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.
Thanks for checking this out!
My portfolio pages are only available on the desktop version!
reachAbility was my first freelance work! Maybe it will be my last. I'm not sure it's a lifestyle that would be a good fit with me. I'm very introverted. Very anxious.
And not knowing when, how, or if my next paycheque is coming would probably not be appreciated by my roommates, friends, and family.
I actually live across the street from Dilly Dally. Go figure! So when an assignment called for an interview for a profile piece, I figured instead of approaching a random professional, that I would interview Laura instead.
I feel bad, because I said I'd get her a copy months prior. And also the whole interview was like an hour long. Like. I only had 300 words in spire of having great material. I definitely want to revisit this and fill in the whole story.
You know, former graduates complained bitterly about this assignment but honestly I didn't think it was that bad. Really, it was just a long assignment.
Most of my role here was idea-bouncing, brainstorming, and, outside the section I was responsible for, a little editing. I worked on SWOT and organized the structure of how we would tackle the project. And, patting myself on the back, I did the whole layout and formatting.
This was fun. The assignment only asked for a comparison of three articles but, me being me, I did like... 32 or something. I wanted to go over the tone though which different medias were talking about diversity problems the Academy Awards continue to have. Didn't think I could do that properly with just three.
Also I made lots of graphs and I really like graphs.
I got a good mark on this. So I must have done something right I guess?
Actually, I was very enthusiastic about the topic. A discussion about "high art" gallery culture? I despise Jeff Koons. Get rich and steal other people's art and then sell it to your banker friends so that you can gain 'legitimacy' from being featured in corporate gallery? Banksy is proof there is a Pantheon out there that still cares about us.
I always got so much out of the assignments that were so little. probably because these were the assignments that demonstrated that we knew how to think. This absurd idea came into my head as I was desperately trying to negotiate an interesting idea for a PSA concept. Like most of my ideas, it was shot down. (And then appropriated by another group-mate who was lauded. I'm not bitter.) So I decided to turn it into an add for an entirely imaginary product BUT I WOULD BUY IT.