requilary of misc.

i've a few moleskines that are filled with writing that is necessarily of a different sort than any writing through a screen. typing is faster than dragging pen on paper, and computer aided rewriting need not involve the literal rewriting of entire passages. i wonder whether the freedom to restructure/ammend/remove sentences makes for language that's a bit too deliberate? rereading the moleskine stuff is embarrassing, but it's somehow easier for me to fall into and follow a groove when i'm unable to easily fix flaws. pen and paper don't allow my perfectionist whims (i have them, if you'll believe it!) to steer the writing into too-muchery. i don't know enough about literary theory to speak to how [potential] audience effects a writer's work... in my own case, i usually write to hash out problems and ideas in an insular, "even i don't have to read this" kind of way.

i was way too anal in my previous blog, probably because i knew the work was going to be public. though, that blog failed for a number of reasons, well beyond the specter of the reader. i thought that the constraints of focusing on one thing would help me better understand that thing. for what four posts are worth, 'an informed year' did force me to digest the economist differently than when i was reading it for its own sake. honestly though, knowing that i was supposed to consistently have something to say about so narrow a subject matter was enough to turn me off the project. for better or for worse, i may have to resign to being an intellectual generalist.

god, is it annoying to read writing about writing? ffffuuuuuuuck, now i'm writing about writing about writing!