one man band

there a few new reality tv shows that i've got a keen interest in. j-lo's "dancelife" is cued up and ready to be religiously watched simply because it'll show us what sorts of mountains k-fed had to climb on his way towards divorcing britney. it'll also be interesting to see exactly how good you have to be to become a professional dancer -- and not a cheerleader for a sports team, or an amatuer winner of "so you think you can dance."

the other show is "i'm from rolling stone" which is about aspiring journalists vying with each other for a spot on rolling stone's staff. six writers are given the opportunity to work with the music magazine to interview artists, to write internet and print articles, and to see if they have what it takes to become real journalists.

of course, with either show, they'll invariably show the drama, the personalities, the bullshit, but i'm hoping that in-between all of that, i'll get a brief glimpse into the life of a budding dancer or writer. and for the rolling stone show, i want to know how good these writers are, to be considered "promising."

here's the thing with writing that would seem obvious but is often overlooked: the skill of writing is as specialized as playing an individual instrument. sure, all musicians can read music, much like all writers can write, but the area of expertise differs greatly. just as there are huge differences between playing the drums and playing the trombone, similar differences exist between writing fiction and say, writing poetry.

this has been a hard aspect of writing to explain to parents (or i guess, adults). when i've said in the past that i'd like to aspire to be "a writer," invariably i get suggestions to pursue writing copy for businesses, to edit scientific manuals, or to pen website introduction pages and company bios. it's as if any act that involves stringing twenty six letters in combination would qualify as "writing." i think it's mainly a matter of miscommunication, but it's also a matter of misperception.

when you try to pursue writing that can get you paid, you have to start to focus. dabbling in poetry and short fiction, or in little reviews and articles, won't get you anywhere unless you can turn it into a quantifiable and definable skill. before you can even get to the question of "style," you have to acquire "skill." and being skilled in writing non-fiction versus writing fiction, in interviewing versus reviewing, in analysis versus explanation, are all separate things.

and it's not easy -- especially if you're not really trained or well versed in anything in particular. whether you're aiming for high literature or just semi-organized scribblings on paper, you have to really study the conventions that define the "good" of any of these writing sub-genres and then dig down to figure out why you'd do things one way versus another.

maybe for some people, being able to do one of these things is natural (or they've had enough practice to figure it out), but for me, i've always been a much better mimic than originator; and that failing could prove to be a big one in a world where being original is pretty damn important.

so i feel like i need to learn, then forget, then focus and define what i can do; but in an original way. to find my "voice" if you will. i'm by no means complaining, but it's pretty apparent just how far behind the eight-ball i am.