I think the world suffers more when bad writers do not write than when they do.
What about you?
Eclectic antics & observations on design, writing and demolishing the status quo
Me
Followers
Dan's Stuff
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(327)
-
▼
May
(32)
- Learning Dutch!
- Another Thought On The Future
- Methanococcus Jannaschii & other Black Swans
- The Future (from the Past)
- Agent Search, Part II
- Agent Search
- Bad Writers
- Simplicity Cycle on iPaper
- iPaper
- CASH$LAND Update!
- Worst. Billboard. Ever.
- The Future
- Danger - Gators!
- Isn't This What We're All Looking For?
- Reflections, Part 1
- May Garden Shot!
- Eugenics
- Cop On Segway
- Presidential Oratory
- On The Road Again
- Dandelions, part II
- Mutant Monster Dandelion!
- FIST Handbook Done!
- Wrong Way! Wrong Way!
- Two copies...
- The Internet Archive
- Understanding Imperfectionism
- Desktops @ Starbucks
- Reading Chesterton in Iraq
- The FIST Handbook
- New Blog Direction?
- Back Up Your Files!
-
▼
May
(32)
Photos
4 comments:
i thinks you is quite possibly kurect.
seriously, huh?
what? :)
hmmmm...
I think the amount of suffering is more closely related to the reading of bad writing than the writing of bad writing.
For i=1 to 5
[speed=fast]
Who would read what a bad writer writes if a bad writer writes really bad?
Next i
I'm probably being too oblique - sorry!
What I was trying to say is something like this: stifling the creative impulse is generally a bad idea. Doing so just because the outcome is "bad writing" (or bad drawing or bad music, etc) is terrible, because bad writing can be rewritten and become good writing, but stifled writing doesn't have that opportunity.
I think people should give voice to their creative impulses, even if the end result is never going to win any awards.
However, I didn't say they have to share, publish or otherwise distribute their bad writing. Reading that stuff can indeed induce suffering. :)
Post a Comment