Writing is visceral and deliberate. This thread is a deliberate retread of a deliberate thread made a year and almost two weeks past. Yet this new thread seeks a more visceral approach to the same subject though in a broader cloth. But this is neither this nor that but whatever it is interpreted to be. Although, should anyone ever utter the word context in this thread, they shall be held in contempt and have their complimentary brushes snapped. You are the context. It is your opinion. I seek not to wave nor the wave of hands in the air, rather to distill the abstract, visceral not deliberate.
It isn't impossible not to write. (It's far harder to draw.) It isn't harder not to write than it is to write. It's harder not to think. It's harder not to think in a way that wants to be expressed (but if voice is an art, then not all of us have it). This is not entirely a matter of ego. Writing is an acquired inherent need. It is acquired, not innate. The need to express is innate. The need to write is acquired. How it came to be, I don't know, but...
I love the sight and sound of words, the nuances of rhythm, tone, and flow. I enjoy how they fit together synergetically (or is that synergistically? The difference between obstinacy, obstinance, obstinancy, obstinateness, and obstination?). I enjoy the way words interplay; the way they constrict and liberate the unvoiced mind; the way they transcend dots and dashes, curves and slashes; the way they are the port and home, a house of thoughts; and the way they come to be.
How else to play the ear and mind in ways the same? and exactly the same? No two persons are so alike that they cannot be distinguished.
oh wowza I feel stupid. I overthought it... again. T T How the heck am I supposed to figure out which way I like best? I love art, but can't draw. I love poetry, but I seem to suck at it. I love Writing, but I can't finish anything. I love Music, but my abilities are limited.
Let's see you mold these minds now, you know, seeing as I "deconstructed" them, with an incendiary fudge bomb.
I think he gotcha there strop... one sentence from Gantic could blow two thirds of the minds of the people that use the forums... sadly.
Gantillatory isn't a word because Gantillator isn't a word. -ator(y) suggests an actor (person, animal, machine, etc.) performing an action (Gantillating). Gantillating is not a real word, as Gantillate (and in this sense, -ate being the suffix to a Latinate verb, rather than something such as the office or function of Gantic, in which case it would be Ganticate and not Gantillate.) is not a real word and Gantillare is nowhere close to being a possible Latin word, being that I am Gantic, not Gantius (Ganticus would lead to the eponymous verb being Ganticillare). Of course, all of this is utter nonsense. But one thing remains true. Gantillatory is not a word. Gantillian is a portmanteau of Gantic and and brilliant. Gantesque assumes the quality of elegance in simplification (and the potential [not the word I want to use] assumption that -ic is actually a suffix and the verbal/visual similarity to grotesque is just amusing.) of Ganticesque which can turn out to be a mouthful. (Seriously, two consecutive k sounds are ugly to the ears when it sounds like you're hissing the second one.) However, Ganticesque contains apparently odd English morphology in icesque and seeing as I'm neither a fan of hyphenating that way (being a proud hyphenate) nor Gantiesque (because, that looks even weirder), the word is Gantesque, following in the way of gigantesque (and perhaps Arabesque), with tongue-in-cheek negative connotations associated with its similarity to grotesque.
PeGantic is just ridiculous. First, who is Peg? Second, why should we care about the Peg Antic. Furthermore if one can be pegantic, then if might even be possible to make the leap to pregantic wherein one might as well go all the way to pregnantic. (I am totally onboard for Post-Gantic, because I am a total phenom.)
I do have that unique a username that allows me such freedom just imagine someone saying Stropesque. (Hint: It's a pesky problem.) The only one I can think of with more freedom is Cenere, because that at least doesn't lead to words that look contrived. Ceneresque and Cenerean just sound cool. How cool does the Cenerean Empyrean sound?
oh wowza I feel stupid.
Also, anyone who feels stupid in this thread should feel stupid for feeling stupid and then feel stupid for feeling stupid about feeling stupid, or forget the matter altogether and not feel stupid at all.
Strop does have an obvious way around the problem I have created. One which I will not state, because let's face it, no one wants to enter into discourse on... (ten pages later) It's stupid to feel stupid. Time is better spent trying to understand.
How the heck am I supposed to figure out which way I like best?
Maybe you don't have one preference. I would certainly love to learn and employ brush painting, but it doesn't come to me as easily as words (from an input/output perspective) even though I enjoy the product of that as much as I do enjoy the product of writing. Just because something affects you doesn't mean you would like it or any way better to express yourself, but it certainly opens the door to wanting to learn, wanting to improve in those areas and discover what you feel most comfortable with. Lack of certainty often comes with lack of confidence in one's ability (which may stem from lack of formal training, but I've never taken a writing class and frankly, I just like writing). It's just one of those things you know when you know it.
So in lieu of current discussion, if there was a word or word phrase (made-up or not) to describe the way you express what you express, what would it be and what would it mean?
So in lieu of current discussion, if there was a word or word phrase (made-up or not) to describe the way you express what you express, what would it be and what would it mean?
Articualoom Emocological Randomania. Art in many forms that express emotion on extremely random levels. ta daaaaa.
I think he gotcha there strop... one sentence from Gantic could blow two thirds of the minds of the people that use the forums... sadly.
On the contrary, this state of confusion presents the perfect opportunity for the moulding. Haven't you heard of shock-and-awe, and divide-and-conquer?
One which I will not state, because let's face it, no one wants to enter into discourse on... (ten pages later)
Also, anyone who feels stupid in this thread should feel stupid for feeling stupid and then feel stupid for feeling stupid about feeling stupid, or forget the matter altogether and not feel stupid at all.
Strop does have an obvious way around the problem I have created. One which I will not state, because let's face it, no one wants to enter into discourse on... (ten pages later) It's stupid to feel stupid. Time is better spent trying to understand.
which is why people who come here expect most of the threads to target user in the 12-14 age group whereas here what you've done is isolated the thinkers who think under thinking pretenses that they are on par with what they believe to be something so intensely over complicated that whoever says they understand may not at all but is deemed by their peers to be a genius.
of course feeling stupid about being stupid is again a discourse of its own. it is your "fault" let's just put it, to cram circuitous argument into pre teen minds.
