Last time, I posted a ‘part 2’ where I reacted to some additional thoughts I had after rereading the original post. In one section, I suggested that my determination of the post’s quality was ‘inconclusive’.
Well, today I’m back because inconclusive, my ass. Here are all your questions, answered:
Was it good?
It was, I think. I have nothing interesting to say about hatred, but I do know it’s a waste of time, a fact gleaned mostly from observation.
Gleaned? Is that the special word of the day?
I hate word of the day calendars.
What was the book in question?
Actually, no book, and no beach. I wrote the essay as a compilation of various views expressed to me over the years, mostly in public while holding a book (but sometimes in private, when I disclosed whatever I was reading at the time).
Disclosed? Is that the special –
Can I finish?
OK, go ahead.
Right, anyway, over the years people have mentioned to me that they hate various authors. So the post was about those experiences, not about having it happen to me at the beach.
I see, so then you like sand?
No, I wasn’t kidding about the sand, I hate the sand. But that’s another reason why I didn’t actually go to the beach.
Got it. So you made it up?
No, I didn't make it up, it just isn't literally true. Anything else?
Just a couple other thoughts, so why a part 2?
Why not?
Er, well, I mean why part 2, and not a leftover? I don’t really understand the TOA numbering system.
I see. I call it a part two if I wrote it separately. The ones that come out as leftovers, they were written at the same time as the original.
In this case, I wrote ‘Hatred’, sat around for a couple months, then wrote part 2 along with this leftover. To put it another way, if you take the ‘leftovers’ analogy literally, it will become crystal clear.
But wasn’t the point of part 2 that you shouldn’t take words literally?
Not literally, no. There are appropriate times for a literal interpretation, but I understand that it’s confusing. The key is to be consistent. A label or a title should probably be more literal than a spoken sentence.
I’ll think about that for a minute.
You mean sixty seconds?
No, just a minute.
Are we done?
Last question, what’s it like to reread your own writing? Is it keeping you sane these days, or counter-productive?
It’s probably like how stranded hikers drink their own urine to stay hydrated, it’s necessary in a certain way but I don't recommend it.
Oh dear. I suppose we shouldn't take that comparison literally?
Exactly.
Well, thanks again for your time, I’m sure your readers are realizing they will never get the last five minutes back. Any last thoughts?
Yup, despite what I wrote in ‘Hatred’, I kind of would agree with anyone who said they hated today’s post, or its writer.
Thanks for reading!
