I should really be sleeping.

[alexmegami]

I don't want to sleep.

I think what I really want to do is write something. Unfortunately, my requirements for "writing something" mean it has to be a) interesting, b) cool, and c) worthwhile, and when you have a hard time convincing yourself that a) isn't something you can pull off, it's difficult to get words out.

I have an overarching worry that my English teachers didn't/don't actually know what they're talking about. If only English were formulaic, like math... and then, I suppose, the interest would be gone. But then I wouldn't be left with the feeling that I'm really only convincing myself I know what I'm doing. A 91% would mean something outside of a subjective context; for example, that 91% of people would agree with me, or 91% of people would find my work interesting, or enlightening.

I think tied into the problem is that I don't know if I'm interesting, and worry that I'm not. I think I have little basis for comparison. While I may think I'm witty or insightful, that may just be because I play off of Pete, Adrian and Patrick, and mocking them will make ANYONE seem witty and insightful. (*evil grin*) The same goes for Simon. It takes some amount of talent to be funny, but when I'm playing off people that are my age (or within five years of it), I can't be sure that it's actual wit. It's like telling jokes to five year olds - if you know how to play it, you can make them laugh, but does that mean you're actually humorous?

Also, I lack the credibility of a published author, or a renowned scholar, or even just someone that's got their diploma. While I have a score of credibility that ranks higher than a high school student (in most people's books), I rank lower than a university graduate, and maybe on par with a college graduate. I also have to factor in the fact that I'm young, lowering my score in the eyes of others.

The last factor is humility. Too often, you can see examples of people who completely bypass credibility, manufacturing it for their own purposes with false statistics and rhetoric. Worse yet, there are the people that attribute credibility to themselves without ever realizing that they have none. I do not want to be one of those people.

But when do I reach a mark of credibility that will allow me to pursue a goal? Am I falling prey to the belief that one needs a university education to contribute to society? Or is that an acceptable belief? Assuming I want credibility in a field that the university will illuminate, of course - I don't expect to be considered a reliable source of information on cars, for example. But will a degree in the liberal arts, specifically English, give some weight to my words as an author, or reporter, or editor? Would a drama degree make me more suited for a role at Stratford than someone off the street? Is there something to be said for natural talent?

I just want an objective standard to rate myself by. Is that so difficult a task?

Comments

(Longer Reply After Class)

[mysticjuicer.livejournal.com]

In the mean time, the short answer to your last question is: yes.

The Promised Comment:

[mysticjuicer.livejournal.com]

On Wit and Insight: Jokes become easy to tell to a given group because you've identified the rules or components that make "a good one" with specific people. It takes insight to identify those rules particular to a group. You've got that. If it seems unimpressive, it's because you socialize with people who are as attuned to that as you. Spend a week in Sault St. Marie and you'll feel the difference I'm sure.

Being witty, to me, is "just" being funny faster than someone else. It's joke processing speed. Again, spend time with the Turner-basics of the world and you'll feel the difference. Anyways, enough about that. It's getting hard to resist rolling up Simon Braendli for White Wolf. So on to safer things, like say, juggling land mines.

What English Can Do For You!: I'd suggest that english majors definitely get props as editors and reporters, and maybe a bit less, authors too. A wide and practiced vocabulary, clear and reader-friendly prose and inimate familiarity with the language, it's rules and how to break them properly. It sounds like your major issue with english courses (and call me on projection if it isn't) is that they don't teach invention.

I don't think that education can ever directly make anyone more interesting, imaginative or inventive. What it can do is put you in a place where you have the opportunity to grow in those ways. Taking courses in philosophy makes me think about what I've been thinking for ages from different angles. When I write, I only invent as far as I recombine other ideas and things. So philosophy overlaps with how I write, and helps me that way. I'll still need Plato and Nick for new source material.

Now, I can get Plato in school, but there are a startling lack of courses in Nick. Well, maybe in a year or two that'll change. In the end, they're different places for the same thing. So, do you need a degree in english? I guess it depends on what you need to sit down and write as well as you can.

Talent, in Passing: Talent and learned skill are interchangeable, but one grows and the other doesn't. If talent grew with time, the saying would be 'sitting on your ass makes perfect'. (Note to self, inverstigate truth of that saying.)

*hugs*

I can't help you with the objective standards bit. I just don't believe it's possible. Our bodies will always need oxygen, english will always be subjective to some degree.

Peace.

Re: The Promised Comment:

[alexmegami]

I am so confused as to why you want to roll up Simon Braendli for WW, but if you do, make him a mage. You have the total lack of grasp on reality to do it ;)

Maybe I do need more Philosophy. Sadly, I can't access the Nick resource, and you're not around very often when I have ideas to bounce off of people to bounce ideas off of (...wow that was a run on sentence my my my I really should learn to phrase things better or how will I ever be a good writer? No really I had a comma once it was great).

When I have ideas, you're not here to talk about them with me. There, much more sense-making.

Mmm, ass-sitting. The best kind, other than the sitting where you are horizontal.

The problem with the talent/skill thing is that someone with no talent but a lot of skill will never be more than mediocre, and someone with only talent will only be mediocre until they develop that skill. The latter has so much more potential if they cultivate it.

*hugs* I know (about the objective/subjective reality of English). English is a fickle mistress, the damn bitch. ;)

Re: The Lowdown (or The 411)

[mysticjuicer.livejournal.com]

Simon Braendli the mage. "Fireballs all the way!" ;>)

"No really I had a comma once it was great!" *LOL* I know what you're saying, I do. Honest. But yeah, if you think it would work better, call me sometime. You can do that now. To the max!

Okay, yeah, I agree with the talent/skill thing, but, what? You think you have no talent? *very dubious look. like, totally dubious*