by Larry Brody
NOTE FROM LB: I often get inquiries about the creative process and these days all too often do my best not to respond to them because I find the situation so complicated that I end up tripping all over the words I’m trying to use.
Last weekend, however, I ran across the following never-before-published blog post. I wrote it with the best of intentions, but after it was finished, a quick read left me dismayed.
The piece simply didn’t work for me. There were three reasons I felt this way. LB the Editor still feels this way, but LB the Writer still resents the rejection, so I’m publishing this here and now and rationalizing it by saying, “Hey, have a look, kids. Here’s how the creative process really works…for yours truly anyway.”
Oh, and if you hang in there all the way to the end, the three reasons for my disappointment in myself await.
Woah! The things you learn when you least expect them.
Today I learned (AKA “TIL” according to a couple of blog commenters I read yesterday), that the word “initialism” exists.
And how did I learn that? Why, by reading HowtoGeek.com, where I found a pretty damn long post (longer than it deserved, that’s for sure) discussing the “proper” use of the letters “FS” in the verbal discourse of English-speaking humans.
As in:
“Initialism?” Huh? What’s that all about?
I could have just LIG (“let it go”) at that, but I was so awed by the use of one word I’d never heard of before to explain another, that I had to google it.
My plan was to have my certainty that “initialism” didn’t exist out there for all to see. But CYBI (“can you believe it?”) I immediately discovered OAST (“one Acme shit ton) of definitions, all PMS (“pretty much saying”) the same thing.
IWROBTWMTPAAOATOTII. Or to put in English that’s a bit older:
“I would rant on, but that would make this post almost as overlong as the one that inspired it.”
Time for ye olde editorial analysis
My three reasons for shitcanning this piece – and, yeah, I’m aware that y’all may find more that I missed:
- Dropping texting acronyms into the same pile as new words created to demarcate new culture and tech was a false equivalent and the result of muddy and illogical thinking.
- It felt rushed and didn’t read nearly as humorously – and perceptively – as it should have.
- The rhythm of the writing, with the words galloping along, took my theme in a direction I’d never intended, resulting in a post that said the opposite of what I’d originally meant. The post above objects to what I’ll call here “new language,” even though I am, in fact, a huge admirer of the way in which language evolves to express new social conditions, new technology, and new culture. To me, this is the ultimate creativity.
Amazing, isn’t it? The things we learn when we least expect them?
“Woah,” indeed!
