A few entries back I’ve surpassed the five-hundred mark. Most posted over a concentrated six-year period.
Perusing much of the earlier material, I began to identify remarkable variance in the earlier and later styles. Though you’d not consider six years a too long of a period. Or no?
Supporting arguments are not wanting. One, the sheer volume fosters a sense of auto-development. Two, the reading canon can heavily influence the writing if practiced in high volume.
And my reading has undergone drastic evolution over these past three-four years: 1) an ampler scope of time periods and styles; 2) the incorporation of poetry and drama. Heck, a fifth of my posts have concerned literature. That speaks for itself.
Several years back I would have alluded to the Okkam’s Razor. Not merely Okkam’s Razor, but Okkam’s Razor, to appear more refined! And maybe that’s proper.
Which leads to my next point. Much of the earlier tended more towards guru writing: guides, stoic practices, habit adaptation, vicissitude mitigation, etc. Substantially, I stand behind all. I haven’t really encountered anything of too questionable a presumption. I’ve addressed fascinating topics.
But stylistically, I’d sooner not pose myself as that guru, even if in certain domains, however narrow, I might have acquired enough to dare wield that tone. Less preaching.
I rather view myself as an independent practitioner with an amplitude to share. Michel Montaigne maintained this authority-modesty balance so splendidly. I used to appeal to his essays in quiet a bit of earlier writings. Rereading the relevant posts, I’m fascinated with the rediscoveries.
And though still not read the entirety of his three volumes (having become increasingly sensitive and critical of the translation paradigm, though I might now dare read in the original), I’d read a substantial amount. And the devulging of all those extensive notes captured still remains an unrealized milestone.
There’s that. Then I’d been too verbose, this property of slight annoyance even to my own perusal. I’d emphasized more terms and fragments than warranted. Likewise, far more hyperlink referencing and cross-referencing than strictly necessary.
All of that has a place. And perhaps that’s the style I felt more attuned with back then, closer in time to my academic background, which I also greater leveraged in writing. But now I entertain ulterior influences and parameters.
Experiencing the urge for stylistic revision of older material, I face a dilemma: would I not eradicate bits of history? Is the evolution not part of the chronicle I likewise don’t wish to heedlessly sacrifice? So far I’ve largely taken to the conservative and left as is.
Plus I quiet enjoy the nature of this development. At one point I’d have addressed a topic of computability as a means of abstracting phenomena. I’d have written with the customarily verbose rigour, or as close to one as I’d fain muster under the informal veil of this site.
Today I’d sooner fashion an ultra-terse symbolic poem to communicate the same, the two approaches naturally opposing extremes.
Today I don’t nearly care for the complete sentence or the same adherence to grammar. For I don’t consider much of what I write strictly essays, but that and a melange of chronicling, journaling, poetic expression, prose fiction.
One factor remains invariant: the scarcity of visuals. And there I’m hardly resentful. Don’t want them. Don’t need them.
Questions, comments? Connect.