A Diagram of Momomaro Wandering Through Writing
Following advice from a friend,
I've been practicing writing uninteresting prose, as they told me, "If you want to write interesting prose, practice writing uninteresting prose."
Uninteresting prose is wordy and long-winded.
I even find it tedious to reread my work before posting, thinking, "This isn't interesting."
I keep writing whenever I have a spare moment, telling myself this is also training.
One reason it's uninteresting is that the hook is weak.
And because the development is predictable, I find it boring even as I write it.
I try to make it easier to read by adding a table of contents, but I feel pathetic about my lack of originality, wondering how many times this has been written before.
I have no sense for this, absolutely none.
I feel like a student whose test scores won't go up no matter how much they study.
So then, what is interesting prose?
Is it a story about a klutz, or a relatable topic,
or what? I'm pondering that.
Interesting prose depends heavily on the reader's experience and context, doesn't it?
For someone who likes klutzy characters, stories about them are interesting, and for someone who likes relatable topics, small, relatable anecdotes are interesting.
However, to give it that universal feeling of "this is somehow interesting," you need things like resolution, surprise, or room for interpretation.
For example, even with a story about a klutz,
if you drop some money and hit your head while trying to pick it up,
then drop the money again while trying to rub your head, and finally, a stranger asks,
"Are you okay?" making you feel like crying.
...If you describe it to that extent, mere clumsiness turns into the pathos and kindness of a living human being.
The feeling that I won't be able to write interesting prose if I keep writing uninteresting prose is, I'm sure, the feeling I get when I lean on ready-made ideas like templates, predictable outcomes, or the assumption that "this is how you get likes."
"This is boring," that's usually it.
It's writing that vaguely relies on,
"Readers like this kind of thing, right?"
When I write a romance,
I create a scene thinking, "You like a boy offering an umbrella in the rain, right?" but for me,
"Why did this boy offer the umbrella in the first place?"
"What will these two talk about after this?" I haven't dug deep enough.
Because I rely on easy-to-write patterns,
I unconsciously use clichéd developments or common stories,
like "the person I love betrayed me,"
thinking, "This will keep the story moving."
But I haven't had a romance like that.
If it rains,
"Forget it, let's just run to the station even if we get wet."
I've never been betrayed by someone I love, but if I were, I'd chase them down with a pair of scissors.
Who do you think I am?
Because I am strange and peculiar, stories that are too smart aren't interesting at all.
"This isn't what I want to write."
If it doesn't have the texture of my own life, it slides right off the page,
and I end up posting shallow prose out of habit.
In that sense, maybe defamatory writing is a masterpiece that makes people read anything.
Defamation might be considered dirty in terms of language, but it has the power to strongly pull at people's emotions, doesn't it?
Writing that goes viral on social media, extreme opinions in Yahoo comments, or the biting headlines of gossip articles—
the reason those things have a strange "power to make people read"
is because they have an edge that appeals to human instinct,
and the intensity of the provocation that says, "There's a spark here." Maybe, just maybe.
Defamation doesn't equal interesting prose, but
interesting prose has a strong pull, leaves something behind after you finish reading, and is permeated with the fact that only I could have written it.
If it meets the conditions for interesting prose, it wouldn't just be strong; it would remain in the heart as an interesting work.
I know that, but... right now, I'm wandering.