I envision two extremes of writing approaches to a topic:
- A composition rigorously researched, abundantly cited, (often) dry, devoid of true personality and otherwise sterile.
- A composition fully manifested from Imagination’s confines, reinforced with knowledge you’ve already assimilated, the remainder following first-principle reasoning.
Most non-fiction writings I encounter in the broad domain of blogs, essays and publications, regretfully closer resemble #1.
These days, I’ve not much interest nor the motivation to produce entirely neutral, well-cited, academic content. If anything comes off as such, it was probably not by design and not something over which I bask in pride.
Most of all, heavily inclined #1 style of writing I don’t find sustainable long-term: not for pleasurable, self-gratifying writing or blogging:
- It demands far extra labor.
- I lose confidence and feel not quiet myself.
- Character and rhetoric suffer.
Granted, I’ve encountered writings full of solid academic groundwork, character and non-sterile humour. But these are rare cases.
Thus I generalize. To reemphasize, no composition necessarily caters to one of the two extremes, but usually some linear combination.
Yet all considered, I feel vastly more motivated by the freedom of #2 even at a sacrifice of some academic authority.
Thus I’ve occasionally been criticised for not citing enough research. I’m not terribly concerned. That’s mostly not the sort of content I pursue.
For rigorous #1 style of writing, there’s already Wikipedia. Number 2 feels creatively more rewarding.
If there’s an element of creative freedom that violates certain empirical evidence or the stocks of scientific method, so be it.
Questions, comments? Connect.