I wish I could be a more multi-dimensional writer. I understand that everyone has his or her own writing style, but it would be great if mine varied from time to time. In my Creative Nonfiction class, I get to read awesome pieces of work that vary from funny to powerful to biting to exceedingly creative. I think I have a flair of the funny (in the David Sedaris sense) but everything else is seriously lacking. And even Sedaris can write moving pieces. The use of metaphors and poetic imagery baffles me. I am at once both turned off by its floweryness and amazed by the beautiful and vivid language. Or a lyrical piece of "disjoint" writing that forms a cohesive piece (Son of Mr. Green Jeans by Dinty Moore is a wonderful work).
Part of it might be that I lack moving stories to tell. I blame that on a "perfect" childhood in a quiet suburb where the most distressing thing that happened in my elementary school days was when I didn't win a local competition. When people write amazing pieces about family struggles, crime, etc. I get envious that I don't have such stories to evoke inspiration from. This envy is ridiculous. The other part is that I'm just not creative. I dislike poetry, interpretive ______ (dance, art, fill in the blank with most anything) and have little ability to think of large abstract things. I like to tell it as it is. And then if it gets too serious, through some humor in because I'm too immature to face something too dramatic or difficult.
All this limits me as writer. I don't write too much, but if I did, would I turn into a Dan Brown? Where every story is the same and you just plug the plot into a formula? Well, hopefully, at least my writing itself is better, if not the template. Plus, he's also obscenely rich, which leaves the question: would I take the fame and money if I were not proud of the work and knew that it sucked?
I'm not sure. But I'm leaning towards the answer to this question: "Did Obama accept the Nobel Peace Prize?"
