I find myself thinking a lot about styles of writing. I have come across some wonderful artists with the written word in my life. I have come to a realization in my mind there there are two types of really good writers. There are those who can communicate a concept well and there are those who can communicate a concept well - but with passion and emotion. I prefer the later.
I am fond of saying that friend Locke can remove a kidney with the written word - and you don’t know it is gone, but you are saying thank you. Locke communicates, but when he makes an effort, he does it with humour, sharp wit and passion. He writes.
Go and have a look at what Nils wrote. There is passion and emotion and a clear communication of a concept. I am shivering just reading it and remembering my time in the N. Country of NYS where the cold was similar. Consider this phrase that Nils has used:
The cold of a Saskatchewan winter doesn’t rip and tear at you. It’s more subtle, more insidious: it slips under the crack at the bottom of the door; slinks into rooms through light switch covers, microscopic gaps around window frames, and tiny nail holes; and smuggles itself in by clinging to clothing and fur. It creeps in – literally and figuratively - on little cat feet and it scorns the futile efforts of furnace and fire to hold it at bay.
Beautiful.
Now go and have a look at what Cool Girl writes. Funny, honest, emotional and perfectly communicated. Once again, a writer.
Now go and read the commentary of Rukavina. Concepts almost perfectly communicated in clear and concise words - but without passion and emotion. Almost without soul. Not a writer, but a gifted communicator.
I find the contrast interesting. I wonder if the writing style I perceive, in any way, reflects the personality of the writer.
05 Mar 2005 at 12:23 pm | #
I thought I had mislaid that stick of mine. I see you picked it up.
05 Mar 2005 at 01:11 pm | #
05 Mar 2005 at 02:43 pm | #
I read and read hoping to come upon your opinion on our Al’s ramblings. HB...you have disappointed me. I mean...after yesterdays comments you must have an opinion somewhere.
05 Mar 2005 at 02:51 pm | #
Jean, when Al and I go at it publicly, it is more sport that anything else. We do tend to get carried away and I suspect it is great for us both to keep the blood flowing. We have far more lucid conversations off in the corner where no one is watching.
Al site is one of my must reads and reflects the man I know. Interested in everything, interesting and exhibits a child-like enthusiasm in many directions. All with a degree of humility
It helps get my brain cells awake in the morning - much like a cryptogram as I struggle to figure out wadafukdidhejussay.
Are you blushing Al?
05 Mar 2005 at 03:46 pm | #
I’m flattered, first of all.
I agree that passion is an integral part of anything I find interesting to read. I do think you underestimate the passion in Ruk’s writings - it’s understated and quiet, like the man himself, but the passion is there and if it weren’t, I don’t think so many folks would drop by.
And finally ... once I’ve read enough of what people write, I find I’m rarely surprised by their personalities when I meet them face to face. One of the criticisms of blogs and other forms of internet communication is that “you can’t tell what people are really like by just reading their words on a screen”. Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. Body language, tone of voice, all those other factors can illuminate - but they can also obfuscate.
05 Mar 2005 at 03:47 pm | #
No - but I am writing you an email like the emails we write at the same time we are publicly giving each other kicks in the shins. It is all a good game of chess.
05 Mar 2005 at 05:59 pm | #
Yuz guys should be in politics. Saying one thing for the public and at the same time emailing each other with your “watch them take the bait” taunts. Shame, shame.
I think I will go take a shower...I feel used.
05 Mar 2005 at 06:12 pm | #
NoNoNo..what we say in the light of day we believe - we just sometimes get a little carried away. I love to debate Al - and usually, in the debate, one of us will sway a bit in another direction. What might be deemed a little insincere, is the vigor with which we might take shots. The premise of disagreement is real - and of course, I am always right (but humble in my rightness). The discussions in the corner usually go along the lines of “just so you don’t think I am nuts” - or “jeeze, not sure what pissed you off.”
When you sense I am sizzling at something Al said, you are right - I am. I am also enjoying it. When you sense that Al is frustrated with my single mindedness at times, you sense is correct I am also enjoying his frustration which I will feed at every opportunity.
He can’t help it if he is wrong most of the time.
05 Mar 2005 at 06:52 pm | #
Imagine. I have been exposed as not an evil half-bake. How disappointing for you all;-)
Sadly, I have to agree with Craig...again. But the point is important. Through the play of the disagreement on points you do not necessarily hold was deeply as you state, you can expose to yourself implications of the ideas which you would not have thought of. It is a game of ideas that ought to be the stuff of a discussion based medium as blogs but sadly which are not. Ideas have to stand on their own and you cannot fall in love with them. - even if you thought of them. They do not in themselves love you. Using the recent example, that is why I respect Rob more than Ruk in one way. Rob puts himself on the table and says what do you make of me. He exposes himself and his thoughts to judgement. Ruk is more the regular form of a blogger - an idea is placed on the table to be seen as pre-gilded and critically reviewed only at risk of personal offense. This is the regular blog in the way that it is how Boing Boing works, how Deans World works. It is a weakness with blogging as it is actually anti-debate therefore anti-thought.