I hope I'm commenting on 'Law War Story' but I think I might be commenting on your whole 'Inkspread'
As I've already written in reply to one of your comments on my Substack (I think it was 'Wemyss'.) I read through your work before commenting yesterday (21/09/23). I was a bit laconic, which is unusual for me, many would say fortunately (that I was laconic, not that it was unusual). Somewhere I'd set myself the goal of getting a post or two out for the equinox and then jammed myself into a corner by putting it in writing and then made quite sure I couldn't back out by posting it, i.e. I posted it, so I couldn't back out (without losing face). So, that's why I was unusually laconic.
Having spent the last days and weeks wondering why the hell I didn't get on with the job I knew I was going to do but put it off and procrastinated right up until the very last minute, so I'd have to concentrate all my attention on it and wouldn't be able to indulge sudden extraneous indulgences, however alluring they may be, I'd got on with it the day before and it had picked up steam to keep me going with only a short break to wee and make a coffee or two a couple of times. Fortunately, I'd made some really good pasta in a great sauce the day before so all it needed was a little nuking and I was good to go. I've eaten it all now, so I'm not sure what I'll do about food today. I think I got enough done yesterday, so I can relax and maybe cook something. Shit, I'd better get something out of the freezer. (I hate 'defrost' on the microwave. They should call it the '(Cook) Edges Only' setting.) But that's all beside the point. Now, you see why I should avoid these indulgences if I'm to get anything done. And people, as a rule, just resent it and think I'm being a smart-arse to make myself feel good without bothering to worry about how it makes them feel. But that's not actually the case at all.
Anyway, the point that kept popping up in my mind yesterday about your writing was the great difference I felt reading about what you had enjoyed doing and about what you had not enjoyed doing. I found it really interesting to sense how your attitude to what you were doing, and how you felt about it, made such a big difference to how much I enjoyed reading it. Before I'd had an e-mail notification to say you'd liked my comment and replied 'Me too,' which I don't have to stop what I'm doing to see, my attention had kept returning to your 'Law War Story'. Specifically, I remember the thing that really made me think: it was "...state laws are far beyond even the Federal version...". I'd never thought of that before. I'd realised immediately, of course, that there's absolutely no reason why this shouldn't be the case — I understand (at a very basic level) how State law and Federal law work together (to complement, not contradict, each other) so, in theory, there's no reason why State law shouldn't advance beyond Federal law at any given point. It makes sense, it just hadn't occurred to me, and I really enjoyed finding out by thinking about it. Probably, I think, because you enjoyed finding out about it too.
That's it, really — all I wanted to say: I think your post about lawyering was so much better than the two previous about bean counting because you enjoyed it and that enjoyment comes across in the writing. It's a really good point I hope to learn from (about writing) myself. So, thanks for that.
I hope I'm commenting on 'Law War Story' but I think I might be commenting on your whole 'Inkspread'
As I've already written in reply to one of your comments on my Substack (I think it was 'Wemyss'.) I read through your work before commenting yesterday (21/09/23). I was a bit laconic, which is unusual for me, many would say fortunately (that I was laconic, not that it was unusual). Somewhere I'd set myself the goal of getting a post or two out for the equinox and then jammed myself into a corner by putting it in writing and then made quite sure I couldn't back out by posting it, i.e. I posted it, so I couldn't back out (without losing face). So, that's why I was unusually laconic.
Having spent the last days and weeks wondering why the hell I didn't get on with the job I knew I was going to do but put it off and procrastinated right up until the very last minute, so I'd have to concentrate all my attention on it and wouldn't be able to indulge sudden extraneous indulgences, however alluring they may be, I'd got on with it the day before and it had picked up steam to keep me going with only a short break to wee and make a coffee or two a couple of times. Fortunately, I'd made some really good pasta in a great sauce the day before so all it needed was a little nuking and I was good to go. I've eaten it all now, so I'm not sure what I'll do about food today. I think I got enough done yesterday, so I can relax and maybe cook something. Shit, I'd better get something out of the freezer. (I hate 'defrost' on the microwave. They should call it the '(Cook) Edges Only' setting.) But that's all beside the point. Now, you see why I should avoid these indulgences if I'm to get anything done. And people, as a rule, just resent it and think I'm being a smart-arse to make myself feel good without bothering to worry about how it makes them feel. But that's not actually the case at all.
Anyway, the point that kept popping up in my mind yesterday about your writing was the great difference I felt reading about what you had enjoyed doing and about what you had not enjoyed doing. I found it really interesting to sense how your attitude to what you were doing, and how you felt about it, made such a big difference to how much I enjoyed reading it. Before I'd had an e-mail notification to say you'd liked my comment and replied 'Me too,' which I don't have to stop what I'm doing to see, my attention had kept returning to your 'Law War Story'. Specifically, I remember the thing that really made me think: it was "...state laws are far beyond even the Federal version...". I'd never thought of that before. I'd realised immediately, of course, that there's absolutely no reason why this shouldn't be the case — I understand (at a very basic level) how State law and Federal law work together (to complement, not contradict, each other) so, in theory, there's no reason why State law shouldn't advance beyond Federal law at any given point. It makes sense, it just hadn't occurred to me, and I really enjoyed finding out by thinking about it. Probably, I think, because you enjoyed finding out about it too.
That's it, really — all I wanted to say: I think your post about lawyering was so much better than the two previous about bean counting because you enjoyed it and that enjoyment comes across in the writing. It's a really good point I hope to learn from (about writing) myself. So, thanks for that.