Understanding the nuances of the language

A way to be understood if someone cannot distinguish your speech. Say one is asking another person what spread she wants on her toast. One may say, “Do you want cheese?” The other person cannot distinguish the word cheese. They say, “Weeze?” To be understood, the first person says, “The mouse likes cheese.” The other person understands when you bring a context. Everyone knows mice like cheese! “Oh, you said cheese. No, I’ll have peanut butter.”

Imaginatively using irony

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 sketches 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 may be flawed prose in one sense, but how the piece is structured or designed gives an illusion of art through each line.

Cliches are pain, are they not?

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. I didn’t consider them cliches, but still quite inventive and keeping their flavor. But I did reverse their wording, so that “to be or not to be” was “to go or not to go” and “mountains into molehills” became “molehills into mountains”. A twist I quite enjoyed and I’m sure my readers did. Or moaned.

When using language, remember to cross your t’s

An editor has the ability to put a rough edge in a sentence into context, so it sounds just right. Take for example this:

“…looked like costing $150,000 and one year ago when Mr B___ took charge of the project, with much able assistance from technician and friend M__ B____, he knew $150,000 would not arrive on his doorstep.

This is rough for only one reason. I mentioned $150,000 twice, but a careful editor would change that to sound like this:

“looked like costing $150,000 and one year ago when Mr B___ took charge of the project, with much able assistance from technician and friend M__ B____, he knew that price would not arrive on his doorstep.

The editor contextualized the $150,00 figure by referring to it as that price later on, whereas the unedited version had mentioned the $150,000 figure twice in the same sentence. Now, it sounds better, when $150,000 is referred to as that price later on in the sentence. Again, thank you editor.

How should one write poetry?

If I had a choice between listening to a song or reading a poem, I ‘d pick the song over a wordy poem, but I know there are readers of poetry who prefer written poetry to hearing songs. I think any poetry I write these days is fueled by my attraction to music or the sounds of music. So, I’d write like I’m hearing music or hearing a certain sound of music. My poem won’t come out like metered poetry. The sound of music itself is always nutted out by a musician and composer in the writing, much like a poet would design a poem. But, for me, my writing of poems are done by how it might sound, rather than technique. Free verse is more attuned to how I like to do poetry, like I’m writing in unison with the sounds of music, but I may say to anyone that’s it’s good to use technique in writing poetry or to at least know it well enough.