confrontations
How do “Confrontations, Common Bonds” and “Polaroids” prove that writing can be difficult?
In the reading of, “Confrontations, Common Bonds” and “Polaroids” prove that writing can be difficult in many ways. First, you have to know the public you are writing for. Second, it requires inspiration similarly, putting your thoughts and ideas as one.
In the first reading, “confrontations, Common Bonds” it proves that writing can be difficult, when it mainly explain that no matters what you write, it will be always criticized by others and you will always have to make changes based on someone else’s thoughts. Perhaps there will be always conflicts between your ideas and the public you will write about. In addition, there will be always criticisms to help you get better.
Overall, in the second reading, “polaroids” it states at the beginning of -Back-story- that “many people think writers have an unlimited amount of ideas and accordingly to its inspiration and their story line” which I agree. Most of the writers write cause of a past experience, simple thoughts, everyday lifetime… In other words all stories start with multiple ideas and thoughts that are worked out before any part of the story hits you with a pencil and a piece of paper. Accordingly to the story of Anne Lamott, she proves that writing is difficult when she states “I showed up this time with a great deal of interest but no real sense of what the finished article might look like”. Anne knew she has to write about Special Olympics but she did not have any idea about how does her article might look like or how she might start.
In summarize, combining both story, at the end Writing will not be easy because even when you have the topic, you will have to go deep inside yourself searching for own experience, and examine the topic as an animal watch his prey, to obtain as result the public attention.
How do both of these readings prove that writing can be rewarding?
Both stories prove that writing can
In the reading of, “Confrontations, Common Bonds” and “Polaroids” prove that writing can be difficult in many ways. First, you have to know the public you are writing for. Second, it requires inspiration similarly, putting your thoughts and ideas as one.
In the first reading, “confrontations, Common Bonds” it proves that writing can be difficult, when it mainly explain that no matters what you write, it will be always criticized by others and you will always have to make changes based on someone else’s thoughts. Perhaps there will be always conflicts between your ideas and the public you will write about. In addition, there will be always criticisms to help you get better.
Overall, in the second reading, “polaroids” it states at the beginning of -Back-story- that “many people think writers have an unlimited amount of ideas and accordingly to its inspiration and their story line” which I agree. Most of the writers write cause of a past experience, simple thoughts, everyday lifetime… In other words all stories start with multiple ideas and thoughts that are worked out before any part of the story hits you with a pencil and a piece of paper. Accordingly to the story of Anne Lamott, she proves that writing is difficult when she states “I showed up this time with a great deal of interest but no real sense of what the finished article might look like”. Anne knew she has to write about Special Olympics but she did not have any idea about how does her article might look like or how she might start.
In summarize, combining both story, at the end Writing will not be easy because even when you have the topic, you will have to go deep inside yourself searching for own experience, and examine the topic as an animal watch his prey, to obtain as result the public attention.
How do both of these readings prove that writing can be rewarding?
Both stories prove that writing can