On Textual Dramatics

When it comes to writing, my feet never quite touch the ground. I think way more people than I'm estimating have this trouble.

Writing bland technical reports and articles is something I never quite mastered. Everything I write stems from my own experience but I bury it in a casket of allusions, seal it with metaphors and place it six feet under elaborate tales of fictional strangers such that unless you're a necromancer, there's no way you're going to know the actual story.

Sometimes I like to think it's a good thing. I write only when an idea strikes and I write with a dramatic sense about something so vague that nobody understands what I'm alluding to. In my mind, I like to think of it like a Christmas tree with way too many decorations that it just looks like a glittery, pretty pile of trash.

So why can't I just get done with it then? I sit hours over a plot only because the second line in the second paragraph doesn't sound similar to the second line in the first one, or I don't quite have a sentence structured in a way that it leads to a nice flowery metaphor that otherwise would have no relation to the plot. I think and think and think over how to make something more fake-deep, more philosophical than it has any right to be.

What is so hard about plain, flavorless writing that I would rather stare at the wall for an hour than to take my pen and write -"On the 24th of June, you broke my heart you silly bastard now I will whine about you here so you can read this and feel like a terrible human" ?

Oh, but the seduction. Isn't that what it is? Even if I am the antagonist, I can seduce the reader, spin a tale of misery and strength, about good turned to bad, about all the chances that I lost all because the world had painted over me an evil picture. It's a human nature to sympathize with flaws, and it's a very human nature to be curious, and nothing piques the curiosity like a piece of writing that gives a new meaning every time that you read it because it's edges aren't sharp and it's as clear as a misty winter morning.

It's these aesthetics, these pretty languid piles of word that seems to mean nothing add up at parts, they slow your eyes as they skim from line to line, in search of the next solid line of action. The descent to madness is sweeter when it's slow. Without realization, when you are imagining the throne and the haughty voice of the queen who's sprawled over it, these pretty lines come together as the unnoticed darkness of the counsel, the eternally clouded skies and roaming pitch black ravens, the nervous tic of her majesty displayed by the twitch of her fingers and the remarkable abhorrence to red in all of her castle. Intricate little details that weave the picture, frustrating as they are to read.

I could give plenty of reasons why flowy, dramatic writing wins over brick faced plain writing but that wouldn't be fair.

What is wrong with my elaborate descriptive writing is that it is needed in pinches while I pour it down in the counts of pounds. The needed amount varies from piece to piece, from a short report about the month's finances to the thoughts of a deranged man at his last minutes, caught under the claws of death.

It is okay to be a bit dramatic with aesthetic when you're a newbie, I splash JavaScript all over my useless web-page until the page takes a solid minute to load with just four lines of HTML and I am proud of it. But I am not a newbie to writing, I should be able to build a brick faced wall of an article if need be.

Do you suffer with the same urge for the dramatics as I do? Or did you read this post without a single relatable moment? How do you write a boring ass article and actually enjoy it? Great gods of academic writing, please let me know your secrets.