Prelude to Intentionality

As of late I have had the desire, and even received encouragement, to start writing again. Along with that desire I get some sense that it might fulfill my function in some twisted Aristotelian sense. I'm not expecting to attain Eudaimonia or ultimate happiness through writing. But, in the very least, it may help make sense of the thoughts that are my own alone. In the same vein, if one is going to decide to write, he must decide to write well. But what is it to write well?

I've heard it said that someone who writes well is able to communicate effectively what they are thinking. But effective translation from mind to pen to paper cannot be sufficient to qualify one as a good writer. If writing is merely the communication of thoughts, there has to be an assumption that the thought is worth writing. Not all thoughts are worth writing. I have many of these.

I have always wanted to write beautifully--more than the transposing my idle speculation. I've heard of how Alfred Tennyson would carefully study the way words sound in the ear. The care is reflected in his poetry, with 'equal temper of heroic hearts'. It sings and flows. It rings and sows. A good writer communicates the thought that he has but does so in a way that connects with the mind of the reader, not merely tending to his own conception. It's amusing to manipulate words, twist syntax, generate multiple meanings through ironic terms. It's vindicating to look at a word and perceive a meaning beyond what most attain through continued contemplation--as though looking at a radically different reality derived purely from the letters on a page. But let me be clear on this point. I don't play with words. Words play with me. My hope in these types of endeavors is that the written word plays with the ear of the reader, teasing the mind to further ideas 'roaming with a hungry heart'.

It is redundant to say that it is fun to play with words. For if it were not fun then it would not be playing in the first place. It would be something else entirely. Skilled writers play with words in the cleverest ways. When the concepts of a pun reconcile themselves with the reader, like a sight unseen, they introduce new possibilities. Yet if the thought too shocking the point is missed and the semantic brilliance forgotten though it was never really known. But most writers are sadists. For they still gain satisfaction in turning a phrase that is not received by the reader. Though the goal of writing is not to shoot over the head of the reader, it still may be a perk. And yet this intention is not entirely evil. For if the reader studies and strives he may surmise the greater glory of reconciling a deeper meaning to the text.

The other day, I explained the etymology of the phrase 'non sequitur' to a coworker and how her reasoning in this given instance was not entirely valid. She responded that I was a genius. I didn't follow.

It's the thought that counts, some say. That's mostly true. I have my own thoughts on thoughts. Some count for much. Some don't. I suggest it's the reconciliation that matters--how the thoughts, communicated through words, resonate with the intellect of the reader. What thought should I try to reconcile with whoever reads my writing?  I asked myself the question tonight and decided that I should write on writing. I have an inclination towards writing ironically. What do I write about? My intent is to eventually write about aboutness. To do so would be doubly ironic. It's ironic to say something about aboutness. To critique how a set of cultural values are about aboutness takes the irony to another level. I get the feeling that irony continues on always, incapable of meeting a definitive end. It continues to reconcile itself with the mind until the mind can reconcile no more.

A writer works with an audience mind, considering how his words will be received--to open eyes and ears or to the flames. The written word has the ability to impact, whether they are nailed to the Senate door or read quietly by the homely hearth. A great writer takes care to consider the impact on his audience. In this day and age considering the response would really be counter-cultural. We live in a time that aims to empower a man to more than rugged individualism. The individual is the 'captain of his soul', the author of his destiny, and master of his fate. This is radical individualism. The individual presents himself to the world, take it or leave it, unbending in purpose and disposition. It is left to the world to respond and change to meet the needs of the individual. It is the same attitude that motivates a voter to choose the candidate that is best for his own livelihood over the candidate that is best for the livelihood of the polity.

Not that I expect this piece to equal 'being the words of Marcus Tullius Cicero'. But I expect that if I desire to write well, I should write for the benefit of an audience. I could look back at former writings and essays and see how I adopted a disposition that aimed to shock the reader. Yet it wouldn't be right to be purely consequentialist in choosing content and presenting ideas. Else I would truly write to create the greatest stir possible, and call that quality. I'm not sure what an ethical writing would look like apart from being about ethics. I suppose a piece of writing could be good in itself, inasmuch as a person, action or virtue has the potential to be good. But then it gets exposed to whatever ethical system is evaluating it. As such, whether or not its 'goodness' becomes entirely changeable. Whether or not a piece is good should be absolute and constant. The content does not change, only the mind of the reader viewing it. If an essay is to be evaluated for the qualities that makes it good, it has to be evaluated within the appropriate conceptual framework of writing. As such, what makes it good is not the audience viewing it, but the syntax and composition within. Sure, a writer creates for his audience and has an impact. Perhaps the only way to have an impact of a consistent tone is to compose the writing in such a way, that from within it is impeccable and from without it is inspiring. I want to write in such a way that my reader is impacted for his benefit, be it beautiful and harmonious or potent and revolutionary. I can do better than what I have done. I can do better than this.