NFT Not For The World.

NFT – Non-Fungible Token

NFT’s are the new high. Virtual drug as I would say. But what, why and why am I against it?

First thing: I am against blockchain in general for a simple reason: It increases the heat exhaust into our environment to create blocks and to mine for ‘Proof of Work’. This therefore is counter productive to what humanity should be doing, as lowering the carbon emission and improving climate stability/dynamics.

I am against NFT, because it plays on the psychology of people to make the blockchain a technology REQUIRED to be kept, because someone would lose a truckload of money if we would choose to remove it. AND it is just for leisure. NFTs have basically NO value (you can make NFTs with value, but that is not what it gets promoted for now).

Everyone is full of it:

We must safe the environment. We have to reverse the damage done to the climate. But at the same time, we are buying into the luxury that makes us feel cozy.

Blockchain was a dream to become rich. Those that got into Bitcoin early would be millionaires (and many are now). But that is passed. All Blockchain does is cost energy to maintain (it is nothing but virtual, meaning if the net goes does for even one single second, all cryptocurrencies will be useless) and everyone knows better, so from 1 cryptocurrency we now are on our way to have 7.7 billion different cryptocurrencies, because basically you can make a separate one for every person in the world. There is no regulation against it, if it is, it is automatically defying the reason that blockchain was first adapted by the darkside of the web.

The world is being sucked into a web of virtual blackmail and either nobody sees it yet, until there is too much at stake to stop, or nobody cares and want their piece of the pie before they die.

You decide what you think is best….for you…or your children.

A world to write

See, writing is not about just putting letters to paper (or digital media). It isn’t just putting words together to make beautiful sentences. If it was, they could make a study of what kind of sentence looked most pretty and make a book full of it. Job done.

Writing is about conveying. It is about building. It is about breaking down.

When you write, you write from somewhere. It requires you to have a level of awareness.

You must be aware of words. You must be aware of the meaning of words. You even must be aware of the fact that the speaking of a word is different from writing it. A spoken word has intonation, direction, facial expression (unless on the phone), and much more. A written word doesn’t have this.
This is why, when I was younger, I tended to add so many parts to a sentence, it wouldn’t make sense any more. It was all to make sure the context was clear. The risk in it was that with so much additions you yourself would trail off while writing. I did on many occasions.

We write from our minds. Without our minds, we can’t write. It is an intrinsic part of cognition. We can write only what we can think of. We can write words as a reference to an idea or concept, or write a word that is a precise description. These differences are small when you look closely, but very big when you take a step back.

An example:
When I write about rain, your mind can flutter along many different images or words, or even songs. You can think of distant rain. Standing in the rain. Singing in the rain. What rain is made off. When last you saw rain, or the last person you shared rain with. So many things that reference from that one word rain.

When I write about my index finger, which has an unclipped nail, where there is short hairs on the back of it. Callus on the connection to the second phalanx due to practicing kungfu. I give you a description that gives you insight. It doesn’t give you much options for music, other people but me (though that is all up to you as reader of course). It is more likely that you are trying to build an non-existing image of my finger. This is a totally different aspect of our cognition.

As you write, you can be aware of these effects. Whether you want to write to trigger the reader’s memory, or build an image of a new world, is up to you. Just be aware that when the brain is doing one thing, it doesn’t like being switching between the two too much (most often).

Be aware, write!

End of superstition

A. Why would you believe there is basis for a superstitious ignorance called ‘god’? Because there are people around you claim there is, from a book that is in no way original, nor in its original state.

B. Even if the book, which was written to ‘prove’ the superstitious ignorance to be the answer of all questions of the time, but especially the most basic of all individuals: ‘why me?’, was not altered, adapted and by translation inconsistent, it would still have lost its merit to the progress of humanity.

C. Are you part of humanity? Yes. Am I part of humanity? Yes. So what we see and hear is part of humanity’s learning.

D. We can say, without a doubt, that DNA findings are correct. You are a biological child of your parents, inherited features with adaption.

E. All research (whether by now you suddenly jumped to a conclusion of superstitious ignorance or not) done by the growing cognitive abilities and intellect of humanity, has resulted in explaining away the simple things that caused ‘primitive’ minds to see only a superstitious solution (hence superstitious ignorance).

I have already explained in (which you haven’t read) how the evolution of the awareness of an individual follows the same path (in extend) as that of the global human mind as a species. In this, the organism primate came to less and less natural enemies, causing it to change feeding habits and pattern recognition with each generation (read until the ‘modern human’ was the generation phase (meaning several generations, likely between 50 or perhaps 100 generations) where language evolved beyond the concrete objects and started to include abstracts, tools developed into reusable and teachable items for the next generation. From the beginning, the mind of humanity, like that of a child, has had only one solid base of reference: itself. As such, when pattern recognition failed, it could only ‘assume’ that the reason for the pattern was like its own mind. At some point children recognize causality, but lack understanding of natural effects and the technical implications behind these events. Simple things like stars, rainbows and the reflection of water. All very beautiful, but we can’t grasp how they exist, until we came to understanding that light was actually an ‘object’. The breaking and reflection of light as wave or particle, caused us to observe the events. The emotional effects remain the same. Some like sunsets, some don’t. Reality doesn’t exist by the grace of light, it is merely one of our options to observe. If this was not the case, blind people would have no existence. We have since come to understand that not all organisms ‘observe’ reality by the same means. Some have more simple eyes, others have even more complex eyes than humans, because evolution caused their ancestors to adapt little by little to changes in their environment. All this humanity figured out by adapting neurology. We started off with limitations, but as the environment gave us options and influenced our physics, we have evolved, even in the last 4000 years. We lost features, degraded the ability of some, improved others. How fast or slow this can go is proven by simple adaptions to handicaps (blind people can hear better, deaf people can smell and see better.) All for survival.

All this shows that the processes at work have been progressive, yet without real course of action, just improved entropy and result of events caused by yet other events. These events have been shown to adhere to the same laws of nature and physics, not even deviation once from it.

So, now as we have arrived at the point where Occom’s razor will kill the mood: All this is proof that it is the way it is, because it can be tested a million times over and EVERY single time, it will have the same result. Even the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics can change that.

Overleven (Dutch)

Ongeveer 3.7 miljoen jaar geleden, begint door verandering in de leefomgeving en klimaat, in Afrika een ontwikkeling die leidde To het ontstaan van een nieuwe wonderbaarlijke diersoort. Een die totaal verschillend zou zijn van alle anderen, maar toch zo hetzelfde. Deze diersoort had zich lange tijd als prooi van andere dieren op gehouden in de gewassen, beschermd door de kans dat roofdieren zich niet in bomen konden werken zonder het voordeel van kracht te verliezen. Door vermindering van aanwezige voeding ging generatie op generatie, de jager ten onder aan zijn eigen succes. Er kwam ruimte op de savanne en de primaat kon zich steeds meer op de grond wagen. Generatie op generatie veranderde de houding en reactors ten opzichte van dierlijke instincten. Wel eens een hond zien reageren op een opgeheven arm? Het ingeprente verwachtingspatroon is dat er een gevolg van pijn kan komen. Dat is een instinct. Ieder organisme, van eencellige tot mens, hangt aan elkaar van reacties, of wel instincten t.o.v. patronen die het herkent. Herkende patronen zorgen voor een grote overlevingskans van het organisme. Het herkennen van patronen, heeft gezorgd in de evolutie, dat organismen die beter reageerden op (veranderende) patronen, een grotere overlevingskans hadden. Dit heeft in bijna alle gevallen geresulteerd in veranderingen van het organisme. Tijdens de periode van 4+ miljard jaar sinds het ontstaan van de aarde tot nu, zijn organismen na de vorming van RNA zelf replicerende eiwitmoleculen en later na inkapseling in een cel,het DNA, gaan reageren op hun omgeving. Een ongelukkige wijzing in vorm kon soms de overlevingskans vergroten i.p.v. verkleinen. Door verandering van habitat, kon soms de cel en later de complexiteit van verschillende cellen, zorgen voor diversiteit, die na enkele generaties al een ander organisme opleverde dan zijn/haar grootouder.

Toen de eerste primaat zijn leefomgeving zag veranderen, was hij zich niet bewust hiervan en reageerde met genetisch geërfde instincten op patronen. Echter, sommige patronen bestaan altijd, maar zijn veranderd in causaliteit (oorzaak gevolg verband). Eerst was er de ritseling in het gewas dat 7 op de 10 keer een jager was (een leeuw, tijger, of ander dier), later werd dit maar 3 op de 10. Echter, wanneer je het ritselen hoorde had je als primaat twee keuzes. Je instinct dat had gezorgd voor overleving volgen, of negeren. Als je het negeerde was de kans dodelijke pijn en het einde. Als je het instinct volgde, was je vrijwel zeker van overleven, ook als het niet een jager was. Dit wordt in verschillende onderzoek vlakken een ‘valse positief’ genoemd. Door generatie op generatie met deze valse positieven in aanraking te komen, werd het ontwikkelde brein (of hersenen) deels overbodig voor deze reacties. Echter kwam er nog iets anders bij kijken. Door de verandering van dreigingen, kreeg de primaat andere voedingsgewoontes. Daar waar het initieel voornamelijk op angst leefde, kreeg het in groepen de overhand op zijn omgeving. 

Voeding waarin meer vetten zaten, die voorheen het lichaam reguleerde door de schaarste ervan, zorgde voor snellere groei van de massa van de hersenen. Dus terwijl de reactie nood minder werd, werd het aantal beschikbare verbindingen (neuronen) groter en ging de primaat vooruit reageren op mogelijke gevaren. Anders gezegd, het begon te plannen. Dit gebeurde in eerste instantie nog op instinctieve basis, maar hoe meer ruimte de reacties kregen, hoe ‘abstracter’ de planning kon worden. Van verzamelen voor mindere tijden tot het zorgen voor voeding aanwas voor mindere tijden. Dit bovenstaande is een enigszins versimpelde weergave van de veranderingen, die met tegenslagen en terugvallen zich ontwikkelden. Toen de primaat inmiddels zich begon te verspreiden over een groter gebied, kwam er, afhankelijk van habitat ontwikkeling in bepaalde hersengebieden, maar ook in de manieren waarop de groepen zich opstelden tegen gevaren en kansen. 

De groei van groepen had ook een inherente ontwikkeling van communicatie als gevolg. Deze communicatie zorgde voor conceptualisaties en bewuste overbrenging van geleerde reacties die niet direct op instinct stoelden. Dit was het ontstaan van menselijke cultuur, maar cultuur is niet iets uitsluitend tot de organisme mens beperkt. Bij het observeren van de omgeving was vanuit de instinct en het herhalen van patronen, voor de cognitieve ontwikkeling van de mens (nog een eenvoudig primaat), de valse positief van belang, maar ook het vlak tussen zekerheid en onbekendheid. De onzekerheid maakte plannen moeilijk, maar zorgde in bepaalde gevallen ook voor reacties binnen de groep die inconsistent waren met wat de groep als geheel ervaarde. Veel elementen die de primaat/mens tegenkwam leken te voldoen aan de patronen die soortgenoten ‘bewust’ veroorzaakten (of konden veroorzaken). Het was dus niet onlogisch, om als het kind dat de primaat mens was, hier een projectie te maken van het eigen kunnen op de elementen in de omgeving. Dit is wat kinderen ook doen als ze nog jong zijn en bepaalde patronen van causaliteit niet kunnen herkennen of bevatten. De mensheid als geheel heeft dezelfde stappen doorlopen als de mens als individu vanaf geboorte doet in zijn leven. Het magisch denken, heeft door de vele valse positieven gezorgd dat de ‘jonge’ mensheid onbegrepen causaliteit aan animisme toewees. Animisme is zoveel als het toekennen van een bewustzijn aan elementen buiten onszelf, waar deze lijkt overeen te komen met keuzes die we zelf zouden kunnen maken. 

De mensheid had baat bij dit animisme, simpelweg omdat het een kind van de natuur was en de natuur zelf geen informatie kon overbrengen aan haar ‘kinderen’. De ontwikkeling van het cognitieve van de mens gaat altijd voor de technologische ontwikkeling. Het gebruik van gereedschap, ontwikkelt zich naar inzicht. Het is niet mogelijk dat een gereedschap zich ontwikkelt, voor de cognitieve ontwikkeling dat hem moet maken. Natuurlijk bestonden er platte stenen en lange puntige stenen, maar dit was voor het gebruiken van dit ‘gereedschap’ gewoon een natuurlijk gevormd element, zonder doel. De mens heeft in zijn ontwikkeling, verschillende vormen van gereedschap ontwikkeld. Fysieke gereedschappen, mentale of cognitieve gereedschappen. Allemaal om het leven of veiliger te maken, of gemakkelijker. Fysieke gereedschappen volgen een ontwikkeling van complexiteit, die gelijk loopt met het vermogen van de mens om causaliteit van de elementen waar het voor moet worden gebruikt heeft doorgrond. Bij cognitieve gereedschappen ligt dit iets onoverzichtelijk. Ten eerste is is de menselijke geest inmiddels bij machte om gereedschappen op abstract niveau te gebruiken en ontwikkelen, waar eerst de filosofie nog bedoeld was om gereedschappen van logica te ontwikkelen, is de calculus en psychologie bedoeld om de werking van het zelf verder uit te diepen en te beïnvloeden. Maar, laten we een stukje terug gaan. Naar die valse positieven. De primaat heeft zich de gewoonte gewaand, dat omdat hijzelf ‘bewust’ acties oproept in zijn omgeving, dit in de omgeving zelf volgens dezelfde spelregels zou afspelen. Als de primaat/mens steen kon werpen. Kon een steen die bij hem neerkwam, onmogelijk dit uit zichzelf hebben gedaan (tegenwoordig zouden we dit soort denken paranoia noemen, maar toen was de mens nog maar in een beperkte schakelingsmogelijkheid: gevaar of niet. Eetbaar of niet. Vriend of niet. Scherp of niet. etc.). Zoals eerder genoemd, deed de mens niet veel anders dan ieder kind dat probeert zijn omgeving te begrijpen en er in te overleven, via magisch denken, een redernering bepalen die consistent is met de observatie en aansluit bij de eigen emotionele gedachtegang. Waarom had men dit ook alweer nodig? Uit het feit dat angst de beste raadgever leek te zijn en zorgde voor de beste overlevingskansen. Animisme zorgde dat de primaat/mens een begrip kon vormen over zijn omgeving, die voldeed aan zijn zelfbeeld en in het begin, voor zeker 30% van de tijd ook voldeed aan het verwachtingspatroon. De geesten, demonen en goden die de historie van de mensen bevolken waren in verschillende culturen, de uitkomsten van het cognitieve proces, waarin de ‘kind’ mens, de wereld om zich heen probeerde helder te krijgen en te overleven. Het heeft tot slechts een paar honderd jaar geleden geduurd, voordat de mens zich bewust werd van de erfenis die het had. Het had weliswaar een emotioneel cognitieve erfenis gecreëerd, om het geobserveerde te verwerken in hoe het dacht dat de wereld werkte, maar deze evidente historie en erfenis die bewijs leverde van een veel groter geheel, en een langere historie was dan het ogenschijnlijke wat men via overlevering had kunnen bewaren, was een grote schok voor grote groepen binnen de mensheid. Zij die het hun taak hadden gemaakt om de groepen mensen in verschillende omgevingen te leiden, hadden hiervoor regels en werkwijzen opgesteld die historisch gezien resultaat hadden geleverd. Die zeker waren. De nieuwe geschiedenis ondermijnde deze ‘status quo’. De geestelijke leiders, die met veel moeite probeerden de ‘schapen’ binnen de groep zonder al te veel bloedvergieten met elkaar te laten samenleven, werden op de proef gesteld in hun eigen overtuiging dat uitsluitend hun inzichten correct waren. 

Helaas voor de mensheid, was de angst de sterkste drijfveer en zorgde dit voor een terughoudendheid tot nieuwe informatie, die zou zorgen voor een lange vruchteloze strijd van de cognitieve ontwikkeling van de mens tegen deze achterdochtige (valse positieven). De wetenschap, een voortvloeisel van religie, naar filosofie, naar thesis, naar methodes, wordt ook vandaag de dag, door de mensen die zich door angst laten leiden, gezien als ongezond en onjuist. Het geeft voor de buitenstaander die voorbij is aan dit bijgeloof, een vreemdsoortig beeld van een ouder die zijn kind niet los wil laten als de puberteit is aangebroken en het kind juist een pad naar zelfstandigheid moet overleven. Deze conflicten, die we als volwassenen allemaal zullen herkennen van onze eigen puberteit, waarbij de hormonen zorgen voor een overactiviteit van emoties, maar ook voor een drijfveer, waarbij alle opgenomen kennis onder kritiek komt te liggen van het zelf verworven cognitieve redeneren. De mens is op weg naar de volgende fase, maar veel mensen houden nog vast aan het magische denken dat inmiddels slechts nog een remmend effect heeft op de ontwikkeling van de mens en zijn mogelijkheden om die ontwikkeling ten goede te laten gelden in zijn omgeving. Laten we hopen dat er snel een punt komt, waar men inziet dat magisch denken geen oplossingen biedt voor wereld problemen, en slechts vies watje is op een al stinkende wond.

Oscar’s heart

I am currently editing a story I wrote together with my friend for life Jennifer K. Garcia. The story is about a girl who is in a bad place going worse. The story evolves around an unexpected relationship that ends in a epic event.

Currently the story is start to end done, but the story line isn’t…entirely correct. It misses consistency and many of the scenes should be written into either more extensive detail or anachronisms need to be removed.

I have looked at the scenes and they are also under consideration to be reordered.

To give you a ‘teaser’ of the story:

I noticed a change in posture. Like a moment ago when Ally didn’t respond to inquiries, she slowed her breathing, but deepened it with a sigh. Her facial expression changed.

‘I will check what his agenda says, don’t activate the protocol, without oversight please.’

The other girl said sternly, followed by a wry smile at Ally. Then she turns she walks out of the room.

‘Allison….why did your expression change a moment ago?
I read differences in neural patterns, but I don’t understand.
Did you activate a subroutine?’

I asked when the door closes behind her.

The mention of certain words will already give some indication on the direction and genre of the story. This is a scene that I have rewritten, yet am still not too happy with. Likely you will see it in another post being rewritten again.

The dawn of a bright day (working title)

The story of ‘Dawn of a bright day’, is actually a fantasy story. Currently it is planned to be an ongoing series, but the first story is finished and a small part of the second episode is started on. I am currently editing the story, which was created through extensive roleplay writing.

Basically Roleplay writing is nothing more than writing responses as one of the characters. Each writer takes one protagonist, or more and writes what happens with them. This often results in suprising events and pretty original content, but often it also adds a layer of missing context. As the writer of the character and having it respond to another character, makes the character in-depth, but many times misses the depicting of the environment around it.

In Dawn of a bright day, Rin and Asteria are the main protagonists. As always, the story start in a ‘running’ fashion, which I like. No description at forehand, the story starts in action. Blanks are filled in on the go. This always eases the roleplaying part, in my opinion.

Here is a short excerpt of the story as it currently is.

Asteria smiled with a nod, not showing her surprise.

I can hear you little light. What happened to you? Rin recollected the events and tried to bring the new world to Asteria slowly. With a glow on his cheeks he started.

I am Rin. I am a protector from the Dawn-world.
I am not sure what happened to me. It seems the shadows hit me with something, then I raced to reach you, but I lost consciousness. I think their poison took me out.

Rin almost yelled, so he didn’t need to use too much magic, which was draining fast it seemed. he assumed it was because of the fact that the light was not natural sunlight.

More to come later.

Writing a new world

I was going through some collections while cleaning up. Suddenly my eye fell on something that I had not forgotten, but…the attention for it had waned. So? You might ask? Dump it, done, even cleaner.

Yes, cleaning up stuff you haven’t used for some time is a good thing. Nostalgia isn’t really helping in cleaning. But this was a game…or rather more than a game. And even if it had only been a game, it was an integral part of my life.

The I in write

I write, I write since I can write and am a poet since my teens or before. As drawing doesn’t come as easy to me as it does to others, I have to use words to describe a world I picture. It wasn’t until this game, that I turned my yearning for writing into a ..(I hate words connected to superstitious nonsense, but by lack of better) soul-lust. The game was Myst, or rather the whole franchise (The books, the games from Myst, Revelation, Riven, Exile, URU, Myst V and upcoming Obduction, but also the web communities, way back in the 90’s). What it did to me, was give me a sort of insight into the process of writing, without going into it actually.

The Y in Myst

In Myst, the story starts on an Island that was created by a writer. He wrote a book, and by writing it in such a way, it became a real world. No doubt Robin and Rand Miller will have thought about it from this perspective. The game is all about solving puzzles in various ways. It was the start of the genre, though I now found Cosmo and Manhole to be the precursors actually. The fact that the game was based on such profound (in my eyes as a teen) wisdom, that writing was an ability to shape a world inside one’s mind, was beyond the game of course. And it clung to me. I was Atrus (like many people at that time), I was a D’ni (I was always joking online that my third name was pronounced the same), like all the other people. Some identified with Catherine, the wife of Atrus, others with yet other characters from the stories devised later (Three books: Myst: book of Atrus, book of Ti’ana and book of D’ni are a must read. Rand and Robyn Miller together with David Wingrove).


But the revelation, or rather making the idea that thrives writers, tangible, caused me to build this dream to be able to really write such type of ages, these worlds. But of course, schools don’t immediately teach you what you dream of, rather than what you need to come by in society and the country you live in (if you are lucky).

In all, I am a writer, more because of the world of Myst. Where worlds were written and words held magical power, which metaphorically is the same way we as humanity look at it.

Medium writing

No, it isn’t about the level of writing, or about ‘illusionists’ writing their stories, but about what to write on: The writing medium.

We live in a digital age. Much of what we do either touches, are is completely stored on digital media, or even bigger: stored online.

Medium improvement

Each generation loses a little of the knowledge from the past, but this is all part of evolution. Should we keep all we write? Should we forget things on purpose? But even more, should we forget how things were done before? Like we forgot we forged pots of clay, by baking them in burned ground? Should we forget about how we wrote on paper?

True, paper is a costly way to write. Not just because it costs ink, or paper, but rather because paper comes from nature. Paper is made from trees. Even with recycling it takes effect from oxygen generating life of nature. But why would you then, even consider writing on paper, if you want to be conscious, aware and responsible?

A strong connection, that internet

Well, did you know that the internet is like a computer that is always on? Do you know what computers need? It needs electricity. Not only that, but when too much is done on one computer, the computer becomes hot. If too many computers together get warm, they also get hot. Thus, with the internet, which is build on several skyscrapers of computers stashed together in some rooms all over the world, they need to be cooled. They need airconditioning. This means more electricity required, as supporting appliances to the actual internet. But, of course there are also people checking the computers day and night. They need food, light, and all sorts of stuff, to be able to do so. More electricity. And you know…..electricity is created in several ways: Sunlight, wind, water, coals, burning fossil fuels in general.

Writing on the wall

So….eh….It is all neat and all, but where you store your writing, doesn’t automatically change your impact on nature (if you were interested). But there is more.

While a book of paper might seem oldfashion, there is a reason why humanity first invented those, instead of the internet. They don’t cost energy to preserve. Though the internet is always available, what do you think happens if a major power outage would hit the vicinity of where your data is stored on servers? Well, basically nothing much should happen. The backup power supplies should kick in and all keeps running, but what if the power was off for a longer time. Or off at your location? You would not be able to access any data anymore.

A book remains a book. You can write it and later read it without any power or electricity required. Taken that you have enough light. The book doesn’t need anything but a dry place to be secured. This is one of the reasons I write both on the net, and on paper still.


There is another reason, a more paranoia reason to write on paper: nobody can just access it by hacking into your accounts. As we all learn about IP (Intellectual Property) and how Google, Facebook and Microsoft have prying eyes in everything, it is hard to not be paranoid when you have that idea that you think is totally unique.


But in all, I think both have pro’s and con’s. Online is easier writing or reading together with others. Something humanity will move into, if some religious sect won’t have reverted most of us back a couple of decades first. In which case my children still have some writing to read.

Five ways to improve your writing

Without the long intro that will get you yawning, here is a list that definitely will help you improve your writing skills:


Don’t excuse yourself. Write a minimum of one word, but don’t write nothing with the intend of the writing itself. So, no signing a letter doesn’t count. But ONE word can be a poem, a reference to more. It will help you tomorrow if you write even one day today. What is the effect? If you don’t have too much time, you are able to improve your ‘thought condencing’ abilities. Writing down only a couple of words will almost always fuel the brain to write more. The brain must be given little nudges of cookies to continue. When you sit in the train, bus or waiting on someone, write what you see, what you think or what you hear. It will start you thinking and tomorrow you do this again and suddenly after a couple of days, it becomes natural to write down just a little, then more.

Don’t limit yourself to types of writing.

Especially when you are a beginning writer, you will think you have it all laid out, you don’t need to improve your writing: This is what I want to write about…..but that is not the way your writing will develop itself. The creativity or consistency in writing comes from understanding when to write what in what form. Practice everything. Writing is painting with words. You can be an architect, you can be Rembrandt, you can be Picasso. They all had their style and they all took years to perfect it. Don’t think you should write only poems if you like that. Also write a story, if you have trouble doing so, extend your poem in the amount of lines (Check Shakespeare if you don’t know how), or write the poem and use it to write how you envision the subject of the poem lived or moved.


Whatever you write at first, is not good. It is bad. You can always improve your writing. Why? Because it is the initial conversion of mind to word. It is always lacking, it is always a bit too much here, too little there. Look at your story, poem or anything after a week and write it again, from that initial writing but what you would change. Don’t hold back, the digital age gives you the possibility to keep every single version.

Write together.

As they say in some of the scenes RP/Roleplay. When you start writing, you often write from one perspective. That is great. A diary kind of story can do marvels, but often after several pages a reader might fall into a feeling that all characters are thinking the same thing….because you wrote it from one mind and will at some point write the story through all characters but from your mind only. Doing a roleplay will help you see things from others perspective. A roleplay generally goes like:
– writer one: Joe walks into a room, gun holstered. At the far end of the damp place he notices the other guy.
– writer two: Greg looks up from his drink. The light falling in from the doorway shows only a silhouette. Was it him? The hairs on the back of his neck rose up. Sweat started to form on his forhead.

Let go!

When you finished a story, a poem, even a short or a piece of a scene that you don’t feel will be needed anymore. Put it out there for people to see. Show them what you do. Ask them to respond to it. Let people provide feedback. It will help you. Even the ‘Wow great’, ‘You call that writing?’

Writing is not just a word

Writing words isn’t just making the characters connect, or making a word of a string of characters. Writing means a process of changing non-tanglible ideas into a concept, into a protocol of signs that are understood by another.

A simple word can have a simple meaning, but a simple word can also have a complex meaning. Worse even, a simple word can even be a complexity in itself and the connected emotions. It can build a world or just a short flick of the eye.

Consider the word Word. It is a concept of everything you have read right here. It is simply the defining combination of symbols that should translate in someone’s mind into: A concept of combined characters that has meaning in or outside a context. Here you see, that the simple word Word, already gave more words as an explanation of itself. And even now, as you read this, you are even wondering whether I am right about it. Whether your definition is the same, or more extensive. Perhaps your mind lingered from this text and you started to think of a poem about the word Word, or you have suddenly seen recollections of texts that resembled this. So much happens when you read a word. So much a word can mean.

So when you write, you aren’t just writing words, you are writing ideas.