The starting point of a writing process should be a problematic question or a risky claim. Begin with a question that is genuinely puzzling to you. Or a tentative claim that invites multiple perspectives and/or resistance & skepticism from the audience.
Currently reading the entire Animorphs series that I loved when I was a kid. Mostly a mid-life crisis/nostalgia sort of thing. Also a bunch of nature books & field guides (another passion from childhood).
I guess the common theme is everyone's looking for the "right" way to do shit. Wasting hours reading self-help books or listening to DudeBro podcasts that promise you'll achieve <desired result> if you follow their program. But kids don't care about doing things the right way. They do what's fun and then move on. My kids scribble on paper for hours without caring how it looks, then breezily toss it in the trash.
I’m researching grief these days, have been putting together some thoughts during the night. I think about how we get addicted to the process of grief and stay in there looping because it’s comfortable and it means we don’t have to put in the effort for something new and uncomfortable. Im open to ideas on making this something worth reading. I’m tying in my own experience in each of the grieving stages of the delusion of denial, the rageful anger, the desperate bargaining, the hopeless depression and the choice of acceptance.
I'm currently reading about Creative Problem Solving in preparation for starting my graduate degree -- not sure how much controversy I can extract from that. :) It's not boring to me yet. It's fresh and I'm eager to take it all in. When learning new frameworks and ideas I wonder if before we can surface a "controversial" opinion we first have to get comfortable with the original one. If I go to culinary school I'm going to do what they tell me - happily - chopping the onions and making the sauces in they way they frame it until it's second nature to me. At that point -- that's when I start to tweak it, rebel, make it my own.
As someone who's often accused of being controversial for controversy's sake, I'm trying to understand what the difference is. Could there be truth to those accusations? How would I know? What does it look like when someone is controversial for controversy's sake? When I'm deliberately controversial, I'm doing it for the sake of making tension so that change can happen. I also think I suck at it, though, so I'm confused.
Currently reading the entire Animorphs series that I loved when I was a kid. Mostly a mid-life crisis/nostalgia sort of thing. Also a bunch of nature books & field guides (another passion from childhood).
I guess the common theme is everyone's looking for the "right" way to do shit. Wasting hours reading self-help books or listening to DudeBro podcasts that promise you'll achieve <desired result> if you follow their program. But kids don't care about doing things the right way. They do what's fun and then move on. My kids scribble on paper for hours without caring how it looks, then breezily toss it in the trash.
I’m researching grief these days, have been putting together some thoughts during the night. I think about how we get addicted to the process of grief and stay in there looping because it’s comfortable and it means we don’t have to put in the effort for something new and uncomfortable. Im open to ideas on making this something worth reading. I’m tying in my own experience in each of the grieving stages of the delusion of denial, the rageful anger, the desperate bargaining, the hopeless depression and the choice of acceptance.
I'm currently reading about Creative Problem Solving in preparation for starting my graduate degree -- not sure how much controversy I can extract from that. :) It's not boring to me yet. It's fresh and I'm eager to take it all in. When learning new frameworks and ideas I wonder if before we can surface a "controversial" opinion we first have to get comfortable with the original one. If I go to culinary school I'm going to do what they tell me - happily - chopping the onions and making the sauces in they way they frame it until it's second nature to me. At that point -- that's when I start to tweak it, rebel, make it my own.
As someone who's often accused of being controversial for controversy's sake, I'm trying to understand what the difference is. Could there be truth to those accusations? How would I know? What does it look like when someone is controversial for controversy's sake? When I'm deliberately controversial, I'm doing it for the sake of making tension so that change can happen. I also think I suck at it, though, so I'm confused.