Why I write

Earlier this week, I read an article in The Australian about how today's teenagers use an average vocabulary of only 800 words each day, preferring instead to use the abbreviated language of text messaging and hip-hop. I've never counted, but from reading the article, it would seem that 800 is not very high – in fact, it appears that "800 words will not get you a job". What's more, "yeah", "no" and "but" all feature in a top 20 that accounts for about one third of the words they use.

All of which I find a little sad. Especially when I think about how much I love words.

Here's a quick 50 from Australian poet Kenneth Slessor:

I looked out my window in the dark

At waves with diamond quills and combs of light

That arched their mackerel-backs and smacked the sand

In the moon's drench, that straight enormous glaze,

And ships far off asleep, and Harbour-buoys

Tossing their fireballs wearily each to each,

And tried to hear your voice, but all I heard

Was a boat's whistle, and the scraping squeal

Of seabirds' voices far away, and bells,

Five bells. Five bells coldly ringing out.

Incredible writing if you ask me, but then Kenneth Slessor was far beyond the reach of teenage angst by the time he penned Five Bells.

Which brings me to another of my favourite writers, George Orwell. I must admit to a touch of hubris in taking the title for this post from an essay he wrote in 1949. That said, there's nothing particularly unique about the title, and it does seem fair given that I'm discussing a similar subject – although maybe not quite with the same degree of finesse.

In his essay, Orwell took the time to outline "four great motives for writing": sheer egoism, aesthetic enthusiasm, historical impulse, and political purpose. By his standards, I'm guilty of sheer egoism simply by continuing to write past the age of 30; I'm not the sentimental type, so posterity in the guise of historical impulse holds little appeal for me; and yes, I am political, if you subscribe to Orwell's broadest definition of the term.

But what most strikes a chord in my heart is aesthetic enthusiasm: what Orwell describes as everything from "words and their right arrangement" to typography and even the width of margins.

For me, there's something wide-eyed and beautiful in an elegant turn of phrase. Each word gently pushed along by a mix of alliteration, juxtaposition, onomatopoeia, repetition, rhetoric, tempo, crescendo, cadence, the list goes on.

Which all goes to explain why I love the work we're doing for Griffin Theatre Company – apologies for the shameless plug!

And I was pretty excited when I found this recent Fiction issue of Vice, with every page dedicated to new writing.

However, words don't always comes all that easily for people. It takes time and effort and discipline, as well as creativity and flair and ideas. And that even goes for some of the most prolific writers, as Stephen Fry explained in what will be his last blog post for a little while.

For me, writing isn't always easy, but it is important. In a previous post, I wrote about how they say a picture is worth a thousand words, but a single word can start ten thousand stories. That said, not too many of them start Yeah no but.

Read all about it (redux)

I love newspapers.

I know I wrote a B&T story here that lamented their fate (a shape–up–or–ship–out type of story).

And forget the fact that I have a blog, Twitter feed, Facebook and LinkedIn accounts. Plus an iPhone with all sorts of strange apps. All things that would suggest to the average consumer researcher that I don't know my broadsheet from my Berliner.

But they couldn't be more wrong, and there's no getting away from the fact that I love newspapers. And, in particular, I love The Australian.

As it happens, The Australian is undergoing a bit of a makeover at the moment and the associated commentary makes for some interesting reading – and viewing.

It's not often that you get to see inside the creative process as it hits the shelves, and it's equally rare that its creator takes you on a personal tour, although not quite so rare now that we live in the grip of web 2.0.

That said, I have to admit that the commentary wavers between resounding insight and a slightly hollow ring. I realise it's only part of the story (and I prefer to focus on the deeper, more insightful part), but I would like to believe that there is much more besides to be gained from a redesign of The Australian at the dawn of the 21st century. And I say that not as a cynic for whom nothing is ever good enough, but as an optimist in the eternal hope of utilitarian prosperity (which is not necessarily as complicated as it sounds).

I daren't write more for fear of journalistic retribution on a karmic scale given that I write as a mere amateur on the subject of not only my favourite newspaper, but also the patron of writers far more expert than me.

But I do write as someone who believes in the future of the printed newspaper (and its dull thud as it is delivered to the doorstep). Long may it linger.