast majority of them are gone within moments after you've thought them, to never be remembered again. The thoughts that stay are the ones that you consider, run over in your head a few times, and have taken the opportunity to organize in your head a bit more. True stream of consciousness is not usually enjoyable to read (and I'll note that this article is not true stream of consciousness, but rather minimally organized thoughts).
    - ncr100 3y ago
      Ahhh, I see where you are coming from. That you have less shame than I thought for yourself when you say "mess". Thanks for clarifying my perception. It looks like instead it's more appropriate to talk about synchronizing with the intention of the author? To back up for a second and provide context, I was keyed up after reading and really focusing in on the parent commenters criticality, mocking and shaming. I perceived it as a judgmental characterization of the author of this piece of story writing guidance. So when I came across your comment I thought you might be beating up on yourself to echo the emotional sentiment of, and to try and build a bridge between the parent commenter and the article writer. I wanted to provide a counterpoint and some support to you. Now I guess that my reaction to the article is different, less about a jarring sensation of discordance where I'm expecting you know organized bulletized conventional grammar explaining some subjects, and recognizing instead a person who's trying to help fiction writers to access their feelings. I see the author chose to do this through a tongue in cheek way of writing whimsical prose using little punctuation and lots of white space.

jvanderbot 3y ago

Writing down "How you think" is not good general-audience presentation of information. That's probably Journalling. "Writing" is probably supposed to be general-audience presentation of information. By avoiding all rules of presentation, you invalidate everyone's ability to quickly digest the information. I tried to scan this as I usually do, and was forced to read each excruciating, disjointed, malformed line one by one to get to the point. What a mess.

itishappy 3y ago
I do not agree with your definition of writing, nor do I think that was ever the authors intent. Works quite well for me. To each his own, I suppose.
throwaway626 3y ago
[dead]
squirtlebonflow 3y ago
Disagree entirely.

LegibleCrimson 3y ago

This style mimics how I think, but my thinking is a disorganized mess. Before giving my thoughts to somebody else, I usually consider them, sort them, and put them into a form that is easier for somebody else to understand. Usually, this includes a reread and editing. I agree that this writing style mimics thought. I don't want to read disorganized thoughts, though. It's not a huge issue, because the length of this piece is quite short, but if I were to do several minutes of reading this style of writing, I would find it very exhausting, and I probably wouldn't retain most of it, because the lack of organization inhibits my ability to fully internalize it. Most of my disorganized thoughts that I don't really mull over (ie. thinking the same thoughts repeatedly in different orders, and considering many different aspects of them) or organize into a written form, I also don't retain. I lose them forever. If I was sharing them with somebody else, I don't think I'd keep them in the format that's most easily forgotten. For personal journaling, it's fine enough, but I don't find it really a compelling write-up of the age-old premise "Don't overthink it, just get started. If you overthink it, you might never finish, or might even never really start." It's not really much different from the famous "Shitty First Drafts" paper[0]. [0]: https://wrd.as.uky.edu/sites/default/files/1-Shitty%20First%20Drafts.pdf https://wrd.as.uky.edu/sites/default/files/1-Shitty%20First%...

ncr100 3y ago
> my thinking is a disorganized mess Ouch! The expectation that your thinking is encyclopedic in its comprehensiveness and structure is a pretty tall standard to live up to in my opinion. I feel empathy for you.
- LegibleCrimson 3y ago
  That's not the expectation. The expectation is that everybody's thinking is a stream of thoughts very specific to the person and context. It's not naturally conducive to another person's consumption, or to long-term or comprehensive understanding. My thinking is a disorganized mess because that's the nature of thought in the first place. Your thoughts are everything you are experiencing or considering as you experience or consider them. The vast majority of them are gone within moments after you've thought them, to never be remembered again. The thoughts that stay are the ones that you consider, run over in your head a few times, and have taken the opportunity to organize in your head a bit more. True stream of consciousness is not usually enjoyable to read (and I'll note that this article is not true stream of consciousness, but rather minimally organized thoughts).
  - ncr100 3y ago
    Ahhh, I see where you are coming from. That you have less shame than I thought for yourself when you say "mess". Thanks for clarifying my perception. It looks like instead it's more appropriate to talk about synchronizing with the intention of the author? To back up for a second and provide context, I was keyed up after reading and really focusing in on the parent commenters criticality, mocking and shaming. I perceived it as a judgmental characterization of the author of this piece of story writing guidance. So when I came across your comment I thought you might be beating up on yourself to echo the emotional sentiment of, and to try and build a bridge between the parent commenter and the article writer. I wanted to provide a counterpoint and some support to you. Now I guess that my reaction to the article is different, less about a jarring sensation of discordance where I'm expecting you know organized bulletized conventional grammar explaining some subjects, and recognizing instead a person who's trying to help fiction writers to access their feelings. I see the author chose to do this through a tongue in cheek way of writing whimsical prose using little punctuation and lots of white space.