writing
lately i’ve become even more sensitive to what a guy at wikipedia the other day called “peacock writing”. i’ll go to some sites now that sell themselves as among the high-brow elite (hint: think the ridiculously named higher education), and i just laugh. so infantile, that hack style with its preset phrases. makes me wonder if some of the elderly-phrase-jukebox operators ever read their “output”. hey, fuckers, some of us are onto you! you sound like dilberts.
how often are they saying anything worth the words? their regular output is built on predictable melodies made mostly for their ears. turns of phrase. fuck ‘em. probably the only guy i know who can regularly kick in the erudite shit full blast and not sound like an ass is chris manion (formerly LRC blog). there’s a man who sports a phrase old school — so old school that your ears aren’t lulled into instant tune-out.
i review orwell’s classic on language at least once a year — not in full agreement, but with thanks for the asskicking. overused words and phrases get spotlighted for the kill at banned for life. i don’t always agree with that either, but removing bad writing habits is a chip by chip gig. sometimes when i’m flying over the keyboard i go back and find 5 or 6 jackass turns in a single piece. it’s tough. i never get them all.
why this rant? after hours of editing an article at wikipedia last night, stripping away junk while still trying to be polite to the previous writers, i go in today and find that new peacock shit has been added around the parts i edited. painful for me, because i’m getting quick to see the same horrible writing that was coming from my fingers just a few years ago. what do you do? i’m just going to leave it, i guess, and hope that somebody axes the new stuff after the writer’s forgotten about it. if you let a poor wikipedia edit sit for a few days, it’ll probably get fixed by somebody else, or at least your chances of clashing with a fresh ego are low enough to make it worth trying to repair.
but what a great site for exercising your writing. reminds me of when i used to teach bass, an instrument on which i’m capable but not much of a flashy bastard. no matter the skill of the student, teaching kept me on my toes so hard that it was the pinnacle of my bass skill. i’m seeing the same thing from hanging at wikipedia and analyzing almost as much as i write. maybe one day i’ll be able to sit down at the keyboard like i hear murray rothbard used to, tapping out first drafts that go to press.
May 7th, 2005 at 15:49
Thanks for linking to that Banned for Life site. Looks like an interesting site that’ll provide some food for thought for writers. (uh oh, should “food for thought” be on the list?)
May 7th, 2005 at 16:35
Eep. I’m afraid to look at that site … too painful to contemplate the horrors I’ll discover, in addition to the ones I already know of.
May 7th, 2005 at 19:53
freeman, i went to that site again after your comment. got me thinking about probably my worst language problem: hyperbole. writers tend to blame that on trends, but it’s possible to restrain your writing despite the culture. i think most readers tune up fairly quickly to a writer’s range of expression. when i’ve consciously held back for a post or an article, i’ve found it often has more power than excess.
c’mon, sunni. go there. it’ll be fun!
May 8th, 2005 at 20:05
I did visit; didn’t have much time to explore in depth, but it does look worthwhile. And it’s already gotten me thinking more about how I write, which can only improve my abilities.