For the most part, I'm best with bigger ideas. In writing, I am good for extra flourish and for selecting words that fit the best meaning, feeling, and associations.

​

Now, when I say I'm a bad speller, I would also like to say that F. Scott Fitzgerald was also notoriously terrible at spelling. (He was also a raving alcoholic and maybe a racist so not the best comparison as moral characters go. Don't need to be a decent person to be a brilliant writer though. *COUGHrowlingCOUGH* Distribution of talent, ironically, is nondiscriminatory. It is a personal responsibility for the talented to also be nondiscriminatory.)

​

Brilliant writing is in a thought process. You can present the clearest, most easy-to-understand policy update memo, but the effectiveness is still 0% if people don't feel inclined to read it. Getting someone to read past the first sentence is 90% of the battle. For everything else, there's Grammarly.

​

But whatever you do, don't let an algorithm tell you what words to use. Language is fluid, and one of the most inefficient ways to communicate. So as language itself is imperfect, striving for perfect writing is not only asymptotic, but removes meaning from communication. And yes. This even applies to copy text. Every sentence is an opportunity to tell a whole, indivisible story in the same way that saying "yes" or "yes." can have entirely different meanings given context.

 

When I write, I write to communicate a feeling; perfect form, grammar, and sometimes even spelling can be a detraction.

​

fite me.