The principle behind good writing that is persuasive comes down to being explicitly honest to the tenor of one’s emotions as felt beyond the present tense awareness of what one attempts to convey. Fears put in their proper place supporting truthful unvarnished accounts of surrounding events. Everything that is related in that moment, as completely as the time needed to allow setting down all those needful story elements necessary. A kind of communication that startles empathy driving it into high gear and not resulting in more continual boredom by the useless baggage of harangues in place of facts. A state of being where one might be compelled to closely examine one’s own demons and sort them out. That ability to rise up to fully face the demands of the moment risking failure. And finally, a stamina bolstering a determination not to loose heart in the process by continuing forth to the bitter end.
The awards for such enterprise comes in the manner of being cited as an immediate reference of such a person. Duly noted by those whose judgement counts as a legitimate author who can seamlessly pas by the gate keepers of society.
The fertile field of the human character generally offering the most pliable of clay to those with the ‘iron’ with which to plow into. The various peaks and valleys that one’s inner narrative allows them to create thus arranged chapter by chapter in a well-aligned discrete order of plausible sensibility, offering the reader a structure of familiarity which encourages their comprehension to explore the vagaries that the inscribed characters prepossess. A loosely sketched underlying level of plot established through action that becomes familiar to the reader’s own lifetime of experience. One that only a few literary innovators have been able to command in their art and get away with. And still maintain official their standing in that Valhalla of timeless eternal classics. Investigating these type of careers you often finds the scent of their own internal biography within the different passages. Histories embroidered through little stories that are inevitably self-referential. If you haven’t lived it, then how could one make it up?
If one can rise above their own egoistic desires and set these impulsive forces free then what has one to genuinely offer? Something that seemingly cannot be done without suffering a constant threat of unexpectedly losing all context and feelings along the way. To tirelessly face this battle, perhaps then, both present and ever fading tidbits of the past then seem clear.
Pamela Pawlak and I met in the after hours class of a high school elective named ‘art club’. She being a smaller feisty very talented oil painter and devotee of folk music. And I, ever naive and tentative in my attentiveness to girls of my own age soon easily captivated by her presence. This initial attraction by her, in hindsight, coming in the form of brief but universal acclaim in that sphere for a wall sized work completed on cheap butcher paper with tempera. The theme celebrating our state’s sesquicentennial incorporation. A water based pigment anomaly loosely styled after the eclectic works of one Thomas Hart Benton. Much to my own surprise, a work that was featured upon the back pages throughout the region in newsprint one slow news day by the venerable Chicago Tribune. An irony all around in providing a useful specter of unresolved emotions for indifferent maidens and fickle future success.
Starting off any sort of explanation to an audience, be it a group or simply just a single individual requires developing some sense of commonality of experience. One that both parties can initially agree upon comfortably without question. Something that provides a mutual respect for the speaker’s abilities applied to an audience who is willing to try to properly comprehend.
Egos aside, the right to hold a ‘talking stick’ generally comes in a manner duly vetted by a supervening authority in line with the most dominant acceptable viewpoint universally held. One that has been carefully honed during one’s formative years by the culture of each of the resepctive participants. What appears to be plainly appreciated as second nature in a rational sense of same can also just as easily be deemed a total anathema by the other. This ‘moat’ must be carefully approached in the spirit of finding and reconciling a mutually agreeable terminology. The needful atmosphere of ‘detente’ which hopefully leading to an honest proffer of ideas that might be seen as common to all.
Unfortunately in our current era of “fifth generation post information age”, a rising global sensibility of universally imposed A.I. technology forcefully foists its overbearing technological prowess over all to interdict that process. Using imperceptible human sounding interdiction’s sanctify their industrially narrowed status quo favoring small elites, any other independent perspective often seems to bounce off an impenetrable sense of unilateral consensus. The process of assimilating alternate ideas so often becomes a battle between the irreconcilable ‘mythos’ implanted through promoting ignorance of other rival ideologies. A challenge that must be addressed before one can move on to sharing their personal perspectives so as to enjoy some small degree of interchange. The degree of awareness of the speaker’s background, as publicly shared, provides a starting point in terms of the degree of authority that the listener affords to them in expressing their views on a specific topic. One that they may dare to offer which might potentially deviate from a commonly held well-indoctrinated narrative. The filter personal experience, quite naturally affects the validity of what the lecturer has in mind to influence his audience. When examined in this sense, one has to some often wonder why they find it important enough to risk the danger of defying commonly held possibly dogmatic perspectives held by ‘all’. Even the popular ones supposedly share by all which support a irrefutable sense of commonly experienced ‘real world’ of physical reality!
This reality leaving these ‘would be pundits’ with a mistaken perception of a communal mentality of what is ‘not’ actually transpiring around them. One that seems impossible to distinguish from their own dismal personal impressions of an un-breachable ongoing PsyOp that daily ‘checkmates’ any other opposing sense of logic.