Improve Your Writing Part 1: Clarity

[Story_Marc]

There's something I once heard that eats at me from time to time. It went "as knowledge of grammar increases, creativity goes down" or something like that. I pushed back then and this is an even bigger pushback against that. No. It doesn't. Knowledge of such things INCREASES one's ability to be creative. Or at least it does when it stops just being knowledge and becomes understanding. Knowledge is just awareness; understanding is a realization.

Personally, I think we can achieve understanding by being guided by the right person at the right time. So, with that in mind, I explored prose a bit more this week. I've run into plenty who lack clarity because they try too hard to be "literary" and don't grasp why clarity matters, so I feel this is a good starting point for a 5-part series. Here's hoping this can help you out with what you write or make something you're doing a bit more conscious.

Also, if you want to look into the top book that inspired this, you can, though I'll note that it is so overly complex to read at times. So I simplified the language of everything and made it faster while weaving in a bit of knowledge from elsewhere.

 

[SailusGebel]

Bruh.

 

[Story_Marc]

Bruh.

Yes...?

 

[Erios909]

The grand piano in the concert hall, an instrument of immense and gleaming beauty, was eaten with remarkable gusto by zombies, who, not content with their musical feast, proceeded to devour the lavish velvet curtains, their groans harmonizing with the desperate wails of the ill-fated chandelier that was disassembled piece by piece, its crystal pendants scattered across the marble floor, reflecting a macabre dance of moonlight and shadow, all the while, the undead orchestra, in their insatiable hunger, gnawed on the gilt-edged seats, the once hallowed sanctuary of art and culture reduced to a cacophony of relentless chewing and the chilling echo of their undead existence.

 

[SailusGebel]

Yes...?

Change the thread's title before you trigger certain people.

 

[Story_Marc]

Change the thread's title before you trigger certain people.

You should just say things instead of posting one-word responses. But eh, might as well, if only to save myself a headache.

 

[SailusGebel]

You should just say things instead of posting one-word responses. But eh, might as well, if only to save myself a headache.

I wanted to make a joke and my replies were a setup, but this response made it impossible for me to continue. Sorry for doing this.

 

[melchi]

Yagami investigated the case using unique techniques crucial to solving it successful.

I always thought that inferring to stuff is bad. It begs the question: what are these unique techniques?

This one violates Okami's action guidelines something awful.

Writing - [Tutorial] Writing ACTION 1: The Trick to Writing Action Scenes that Work

The Trick to Writing Action Scenes that Work: Action THEN Reaction! The #1 Most Common cause of Confusion in Action sequences...? Putting the Reaction BEFORE the Action. WARNING! This tutorial is NOT meant for those do Creative Writing. This essay was originally written for writers seeking...

forum.scribblehub.com

I know it is not completely required but chaining stuff together like that makes it harder to read. "Defelcting the straight while driving his left fist.." is a parallel action. The reader has to back up a few words to figure it out and it breaks immersion.

Also, each actor should get their own paragraph. Mixing Wynn and diego's actions into each other makes for double jibberish mental movie.

 

[floofylove]

There's something I once heard that eats at me from time to time. It went "as knowledge of grammar increases, creativity goes down" or something like that. I pushed back then and this is an even bigger pushback against that. No. It doesn't. Knowledge of such things INCREASES one's ability to be creative. Or at least it does when it stops just being knowledge and becomes understanding. Knowledge is just awareness; understanding is a realization.

Personally, I think we can achieve understanding by being guided by the right person at the right time. So, with that in mind, I explored prose a bit more this week. I've run into plenty who lack clarity because they try too hard to be "literary" and don't grasp why clarity matters, so I feel this is a good starting point for a 5-part series. Here's hoping this can help you out with what you write or make something you're doing a bit more conscious.

Also, if you want to look into the top book that inspired this, you can, though I'll note that it is so overly complex to read at times. So I simplified the language of everything and made it faster while weaving in a bit of knowledge from elsewhere.

This looks interesting! Very coincidental too--I am about to receive some of my friends' used grammar textbooks to work through because I was looking to improve my grammar and get better at clarity within my own writing.

When I first started writing I always remember thinking that to be a good writer, bigger words = better haha, but now I know that conscious use of more complex words is really to just paint a cleaner and more vivid picture when reading! I'm sure the video will have many good points so I'm for sure going to check it out later!! ^^

 

[Story_Marc]

I always thought that inferring to stuff is bad. It begs the question: what are these unique techniques?

I'd likely lead into that or show if I was actually doing full-on writing for it instead of just writing a quick sentence that provides an example for something unrelated. Were you able to read the sentence with ease? Yes. That's what's important. If you're curious about the rest, that's more what I would expand into if I was writing something much bigger.

Don't worry about seeing things in absolutes where "it must NEVER be done" so much as consider the context. That's why I sat down with things like that with passive sentences. There are even times when nominalization can work out fine (such as in dialogue), but I don't want to comb through every single tiny nuance as that's tiresome and I only have a few days to create these.

At any rate, don't see things as rules, see them as principles. They consistently work, but there are ways to operate outside of them. It's just that often people who try to operate outside of it don't actually know the why behind things begin with, which leads to the issues. The other danger is just becoming so narrow-minded in something that don't see the bigger picture.

All that said, if you do want to know what he does, check out stuff like Judgement and Lost Judgement. Yagami solves some cases with skills like death races, robot fighting, and skateboarding.

This looks interesting! Very coincidental too--I am about to receive some of my friends' used grammar textbooks to work through because I was looking to improve my grammar and get better at clarity within my own writing.

When I first started writing I always remember thinking that to be a good writer, bigger words = better haha, but now I know that conscious use of more complex words is really to just paint a cleaner and more vivid picture when reading! I'm sure the video will have many good points so I'm for sure going to check it out later!! ^^

Got to love timing like that. Hopefully, it does help, even if it is just the foundation for much more. I personally wish to get to the final one in this, cadence, since I've had to bring that up a lot lately.

 

[Sebas_Guzman]

I wanted to make a joke and my replies were a setup, but this response made it impossible for me to continue. Sorry for doing this.

Bruh

 

[Story_Marc]

I always thought that inferring to stuff is bad. It begs the question: what are these unique techniques?View attachment 18397

This one violates Okami's action guidelines something awful.

Writing - [Tutorial] Writing ACTION 1: The Trick to Writing Action Scenes that Work

The Trick to Writing Action Scenes that Work: Action THEN Reaction! The #1 Most Common cause of Confusion in Action sequences...? Putting the Reaction BEFORE the Action. WARNING! This tutorial is NOT meant for those do Creative Writing. This essay was originally written for writers seeking...

forum.scribblehub.com

I know it is not completely required but chaining stuff together like that makes it harder to read. "Defelcting the straight while driving his left fist.." is a parallel action. The reader has to back up a few words to figure it out and it breaks immersion.

Also, each actor should get their own paragraph. Mixing Wynn and diego's actions into each other makes for double jibberish mental movie.

Each action getting its own paragraph actually isn't optimal here. The part on parallelism is 100% intentional as I plan to expand on that in a future one, but I'll add in this lesson on pacing real quick that comes from Action: Writing Better Action Using Cinematic Techniques. I can also grab stuff from the utility of the comma from A Dash of Style, but that's... it's a whole other thing. But anyway...

---

Pacing
Action scene vocabulary is much more than just the words you choose. Pacing is the most important part of writing your scene, and that comes down to a few sneaky techniques that most readers won't even realize you're using. It may sound contrary to logic, but the truth is that readers read longer sentences with multiple clauses faster than short sentences. The reason for this is simple: a reader pauses at the end of every sentence, even just for a fraction of a second. The easiest way to understand this is to read something out loud. Read this entire paragraph out loud. Which parts go slower?

Which go faster?

I'd bet the first part of the preceding paragraph seemed faster, because the longer sentences read faster. The final three sentences slowed the pacing down because they're shorter and you most likely paused after the periods and question marks. When you're writing action, you'll find that a longer sentence is better for describing an action and a shorter sentence is useful for highlighting an important moment in the scene you want to stand out. For example:

Big Jim rounded the corner at full speed, his lungs burning from too many cigarettes. The mobster was pelting down the alley, still clutching his pistol in one hand. The mobster flung a trash can into Big Jim's path, but the police officer hurdled it like he was still in the Academy. The alley turned, and ended in a brick wall. The mobster skidded to a halt, turned, and raised his pistol. Big Jim's pistol came up faster and pulled the trigger. The cylinder went click. Uh oh, thought Jim. No more bullets.

Did you get the sense of frantic motion in the first part of that scene? The longer sentences will feel faster to readers and then the pacing slows dramatically towards the end with those three short sentences at the end. Each one is an important moment, and the short sentence ensures that the reader won't rush through them.

---

So, rolling with that, what did I choose to do there? When I first wrote the sentence, I focused on conveying the speed of everything.

Diego lunged forward, his left fist like a bullet from a gun, but Wynn swept his right forearm like a windshield wiper, deflecting the straight, while driving his left fist into Diego’s upper stomach. A thwack echoed out as his eyes popped wide and air blasted out of his gaping mouth. His knees buckled, but Wynn latched onto his shirt.

I actually wasn't 100% happy with this, but I've kept that copy to show something not perfect for next parts. I did consider the parallelism (you know, a topic I didn't discuss this episode since there are 4 more to come) here myself since I considered it happening at once. I wasn't sure if people's brains could handle portraying that when not being visual, but I also wish to maintain the speed. So, when rewinding to what I had in mind, the desired visual is meant to be a quick lunge, a karate parry, and an immediate follow-up punch in one quick motion. The period is a stop sign that would kill the speed, so I know I can't use that. So what I was messing around with it later to get rid of parallelism would be more akin to...

Diego lunged forward, his left fist like a bullet from a gun, but Wynn swept his right forearm like a windshield wiper, deflecting the straight, then drove his left fist into Diego’s upper stomach. A thwack echoed out as his eyes popped wide and air blasted out of his gaping mouth. His knees buckled, but Wynn latched onto his shirt.

Going behind the scenes, I've actually already enhanced the speed more by dropping the first simile, since I didn't feel it helped things. So in the actual current draft, it reads...

Diego lunged forward, but Wynn swept his right forearm like a windshield wiper, deflecting the straight, and then drove his left fist into Diego's upper stomach.

The second simile I feel is much more worth keeping for the imagery of that martial arts block. That aside, I'm considering dropping the "then" or "and" but I've been too busy with other things to worry about that minutiae at the moment. It's stuff I'll clean when I do a pass when I'm being anal.

Regardless, let's look at your suggestion in action when I split the two sentences.

---

Diego lunged forward, his left fist like a bullet from a gun. Wynn swept his right forearm like a windshield wiper, deflecting the straight, and drove his left fist into Diego's upper stomach.

---

It lacks the same speed of motion and cadence because the period is a stop sign while the comma is a speed bump. Hence why there is more at play than just clarity and it is a starting point.

...While this is totally something I wanted to save more for later, this is fun.

 

[melchi]

IMO, it is sacrificing clarity for cadence. Shouldn't clarity be the #1 priority?

Action then reaction right?
Diego performs an action towards Wynn.
Wynn reacts.
Diego's turn.
Repeat.

I guess I'll just have to disagree. In my experience trying to get a clear message across is difficult. Even when I'm sure it is obvious someone will read it and become confused and not figure it out. Priority should always be: clarity clarity clarity.

When I saw that WIP example, I read it and paused, not understanding. Most readers don't like doing that. Most won't say anything they either ignore it and move on or see it as a speed bump and drop the story.

I dropped two novels this week because they didn't come across as clear. The last one was because of excessive parallelism and mental movies in the action scenes that just didn't work for me.

Main character shoots steam gun at monster.
"Haha, you should become my minion, the world quakes at my power" Evil slug dude said, as he waved his hands around.
Main character shoots lots more.

See how it makes a plot hole?

 

[Story_Marc]

I wanted to make a joke and my replies were a setup, but this response made it impossible for me to continue. Sorry for doing this.

I've just always wondered why you do that when you always go on to add more. I'm admittedly a "cut to the chase" type of person. You do you though.

IMO, it is sacrificing clarity for cadence. Shouldn't clarity be the #1 priority?

Action then reaction right?
Diego performs an action towards Wynn.
Wynn reacts.
Diego's turn.
Repeat.

I guess I'll just have to disagree. In my experience trying to get a clear message across is difficult. Even when I'm sure it is obvious someone will read it and become confused and not figure it out. Priority should always be: clarity clarity clarity.

When I saw that WIP example, I read it and paused, not understanding. Most readers don't like doing that. Most won't say anything they either ignore it and move on or see it as a speed bump and drop the story.

I dropped two novels this week because they didn't come across as clear. The last one was because of excessive parallelism and mental movies in the action scenes that just didn't work for me.

See how it makes a plot hole?

Can you write an exact example showing how you'd portray quick action, so I can see it in concrete terms instead of the abstract? Since I find it hard to understand how [X does action, but Y reacts and follows up] confuses you. Still, I wish to put forth the effort.

So, for example with a concrete example...

The mobster flung a trash can into Big Jim's path, but the police officer hurdled it like he was still in the Academy.

Does that confuse you? If it does, is it because more than one action is happening inside of a single sentence instead of placing a period instead of a comma and but? Or are you more confused by their being more than one motion after an initial action, like, they can only do a single thing and have to wait?

I'll need to understand where you get lost since it's hard for me to comprehend. And not just with an example I put down for the real version, but I mean as a general concept where you get lost if a sentence has more than one action in it if the actor has already been made clear.

While using the real sentence, not the W.I.P. version meant to be fixed as the episodes go on:

Diego lunged forward, but Wynn swept his right forearm like a windshield wiper, deflecting the straight, and then drove his left fist into Diego's upper stomach.

If you get lost in this one, such as with "drove" since it's further away from Wynn's name, how do you end up forgetting? I can see how it might, though I don't think that's all that common for people to get lost. I'd need to experiment since I know you can't please everybody (and so I don't care to), but I also don't like to write off people without truly exploring their worldview.

...And adding something in, as I decided to ask ChatGPT real quick on this, for an analysis. Here's what I got:

---

The sentence is quite clear overall, though it does require some familiarity with physical confrontation or combat terminology to fully understand. There are a few reasons why someone might not get lost in this sentence:

1. Action progression: The sentence describes a clear sequence of events – Diego lunges, Wynn deflects, and then Wynn counterattacks. This progression of action helps the reader follow what's happening.
2. Specific details: The use of specific body parts (right forearm, left fist, upper stomach) and actions (lunged, swept, deflecting, drove) provides clear, vivid imagery of the scene.
3. Comparison: The phrase "like a windshield wiper" serves as a simile that makes Wynn's defensive action more relatable and easier to visualize for readers.

However, there are also reasons why someone might get lost:

1. Assumed knowledge: The sentence assumes a certain level of knowledge about physical confrontations. For example, it uses the term "straight," which in boxing refers to a type of punch. Readers who are not familiar with this term may be confused.
2. Complex sentence structure: The sentence is relatively long and includes several different actions and actors. This complexity could potentially confuse some readers, particularly if they are not used to reading action-packed scenes.

As for whether this is as clear as it can be while maintaining cadence, it's subjective and depends on the target audience. If the audience is familiar with physical confrontations, they may appreciate the specificity and detail. If the audience is less familiar with such scenes, simplifying the language or breaking the sentence into multiple sentences could improve clarity. Here's an example of a simplified version:

"Diego lunged at Wynn. But Wynn responded quickly, using his right forearm to block the attack, sweeping it aside like a windshield wiper. Then, he counterattacked. His left fist plunged into Diego's upper stomach."

This version maintains the core actions and details but breaks them up into shorter, simpler sentences. However, it could be argued that the original sentence has a more fluid, dynamic cadence that better matches the quick pace of a physical confrontation.

So yeah, if we go off of what it says, also factor in your target audience. My preference leans toward the more fluid and dynamic stuff that matches the quick pace of a physical confrontation. That said, I am used to actual combat scenarios, so I should factor in a wider audience appeal while staying true to what I know to be true. I decided to ask ChatGPT how it might simplify things while maintaining the cadence.

Diego lunged, but Wynn deflected with his right arm, swinging it like a windshield wiper, then struck back, driving his left fist into Diego's stomach.

Is that easier for you? Or should I try to simplify even more?

Diego lunged, but Wynn deflected with his right arm, then struck back, driving his left fist into Diego's stomach.

If it's just a complex sentence structure that throws you off though, I'll sadly have to shrug there, due to my preference. After checking with this to make sure I wasn't off

The sentence is less complex than the original, but yes, it could still be challenging for some readers due to its length and the number of actions described. The complexity of understanding can depend on several factors, including a reader's reading level, familiarity with the content, and even their cognitive load at the time of reading.

Even though the revised sentence is simpler, it still includes multiple actions (lunging, deflecting, swinging, striking) involving multiple actors (Diego, Wynn) in a single sentence. This can require more cognitive processing to follow and understand, particularly for readers who struggle with complex sentence structures or are not used to action sequences.

For those who might find this sentence structure difficult, breaking it down further into shorter sentences might be helpful. For example:

"Diego lunged at Wynn. But Wynn was ready. He swung his right arm, deflecting the attack. It was swift, like a windshield wiper. Then, Wynn struck back. His left fist drove into Diego's stomach."

This version breaks down the actions into individual, simpler sentences, making it easier to follow each individual action. However, it does lose some of the fluid, dynamic cadence of the original sentence. The balance between simplicity and fluidity often depends on the specific needs and preferences of the intended audience.

But yeah, the important thing here to understand is you don't have to do any one particular approach. Other ways can work and it literally comes down to the target audience factor. This again comes around to why things are principles, not rules, and this is the true depth of how there isn't a "right" way so much as different ways to apply the same tool to achieve the desired effect. In a case like this, it depends on preference. As I hate that broken-down version due to the lack of fluidity, but I can understand how it might appeal to someone else. And I'm sure I could tinker with it, but I feel it would be a waste of time compared to much bigger, important things.

 

[Envylope]

Thank you for another video. I struggle a lot with clarity. Either I try to oversimplify things or I make it hard to understand. Have you done a video on "repetition"? Repeating certain words or phrases to strengthen an idea?

 

[melchi]

The mobster flung a trash can into Big Jim's path, but the police officer hurdled it like he was still in the Academy.

It looks like there are 3 actors crammed into one sentence.
1.) Big Jim
2.) Mobster
3.) Police officer

Action 1: Mobster
Reaction 1: Police officer (Also, according to the guide I linked switching each character gets their own paragraph)

I'm not sure what Big Jim is doing.

Granted, I don't like run on sentence or comma splices. Splitting it up so each actor gets their own paragraph would be

Diego lunged.
Wynn deflected with his right arm, then struck back, driving his left fist into Diego's stomach.

Not giving Wynn their own paragraph is what makes it confusing. I'm just going off of Okami's guide. She made it from feedback from submitting stories to editors to be published and now that I saw it I find not following the format causes confusion. The sentence is diego's action, but then Wynn's reaction is thrown in the same sentence making it seem like the reaction is coming before the action. Wynn doesn't even get their own sentence.

 

[Story_Marc]

It looks like there are 3 actors crammed into one sentence.
1.) Big Jim
2.) Mobster
3.) Police officer

Action 1: Mobster
Reaction 1: Police officer (Also, according to the guide I linked switching each character gets their own paragraph)

I'm not sure what Big Jim is doing.

Granted, I don't like run on sentence or comma splices. Splitting it up so each actor gets their own paragraph would be


Not giving Wynn their own paragraph is what makes it confusing. I'm just going off of Okami's guide. She made it from feedback from submitting stories to editors to be published and now that I saw it I find not following the format causes confusion. The sentence is diego's action, but then Wynn's reaction is thrown in the same sentence making it seem like the reaction is coming before the action. Wynn doesn't even get their own sentence.

Yeah, seeing this now and factoring everything else in, this is probably you just not working well with complex sentences. Quick aside, run-on sentences and complex sentences are two different things. Regardless, this falls into an "oh well" type of deal for me now that I've investigated. That comes down to a matter of taste and what someone is trying to accomplish.

For instance, going from your example, what you did is fine from the perspective of grammar, but I don't enjoy reading it. It's barebones -- just an order of events. Actually, I decided to mess with Chat GPT again out of some curiosity about what it might say. Here's what I got when it compared the two...

---

There's nothing inherently wrong with this version. It's grammatically correct, clear, and conveys the same sequence of events. However, compared to the original sentence, it might lack some of the dynamism, fluency, and vividness. Here's why:

1. Dynamism: The original sentence describes the action in one flowing movement, which gives a sense of the fast-paced, fluid nature of the fight. By breaking it up into two separate sentences, some of this dynamism might be lost.
2. Fluency: The separate sentences might disrupt the fluidity of the reading experience, creating a slight pause where there wasn't one before. This could potentially affect the reader's immersion in the scene.
3. Vividness: The version you provided omits the simile "like a windshield wiper," which in the original sentence served to make Wynn's defensive action more relatable and easier to visualize for readers.

However, these are subtle differences and whether they matter depends on the author's style and the intended audience. For some readers, especially those who prefer simpler sentence structures or are less familiar with action sequences, this version might be easier to follow and understand.

Holy shit that is useful! But yeah, this is where it helps to recognize preference as opposed to insisting on there being a proper way to do it. It's why I don't care what they said in their guide, I don't follow anybody or anything religiously. When it comes to who to follow, I say follow nobody. Don't follow them. Don't follow me. Don't follow any advice. That's the path of obedience and just blindly applying "rules" without understanding any nuance or complexity. Instead, just take whatever works for you and ditch what doesn't. Like how I'm choosing to shrug it off since I feel sacrificing flow and vividness isn't a worthwhile tradeoff, even if I am taking such things into consideration. We as creatives must calculate such things.

Also, Big Jim is the police officer in the example they provided. He was chasing the mobster. The mobster threw the garbage can back and he, Big Jim, jumped over it. It clicked with me instantly.

If it was my own writing, I'd be way more critical of myself since I'd worry about how well I was communicating. However, after seeing you have the same issue arise with something that isn't mine and seeing how you'd approach the problem, it's easy for me to put my finger on what causes the issue for you. It's way easier for me to understand someone through how they solve stuff than what they criticize.

Thank you for another video. I struggle a lot with clarity. Either I try to oversimplify things or I make it hard to understand. Have you done a video on "repetition"? Repeating certain words or phrases to strengthen an idea?

Not formally yet, but it's something I plan to discuss more in the future. That tends to fall into rhetoric devices. I was actually planning to hit that stuff more after I get these five done since it's where things get way more taste-oriented.

 

[melchi]

Yeah, seeing this now and factoring everything else in, this is probably you just not working well with complex sentences. Quick aside, run-on sentences and complex sentences are two different things. Regardless, this falls into an "oh well" type of deal for me now that I've investigated. That comes down to a matter of taste and what someone is trying to accomplish.

For instance, going from your example, what you did is fine from the perspective of grammar, but I don't enjoy reading it. It's barebones -- just an order of events. Actually, I decided to mess with Chat GPT again out of some curiosity about what it might say. Here's what I got when it compared the two...

---

Holy shit that is useful! But yeah, this is where it helps to recognize preference as opposed to insisting on there being a proper way to do it. It's why I don't care what they said in their guide, I don't follow anybody or anything religiously. When it comes to who to follow, I say follow nobody. Don't follow them. Don't follow me. Don't follow any advice. That's the path of obedience and just blindly applying "rules" without understanding any nuance or complexity. Instead, just take whatever works for you and ditch what doesn't. Like how I'm choosing to shrug it off since I feel sacrificing flow and vividness isn't a worthwhile tradeoff, even if I am taking such things into consideration. We as creatives must calculate such things.

Also, Big Jim is the police officer in the example they provided. He was chasing the mobster. The mobster threw the garbage can back and he, Big Jim, jumped over it. It clicked with me instantly.

If it was my own writing, I'd be way more critical of myself since I'd worry about how well I was communicating. However, after seeing you have the same issue arise with something that isn't mine and seeing how you'd approach the problem, it's easy for me to put my finger on what causes the issue for you. It's way easier for me to understand someone through how they solve stuff than what they criticize.


Not formally yet, but it's something I plan to discuss more in the future. That tends to fall into rhetoric devices. I was actually planning to hit that stuff more after I get these five done since it's where things get way more taste-oriented.

Yeah, no hard feeling, it is just my preference. I really don't like ambiguity. The mental movie of swatting aside a punch like a windshield wiper made me think of some kind of inspector gadget move. I'm just weird like that and almost exclusively listen to books instead of read them. Most of my reading time is also occupied by working or taking hikes around the neighborhood. Clarity is extra important in vocal narration because there is no going back and rereading the paragraph. To do that one needs to physically stop what they are doing to mess with their phone and go back 30 secs. It is just something I'm not ever going to do.

 

[Story_Marc]

Yeah, no hard feeling, it is just my preference. I really don't like ambiguity. The mental movie of swatting aside a punch like a windshield wiper made me think of some kind of inspector gadget move. I'm just weird like that and almost exclusively listen to books instead of read them. Most of my reading time is also occupied by working or taking hikes around the neighborhood. Clarity is extra important in vocal narration because there is no going back and rereading the paragraph. To do that one needs to physically stop what they are doing to mess with their phone and go back 30 secs. It is just something I'm not ever going to do.

Oh yeah, you don't have to worry about hard feelings at all with me. This was fun! People seriously underestimate how much I genuinely enjoy going into stuff like this. I mean, you don't end up studying as much as I do if you don't enjoy the process.

At most I hate going into the stuff I plan to save for later, but I've learned the last few months I need to get over that and just do the best I can in the moment.

 

[Envylope]

I've learned the last few months I need to get over that and just do the best I can in the moment.

That is good advice for anything really.