Forum / What don't you write about and why?

Gessy Alvarez
May 17, 01:40pm

So here's another question - What don't you write about and why?

Writers are fearless. Or at least they appear to be. But we know that we're not so fearless. There are subject matters that scare the bejesus out of us.

My fear, cowboy stories. I stay far away from any story involving a farm or range, horses, cattle, screen porches, big dogs, country life, in short, anything Americana. It's not that I don't enjoy these stories. As much as I hate the old adage, write what you know, I realize my hesitancy has to do with not feeling equipped to write a good story about a boy who loses his dog (for instance).

I know any "Americana" story I write will be a stellar failure, but is that really a good reason for not writing what I don't know?

Darryl Price
May 17, 01:56pm

I think you should go ahead and give it a try--face up to your fear. If it's a failure, it's a failure, but what is a failure? It wouldn't be a failure to write. It wouldn't be a failure to express. It would only be a failure in the sense that it bullied you into inaction. Everything's uncomfortable to some degree when you think about it, because as a writer you must name names, and I'm not talking about people, I'm talking about actions, motives, dreams, all that stuff. You realize the character, but you do more than that, you realize the being, and the larger beingness behind that. It's complicated and confusing sometimes, but the challenge remains on tap.Hesitancy exists for some good reason, but just like everything else, it can be misused, and stand in the way. To Quote the smiths:"Shyness is nice,but/Shyness can stop you/from doing all the things in life/You'd like to/So if there's something you'd/like to try/If there's something you'd like to try/Ask me--I won't say "No'-How could I?"

Ann Bogle
May 17, 03:25pm

Nice question. I was just reading a story that appeared in The New Yorker by Jeffrey Eugenides, "Extreme Solitude," and to my surprise Leonard, the male lead character, embarrasses Madeline, the female lead character, by asking about her excretions. I have no memory of writing about that sort of thing myself, and yet I emphatically did. I hope not to write much more about it.

Judith A. Lawrence
May 17, 04:16pm

I don't write about beautiful-worldly-rich people in angst over their superficial lives, except in jest, and that can be great fun. I don't write "how to" books, cause I'm not that smart. I no longer write about politics as it evokes a prolific stream of furious responses from a rather unimaginative and thoroughly brainwashed crowd. I don't write about geography (except of the soul)cause the reader would be lost in some remote isle a thousand miles from target.

Dolemite
May 17, 04:28pm

I don't write about why I write. That would be like knitting about why you knit.

Gessy Alvarez
May 17, 04:36pm

No, Matt. Not why you write? What don't you write about? There's got to be something. Or maybe you have no fear and write about everything.

I know some very talented prose writers who refuse to write poetry for instance. I guess I wondered why a writer would consciously place a limit on what they can do...

Dolemite
May 17, 04:38pm

"What don't you write about?"

I don't write about why I write!

;-)

(that would be like making sausages about why you make sausages!)

Gessy Alvarez
May 17, 04:56pm

Darryl, I like the encouragement. I also realize that there is no right way to write about anything. You have to figure an angle, a character, a particular story. The rest is just window dressing after all. Though window dressing can be glorious.

Ann, I recently wrote a poem for my blog where the narrator ends her morning routine by taking a dump. I posted it and then thought, oh hell, why did I just do that? It's still up though. I figured it's mine, I did it, I might as well own it.

Judith, I get you. I also avoid those very things.

I do like subterfuge, subtlety, and subversion. Perhaps these are what I should keep practicing...what will help me get over my "shyness."

Gessy Alvarez
May 17, 04:56pm

Matt, you are a party pooper...but I likes you anyways :P

Gessy Alvarez
May 17, 05:00pm

Matt, I just realized I misunderstood you. Sorry about that...I'm actually typing while working at the 9 to 5...My mind can only take on one task. Freaking aging brain.

Writing about why you write does suck. Especially when the reasons why you write would land you in the looney bin (yes, I'm talking about moi).

Javy Gwaltney
May 17, 05:35pm

It really just depends on my mood and what kind of story I want to tell. I usually write character study stories but every once in a while I'm up for something different like a good sci-fi story or a humor piece.

I think the only taboo for me would probably be erotic and not necessarily because I'm prudish but because I just haven't really read anything from that genre and thought "Hey! This is for me!"

I don't write poetry. I love reading it, but I've never written a poem that I've liked.

That's all that comes to mind at the moment.

Misti Rainwater-Lites
May 17, 08:16pm

I don't read genre fiction (there are a few exceptions) and I don't write it. Well, that isn't true. I wrote an erotic horror novella a couple of years ago. I prefer psychological horror (The Shining, Rosemary's Baby) to the pap that is churned out today ad nauseam. I vented at Twitter last night that I'm sick of reading about zombies and vampires. I am! I am prejudiced against zombies and vampires! People are forever tweeting and blogging their zombies and vampires in my face. Basta! Basta!

My family members amuse me. My mom's third husband tells me I should write westerns. That won't happen. My mom tells me I should write children's books. That might happen, if I can find a competent illustrator.

Oh, I wrote ten pornographic stories for a Canadian print magazine two years ago. I made $300, which was nice. The nicest thing about it was the fun I had with the stories...in the story about the gay Christian men hooking up after Sunday school I used my dad's name as my pen name. Sweet!

Gessy Alvarez
May 17, 08:26pm

Misti, you are awesome! I would love to read your ten pornographic stories, btw.

James Lloyd Davis
May 17, 11:34pm

I don't write about what I never write about, but I could try.

Baristas. I never, never write about baristas. Zapatistas, fidelistas, bomberos and electricistas have shown up in my fiction, but never a barista.

I'll have to give this some thought.

I would say that I never write explicit sex scenes, but that's not a moral choice on my part... I think that where sex is concerned, the most intensely sexual writing bends the refractors of innuendo, stretches them to the limit...

Writing about what I don't write about would take volumes... and at the end? I will have written about them.

Gessy Alvarez
May 17, 11:51pm

I definitely want to read your "Zapatistas, fidelistas, bomberos and electricistas" stories, JLD.

Misti Rainwater-Lites
May 18, 12:50am

Ha! Thanks, Gessy. Will have to find my stories and shoot 'em your way. The pen names alone are priceless. I had so much fun with those.

Marcus Speh
May 18, 09:54am

I don't like to write about scenes, characters, anything that's cruel or brutal without a moral purpose. Which is a wank, mental writerly masturbation, as it were, but not just to get off but to soil humanity. So called "Bizarro" writing strikes me that way which is one reason why I don't like it.

Last year I withdrew a story from an anthology because it contained a story of great brutality in that nihilistic vein. I believe with Gardner that all art has an important mission: if if fails to meet it that's one thing (it can still be funny, entertaining etc.) but if it actively denies humanity then I have no use for it. But that's more of an attitude and not tied to places, subjects, characters etc.

A corollary to this view is that I don't write shit about women or men. mothers or fathers. Literature of revenge on wives, husbands, fathers or mothers seems highly popular especially in the US, but it also violates my primary drive towards humanistic writing. It's juvenile at best.

I've written and talked about that elsewhere at length (and fought for it here on Fictionaut, too), if you're interested, my blog's an entry to that cave filled with grief, serious faces and curse-repelling amulets:

http://blog.marcusspeh.com/?p=5906

Gessy Alvarez
May 18, 01:22pm

This " literature of revenge, " is interesting. It plays on the primordial. The good vs. evil mythology. It involves control and domination. I wonder why this string of storytelling is compelling to the masses. These themes are featured throughout history, taken on a number of forms. Literary visionaries and charlatans have hacked into these well escavated walls.

The more answers I receive the more my world opens...please continue the dialogue.

Misti Rainwater-Lites
May 18, 02:45pm

Marcus, I disagree with you. A couple of years ago I wanted to try to write genre fiction for a change. I read a bunch of bizarro novellas and then wrote my own bizarro novella, Bunny Man. Bunny Man absolutely celebrates the human spirit and is rich with weird humor. Most of the bizarro fiction I have read is indeed rich with weird humor, which I like. If there's humor I don't think you can accurately classify it as nihilistic.

What I do NOT enjoy and have zero tolerance for is visceral horror, both in cinema and in literature. I stumbled across a short story the other day that almost made me physically sick it was so disgusting and dark. I wish I'd never read it. It's stuck in my head now. I'd be interested to hear from proponents and writers of such fiction. What thrill do you get from writing in explicit detail about the torture of a human being? When I was a kid I found a bunch of true crime books at my grandparents' house. I wish I hadn't read those books. I am fascinated and repulsed by aberrant psychology but I really don't see the value in the true crime genre. In my own personal experience my parents had no problem letting me watch horror films and read true crime books but they would have snatched R. Crumb comics out of my hands if I'd been lucky enough to find any of those in rural Texas. I think there's a real disconnect there...it's okay to read about how Gacy killed his victims but stay away from those horribly damaging cock and cunt stories.

As for writing for revenge, I have certainly been guilty of that. The whole "scorned woman" thing. Anne Sexton and Sylvia Plath are two examples of writers who turned revenge into some pretty excellent poems. I think that's pretty common...revenge against lovers, revenge against parents, revenge against evil corporations, etcetera.

Rage is human. Deep to the marrow hurt is human. I for one think rage has value. My favorite comedian, Bill Hicks, was fueled by rage. He had it all over the goofy ass happy shiny comedians Hollywood sees fit to continue to place in crappy movies like...well, anything with Adam Sandler or Ben Stiller in it.

stephen hastings-king
May 18, 02:53pm

i look out windows. i think about sounds. i like geometry. i like writing about bodies and contact but i don't do it all the time.
i like the way calvino talked about lightness: i try to work on that but am not sure how to work on it.

so instead i let what i write about move around.

sometimes i think i would write longer things if i had more hours open. i would write a western if i came up with one. i like to think it would have gunslingers wandering through the thin boundaries that separate dimensions and the colors would all be saturated and rhythm & sound dubs would be the soundtrack.

i am rarely stopped by not knowing what i'm talking about.

Misti Rainwater-Lites
May 18, 02:58pm

Stephen, I like your idea of a western, reminds me of the nonlinear western Todd Moore wrote, Dreaming of Billy The Kid. I am glad to say I was able to sit in a bookstore in Albuquerque, New Mexico and hear Todd Moore read excerpts from his novel in progress. He actually asked me what I thought. He was a great writer and a great man. I miss him.

James Lloyd Davis
May 18, 04:47pm

I read Marcus' thoughtful entry above. I want desperately to agree with him, but then I see the Puritan in the pun of morality. This is an American phenomenon, at least the way I understand it, and it was more prevalent before, say, 1968... the year all things in America changed. That's something I want to explore in a novel.

A lot of what I write has moral implications, but not all of it. I sink into a dark violence at times, but only with the understanding that it has a curious attraction, that in fiction we can explore these things safely, begin to nderstand that we are not supreme, spiritual beings with mandates from God to do A, B, C, and D... oh, but never, ever do X, Y, or Z.

Sick violence for its own sake has prurient appeal and I am not at all fond of it and would not choose to write that way. Nonetheless, there is a kind of violence that can be portrayed with purpose beyond the questionable appeal, but in this late stage of my life, I doubt that I can be the proper judge of such things, only for my own discretion.

I always believe and try to practice moral purpose in the underpinnings of what I write, but often, even I cannot tell the difference between moral and amoral images in my own writing. I always want to deny censorship, whether it comes in the form of bonfires or by way of subtle and powerful innuendo, a brutality of style, but I practice censorship with my own set of eyes and with silence.

It's a good thing, a moral imperative in art, but a dangerous thing as well in certain cultural epochs. In the confusion of American culture and society today, I honestly believe we are passing through one of those pendulum periods of artistic anarchy, followed by a rigid, ultra conservative cultural blowback, opposite and equal cycles of repetition that seems to precede a future and excellent enlightened artistic age.

God knows, our nation is entering an historic forge of political fire... active and reactive forces polarized and snarling.

Undue violence in our American art and literature may be symptomatic of one such swing of the pendulum and judgement will have to be ceded to the ages.

Literature will mirror the nature of its times.

Misti Rainwater-Lites
May 18, 05:04pm

James, I'm glad you brought up censorship. I thought about addressing it but didn't. I am opposed to all forms of censorship. Let the individual decide, yes! I don't want to read true crime or horror but I absolutely advocate freedom of expression.

"God knows, our nation is entering an historic forge of political fire... active and reactive forces polarized and snarling.

Undue violence in our American art and literature may be symptomatic of one such swing of the pendulum and judgement will have to be ceded to the ages.

Literature will mirror the nature of its times."

Yes. Exactly.

W.F. Lantry
May 18, 05:13pm

"Writing about why you write does suck."

I wonder about this. Or rather, I have strong reservations about this statement. I wonder if it's true. Some might call it deceitful, others, dishonest. I don't go that far. I simply have my doubts.

But I've heard it so often, I wonder about its roots. Conventional wisdom holds that every act of writing is about writing. Just as, yes, every act of say, building things *is* about building things. This is basic existentialism, and few really disagree with it: 'Human beings are free, and tomorrow, through my actions and your actions, we will decide what human beings are and will be." If this simple truth *is* true, then every act of writing defines what writing is. All writing is about writing, and every piece, every phrase, is a statement about why we write.

So why do so many people make this claim about not writing about writing? How has it become a kind of truism? I am authentically curious. There must be some subtext I'm missing, some hook that hasn't been set in my jaw, some wind my wings haven't caught. I need some help here. Can anyone describe the theoretical underpinnings of this position? As I say, I am authentically curious.

Best,

Bill

Marcus Speh
May 18, 05:29pm

Thoughtful entries, all of them and lots to think about. Re: Bizarro—humor indeed is a pretty good indicator for humanism. But alone, on their own, any superhero will go down in flames...(sorry, went to watch the "Avengers" flick yesterday, head full of comics...talk about excavating myth and lore until you're only left with a projection screen for product placements...).

Censorship is going to be trickier than ever I believe. The easy censorship of advanced technocratic democracies and dictatorships is one thing, rather easily recognizable (still terrible enough). The scissors in people's head are another: I'm perhaps more afraid of them. When both come together, when people scream for governments to take their right to express themselves away, then I'm truly getting worried.

We've had this in Germany 1933-1945 and it's torn the heart from the body of the people. I've recently got deeply into reading W G Sebald whose work is a major attempt to reconstruct rage in history and literature (cp. his book on "The Natural History of Destruction" — see here: http://bit.ly/Kprs00 ). Now, admittedly this is quite an extension of Gessy's question but when you wonder what you don't write about one cannot help wondering why not.

Alex M. Pruteanu
May 18, 05:35pm

Love.

Gessy Alvarez
May 18, 05:52pm

The red herring has been found, courtesy of Bill. And censorship, the true dilemma, has surfaced.

I'm so happy our discussion has taken this turn. I wondered how long before the question would evolve into the ones that truly matter.

There's a form of intellectual anorexia in the midst and art must combat it. No matter what we must write. No rigid rules. No list of subjects to avoid. New forms must continue to emerge and be supported, nurtured. New voices need to fight and defend their turfs.

I'm reminded of E.M. Forster who lost his virginity at 39. In his last novel, Maurice, he writes of a brief encounter with another man: "[he tapped me] just above the buttocks."
[This touch seemed]"to go straight through the small of my back into my ideas, without involving my thoughts."

Dolemite
May 18, 06:04pm

"All writing is about writing, and every piece, every phrase, is a statement about why we write."

I agree. It's already there. And what IT is, is love, you love the act of writing or you don't, and there is no explanation for love.

I think if you peruse the other thread, you'll see that no one, in fact, has answered the question of "Why choose writing?"

They give examples of and from their childhood, about how it twisted them in some way, and assume they are answering the question, but they're not, they're only saying that they've been twisted, shaped, altered, by their past (as have we all).

That doesn't explain why, among many other equally viable choices, they write. They could just as well have becomes activists of some sort, or artists in a different field.

Or they'll give answers about having voices, stories, characters, who must get out, etc.

Again, this has nothing to do with why they WRITE, as these voices/stories/characters can just as easily be utilized in dance, music, sculpture, and so on.

The only answer to that question of why one writes--INSTEAD OF ANY OTHER PURSUIT--is:

I LIKE IT.

Why does a killer kill?

He likes it.

Why does a politician run for office?

He likes it.

Now, you can point to examples from the childhoods of these two examples and retro-actively see Cause and Effect, but not every child with a bad childhood becomes a killer, not every child from a political family becomes a politician.

One could say they write because it's the best way to effectively and completely explore the topic at hand. Well, try telling that to a musician or a visual/dance artist.

Ultimately, it's not a choice, so there is no WHY, so there is no valid, direct, answer to the question.

You write because you're a writer.
You kill because you're a killer.
You love because you're a lover.

And if you truly are one of these, your love of the act WILL be apparent in every manifestation of if.

Now, questions such as:

What fuels your writing?
What are you trying to achieve with your writing?
What did you have for dinner?

are honest, answerable, questions, and you can chime in and "contribute to the conversation," as it were, the value of which, apparently, is primarily for the Questioner to feel important/validated/taken=seriously-as-a-writer, because ultimately NONE of the answers are interestinig/illuminating/revealing, because such qualities can ONLY be experienced in the work itself.

The rest is just an ass-sniffin' dog-and-pony show.

Gessy Alvarez
May 18, 06:49pm

"Love" is it really that simple? Is it really what Jesus said?

I feel isolated by this answer rather than illuminated. Give me a moment to figure out why.

Dolemite
May 18, 07:21pm

Well, then, an obsessive, compulsive drive, an uncontrollable need to engage in the act.

I guess you could substitute the word *sickness* for the word *love* and be even closer to what it is.

James Lloyd Davis
May 18, 07:21pm

Gessy, I think one word answers tend to be depressing since they attempt to convey the idea that one thing is the answer to all questions and implies, "Why don't you know that?"

It's like the zen question, "Does a dog have Bhudda nature?" There is, of course, as every true zen enthusiast knows, only one answer in the Zen canon of ancient koan cheat sheets, one word, "Mu."

Doesn't make sense, but the zen master is going to whack you on the head until you come up with that precise answer.

One could say that these things are discerned only on the mystical plane, but conversation on the daily, mundane world of one curious mind to another tends to avoid mysticism.

Then there are those who contend that such question and answer sessions like these are both sophomoric and vain, the idle chitchat of self absorbed, quasi-intellectuals making noise. I disagree.

Sometimes, I wonder why people come here if they only want to say, "You people are keeping me awake. Stop talking, dammit."

But, even in this, there is a lesson, a wonderful insight into humanity.

I love it.

Gessy Alvarez
May 18, 07:39pm

Me too, James...love it that is.

I said I write because it pisses people off. Rage is a gut response. A passionate one. One that gives me a glimpse at what may be underneath. It's a base reaction which I trust more than an "intellectual" response.

I wait for these moments...and observe.

To reduce is to isolate. And isolation is death. I can't abide by one voice. Submit to one answer. I want to create surrounded by chatter and chaos. By thoughts and innovation. By delusions of grandeur and confused wisdom. And by questions, lots of questions.

W.F. Lantry
May 18, 09:47pm

I'm not sure. The more I think about any of this, the less certain I am. Simic goes into his reasons for writing in the latest NYRB. His answers are honest, but they strike me as imcomplete.

Why do we tend to shy away from directly stating why we do what we do? It's as if we're worried others will mock us, or meet our best explanations with derision. I've never met anyone who literally 'had to write,' although I've met many who say that. And I've never met anyone who was 'driven' to do it. We are not, after all, lunatics. At least not on most days.

You don't hear that kind of thing in other cultures. But here, this has been a problem at least since Whitman's time, when he complained about "flippancy, tepid amours, small aims, or no aims at all, only to kill time." Do I believe other writers of his time were as flippant and tepid as he says? No. But I believe they likely struck that pose, and maybe for the same reasons we hear now. It's more easily defensible to say "I'm compelled to write" than to give an honest reason.

One magazine, Now Culture, asks all its authors to give a statement about why they write, what they were trying to do, an ars poetica. I've heard other writers complain about this, saying things like "it's all in the work," etc., but I'm convinced they're just not used to discussing things openly. Or perhaps the language fails them, I don't know. Here's mine: http://nowculture.com/thorns/lantry.htm Some may find it troublesome, all this talk about beauty and mystery and transformation. But at least it attempts to give an honest reason.

I wish more journals did that sort of thing. We might grow more comfortable talking about all this if they did.

Best,

Bill

James Lloyd Davis
May 19, 12:02am

When I worked as a ship builder, I never felt odd or uncomfortable discussing method, tools, or even approach to the work. Yes, I loved the work, chose to do it when I could easily have worked in an office designing electrical systems.

The reason I chose it? It's not a simple answer, but involves several aspects of my personal life, including, but not limited to the fact that I could do the job well.

I'm no more uncomfortable discussing the reason I chose to write than I was discussing why I chose to work with steel, and the reasons are no less complex.

It's not vanity and it just might make me understand the work and love it more to know why.

Linda Simoni-Wastila
May 19, 12:22am

I don't write humor. I don't because I can't, even though people tell me in 'real life' I am a very funny person. I simply do not have the talent.

But to translate funny onto the page... a very difficult thing to do, tougher than writing sex.

And I agree about having full freedom to write--we have a choice of what and whether to read. At least without censorship we do. Peace...

stephen hastings-king
May 19, 02:26pm

censorship? in neo-colonial forms of domination direct actions on the part of the state are exceptional, indications of a perception of crisis and crisis is mostly imaginary, like most things are.

if you are for the moment Mister State, you don't need to act directly because (a) it's much more efficient to encourage people to dominate themselves and because (b) every action changes the boundaries of the political, redrawing them around the action.

the idea is that power should work to erase itself. an effect of this self-erasure is the limitation or restriction of the political.

so from that viewpoint, every public action is a form of mistake, and the more hamfisted the action the bigger the mistake.

so direct censorship is a bad idea, yes? why politicize expression when ignoring it works so much better?

following from this, i don't see writing as an ethical action or what is written as an ethical document. i see both as political actions---in a context that frames making things (you know, art, whatever you take that to mean, whatever you say it is) to be afunctional, just continuing and working and making things is in itself a political action. and the pieces that one produces about the world are political in that they are forms of argumentation, be it direct or indirect (through the framing, through the use of language, through the equation of ordinary perception with the modes of domination or legitimation--they're the same, with the shifter laying in your perspective, which you argue for)...so they're open to contestation.

the ethical seems to me to be something else.
and if you follow kierkegaard on that, with the distinction between the ethical and aesthetic, ethical pieces are aesthetic statements, so the opposite of the ethical to the extent that the aesthetic presupposes distance and distance is what dissolves the ethical.

or something.

Sam Rasnake
May 19, 03:00pm

I absolutely try - and for the most part, I'm successful - to avoid choosing a topic. In particular, I avoid choosing a topic of the moment as the subject of the writing.

My preference is to let things simmer and seep. This way, the subject of my writing finds me. I don't have to look. When I select, the writing is only as strong as my hand and head. When the writing selects, the work carries its own strength and force.

Of course, we're considering ideals in this thread.

brian warfield
May 19, 09:25pm

i don't write about politics.
i also find it very hard to write interstitial filler and dialogue.

Darryl Price
May 20, 01:53am

I think the problem here is we're trying to come up with the answer, but the question itself is a trickster in disguise, as always, trying to get us to think out of the box.You can't nail down rain.And why would you want to? I think everything posted here is interesting and to the point, but so what? It doesn't lift one finger toward the key for you, and as we've already seen, there are many more keys than just one to be had. All of them fit something.You yourself may turn out to be one. But you'll still only be one.

Gessy Alvarez
May 20, 03:31am

You can't nail down rain, but you can stick your tongue out and taste it.

I hate multiple choice questions because the answer can only be one.

My question is open to many answers. I sincerely wanted to know why we as writers choose not to write certain things.

What's the point? I don't know. All I know is that I hate reticence. I hate the club for one. I hate the lack of dialogue. I hate suspicion. Why must we be so secretive? Why can't we have a dialogue? Why can't we exchange ideas in a forum for goodness sakes? (Last I check that's what a forum is for.)

Will this thread help me write? I don't know and I don't care.

I'm a writer but I'm also a thinker, a woman, a finance manager, a wife, a daughter, a sister. Also, I paint pretty pictures. For fun. Because I like to force my brain to think in shapes and textures. Because I like to surprise myself.

I love all the answers expressed here and even the flogging.

Thanks everyone!

Robert Vaughan
May 20, 03:54am

I just finished Cheryl Strayed's WILD. I recommend it HIGHLY. A great read. Gave me depth and insight was to why I (we) write, and what we write about or not. I appreciate these posts, Gessy. No matter what, no matter who.

Darryl Price
May 21, 02:50pm

Gessy you are a wonder, and I mean that in a great way!The answer, I think, can always be more than one--depending on the question, and the available choices.I think it's a lot simpler than you think, and I think your answer is in your statement,"I sincerely wanted to know why we as writers choose not to write certain things."Because we have made a choice. Because the person making the choice is that choice. Because the sky is blue(but of course that answer only fits the scenario sometimes). Because it's freedom of expression, not a dictatorship of expression. Because the wind in my face is making me blink. Because the car I'm driving is a piece of shit. Because I'm sick of this or that. Because I don't want to add my voice to that. Because I don't have to. Because I want to subtract my voice from it. Because whatever and also because what if. All I'm saying is to get your answer for real you'd have to talk to every single person alone and really hear them, really listen, not to what they are saying, but to who they are.I like that you like to surprise yourself. That's terrific. That's also a good answer to your question.Shapes and textures. You said it. Shapes and textures.Makes sense to me.I like all the colors, but I'm particularly drawn to green.

RW Spryszak
May 21, 04:29pm

I don't even start to write erotica because I never finish.

Gessy Alvarez
May 21, 05:19pm

RW, for what it's worth yours is my favorite answer so far.

Gessy Alvarez
May 21, 05:21pm

Cheryl Strayed is a dynamo and she seems to be everywhere these days...thanks for the recommendation, Robert.
You must log in to reply to this thread.