Writing. Is it what we do, or what we are?

I would have to argue that writing is what we are, more than what we do. Fish swim. Writers write, perhaps?

As One of the best Irish writers of the last century, George Bernard Shaw, said on writing: "Writing was as natural to me as the taste of water in my mouth."

A question that I have been asked several times is: "How do you find so many things to write about?"

There are many ways to find ideas for articles. In my articles that I will publish here over the next weeks, months and years, it will be my aim to share some of these ideas with you. Please refer back to the article on Be That Writer listing a variety of ideas for article. I do not intend for you to slavishly copy these. I hope they will act as a catalyst for dozens of different ideas of your own.

I will also share new developments with you and websites that I feel will be of interest and of use to you in your future writing.

Incidentally, should we write about things we care about? Of course! Else why would we want to write?

But how should we write about things we care about deeply, are very passionate about? As dispassionately as possible.

Why? Because of we care so very passionately about something, we must not risk wrecking our chance to communicate what we care deeply about.

Some years ago, there was a film maker / director. A writer in a film magazine praised the director because he was so committed and involved in the subjects that he was filming.

How could this author tell? Because he used a small, hand-held camera and, when he was filming something that especially  upset him, the audience could tell. How so? Because his hands shook so much that sometimes it was not really possible to see what he was filming, properly.

Let's pause at that point and analyse what was written.

The author of the article thought that the shaking camera showed how committed the film maker had been to his subjects.

My view of this is radically different. It is my belief  the film maker actually showed scant regard for the subjects and the people he was filming.

If he was shaking so much that he could not control the camera, how was that showing regard for the subject matter?

His shaking detracted from the subject, although it did make some people hold him in higher regard. "Look at me! Look at how passionate I am. Am I not wonderful?"

In a word, No. He was not.

Why am I mentioning this? Because it is easy to fall into the writers version of this trap. Tendency to overwrite, to try to build something up that does not need building up, to exploit the story of someone for the greater good, whatever that might be!

We need to be dispassionate in our final copy. Why? Because if we are not, we risk allowing our passion for the subject to destroy it.

And if we do not make our writing readable, we run the very real risk of being self-serving, writing for our own selves. This might make us feel better but does little or nothing to help anyone else.