Smile

Apparently having a fully packed timetable is not that good. At the very least not to someone who's used to slacking his way through school. It feels weird in that way, and i do not have a CCA as yet, imagine if i were to be involved with a CCA, together with school and tuition, i'm pretty sure i'll start to resemble a zombie. Any other reason for not wanting a CCA? I'm just not interested, or i'm not good enough, or it costs too much. The few thing that catches my interest tends to be heavy on equipment or it's not available in school. Hmm, i think there is a literary group in NUS somewhere, yet i fear i'm not good enough.

It's just me, i fear therefore i abstain. Therefore my life is a bit dry and boring, sigh, need to get out more as the sbstransit ad says.

Writing is a passion for me, hopefully regular readers of this blog can tell this by now. I like to write, but i have yet to decide what direction i'm going into. Fantasy? Escapism. Contemporary? normal. Thriller? Not interested. Horror? I'll sleep with my lights on. (hee, not true lah, i not that much of a wuss.) My life Story? Lack of materials.

Basically i think i've managed to narrow down what my problem is. My experiences are lacking. In order to write convincingly, you need to experience the place at least. Otherwise there is no authencity. It's like asking a blind man to describe a flower just by looking at it. Similarly experience is the extra sensory organ that a writer needs. Just think about it, would you be able to describe a place you've never been to?

The only substitute will be imagination, but there is only so far that imagination can go. In order to have others visualize what you are seeing, you need to supply them with references to the real world. ie, "the grass green ant-like humonoid." In that short phrase itself, there are three references to experiences. Someone who has never seen(experienced) an ant who not be able to describe in such a succint manner and yet conveying the essential idea across. He might instead describe it as " a grass green humanoid with pincer like mouth, two antennae above its bug like eyes". That sentence include even more references to the experience of the writer, he has to know what a bug is, what antennae are.

The point i'm trying to make is that writing well is based much on experiences. Just imagine if you were to ask someone who has never left Singapore to describe London, he'll probably only be able to describe it using the terms that he has heard from someone else, it is a vicarious expreience, he would never know what it feels like to stand in the fog, listening to the chiming of Big Ben. (i've never been to london, so i really do not know what it feels like.)

Ask me to describe Singapore, and i'll be able to give you a fair description, but the details is in the feelings. You can describe a place but you can never feel a place untill you've been there.

Ask me to describe Redang, and it is a feeling of happiness and relaxation, its true that there were some wistful moments on my part. I can never accurately describe the sea beach and corals nor the feelings if i've never been there.

So what am i trying to say?
A good piece of writing can be based on feelings, for feelings are universal, when you say happy, most people will know what you are feeling. But to accurate describe your feelings, you need to experience. No wonder they say that those who has had a difficult love life, tend to be able to write the best sad love songs, and those who are happily in love are those who can write the best soppy love songs. Because human respond to emotions, but the emotions have to be genuine, for we have the capability to feel(the word again) whether it is true or just a forced imagined feeling.

Long post, need to keep my writing skills in practice, so i wrote a little more than i intended. today was an ad-hoc thingy, i typed as i thought, so if it feels a bit flighty, forgive me.