I’ve recently come to realize that writing styles cover a spectrum that that runs from two poles: the functional and the aesthetic. The functional, as the name suggests, is that kind of writing we use to communicate simple ideas or facts. It is best represented by the kind we do every day such as memos or simple descriptions in a report or log. And though there is always a better way of describing a thing, there's usually not that much at stake that it would require a lot of work. The aesthetic, on the other hand, is that which we do to dazzle and is best represented by the poem. In it, not only is there always a better way to get a point across, we must always be looking for a more impressive or seductive way to do so. Given this demand, it stands to reason that it can be the more difficult of the two. Another important distinction, that must be considered, is that with functional writing we always start out with a clear idea of what must be communicated whereas the aesthetic starts with a vague sense of what one would like to achieve, but is never committed to it.

And now that we have recognized this spectrum, we begin to understand a little more about the different writing activities we engage in. For instance, we now see what the appeal of Facebook is. Even though there is some attempt to impress, generally with humor, the writing done there is generally a functional report of one’s day to day activities. The ideas about what to write are always close at hand. It doesn’t put a lot of demands on the writer. This, in turn, explains the value of the journal, even to many professional writers, as a kind of cultivating ground for what can become more elaborate and aesthetic achievements.

But most important, for our purposes, it tells us a little more about the appeal of the message boards. Certainly, we do write to dazzle; but that has more to do with the content of our minds than it does the style of expression. Moreover, the bulk of what we do here is respond to the content of the mind of the other. And the very act of responding naturally assumes having something to respond with, of knowing what is to be communicated, which leaves only the functional act of writing it down.

The problem for me, though, is that I've come to a point where I want something more. I find myself drawn from the ease and functionality of what we do here to the accomplishment and self transcendence of the aesthetic. It's like a musician that jams all the time and never writes a song. It sounds masochistic, I know. The struggle to break through the creative hymen, that elastic barrier, is painful to say the least. It is not a myth: the misery of the artist is real. Still, what would be the point of this, this commitment at the expense of all else, if one didn't, at least, attempt to resonate with and seduce the world? To be more than something to bounce off of?