Three Tips For Coming Up With Your Own Grammatical Rules (For Everyday Use)

Well, I thought that I’d talk about writing today. This was mostly because, after reading this old online newspaper article about how introverted people are supposedly stricter about grammar than extroverts are, I ended up thinking about my own use of grammar.

Because, despite being something of an introvert, I really don’t give a damn about “bad” grammar most of the time. As long as I can understand what someone is trying to say, the grammar doesn’t usually bother me.

Plus, even though many of the basic rules of English grammar are instinctive to me, some aspects of it just seem to linger in that nether region between boring and confusing (eg: grammatical terminology such as “participle phrases”, “subjunctives” etc..) and some aspects of it just seem slightly pointless to me.

In fact, I’ve found that I’ve actually started to come up with some of my own grammatical rules (eg: I often italicise bracketed text whilst typing, I always use “it’s” instead of “its” etc..). Whilst this would probably infuriate grammar purists, there’s certainly a case for making up your own grammatical rules. Well, within reason anyway….

So, here are a few things to think about if you want to change the rules of grammar…

1) Practicality: The first thing that I will say is that modifying the rules of grammar slightly should only be done for a good practical reason. This isn’t something that you should do just for the sake of it. But if some subtle and intuitive tweak to the “rules” makes your writing faster and, more crucially, more readable – then go for it!

For example, I tend to use brackets a lot. I love the idea of adding extra context and examples to sentences. Yet, I’m also very aware of the fact that too many brackets in a piece of text can quickly turn that text into a confusing and unreadable mess.

So, the easiest way to deal with this whilst typing is simply to differentiate these parts of the text by putting them in italics (like this) so that readers can instantly tell at a glance whether something is part of the main text or not. I also use a similar version of this rule for typed dialogue and quotes too.

Likewise, the rule about “it’s” and “its” has never really made sense to me. In fact, I didn’t even really know that such a rule existed until I was in my twenties. To me, it just seems considerably simpler and more practical to use “it’s” for all uses of the word (eg: as a contraction of “it is” or as something belonging to “it”).

Since I often write fairly quickly, it’s often easier to just use one version in all contexts rather than spending ages worrying about which one I should use. Likewise, since the meaning is fairly clear from the context, it probably isn’t too confusing to anyone reading it.

So, if you’re going to change the rules of grammar, make sure that you have a good practical reason for doing so.

2) Meaning: If you come up with a slightly different grammatical rule, then it’s meaning has to be at least slightly obvious from the context. After all, if your change requires a long explanation to be understood, then it’s probably just “bad grammar”.

After all, the whole point of grammar is to make language more readable more quickly. It exists so that we don’t have to spend too long deciphering what a piece of text means.

So, any changes you make to your grammar must be subtle enough that their meaning can easily be worked out at a glance. This is similar to how new words enter the English language. When a popular new word appears, it’s meaning is usually fairly easy to work out from the context it appears in. If the meaning is less obvious, then the chances of a new word becoming a major part of the language decrease sharply.

For example, Donald Trump accidentally coined the word “covfefe” last year. This word originally appeared as “…negative press covfefe” and it was probably just a spelling mistake since, in that context, “coverage” is the only similar word that would work in that sentence.

Yet, the new word briefly became popular as an internet joke. But, “covfefe” is unlikely to become a major part of the English language (in the way that newer words like “Brexit”, “selfie” etc.. have) for the simple reason that it doesn’t really have a clear meaning that is easy to work out from either the word itself or the way it is used. Likewise, it is also difficult to pronounce or read quickly too (at the time of writing, my current pronunciation of it is “cof-fay-fay”)

So, if you’re making a change to the rules of grammar, then make sure that your audience can easily work out what you’re trying to do (without having to waste time looking for an explanation).

3) Spontaneity: This probably sounds counter-intuitive, but don’t try to change the rules of grammar. Language evolves through practical use (typically, spoken forms of a language also take precedence over written forms). As such, good changes to language often happen fairly intuitively because they just seem easier to use.

For example, hardly anyone uses the word “cannot” in everyday speech any more, since it’s easier to just shorten it to “can’t”. This change also involves the use of a grammatical rule (eg: using an apostrophe to signify a contraction) too.

This grammatical rule came into being because it was a quick way to signal that a word had been abbreviated.

When you come up with your own grammatical rules, they shouldn’t really be too much of a conscious choice. They should just be something that seems intuitively easier or more understandable. They should be something that you don’t even notice that you’re doing at first because it just seems obvious to write in that particular way.

———-

Anyway, I hope that this was useful 🙂

Advertisements

Good Creative Changes – A Ramble

2017-artwork-good-creative-changes-ramble

Although this is a rambling article about making art (and about creativity in general), I’m going to have to start by talking about music for quite a while.

This is mostly because I’ve recently been listening to two punk albums that I consider to be “perfect” albums (eg: albums without a single bad track.)

These two punk albums are “Stranger Than Fiction” by Bad Religion and “Sing The Sorrow” by AFI. The interesting thing is that both of these albums sound at least subtly different to other albums I’ve heard by these bands.

But, as much as I’d like to talk enthusiastically about Bad Religion, AFI’s music from between the 1990s and the early-mid 2000s offers a far more interesting example of how creative people can change whilst still remaining distinctive.

Although I first heard of AFI during my childhood in the late ’90s/early ’00s (since one of my cousins had “Black Sails In The Sunset” and/or “The Art Of Drowning” in their CD collection, although I didn’t really listen to these albums much at the time), they’re a band that I only got even vaguely interested in during my later teens and during various parts of my twenties.

But, although I’ve always thought of AFI as a gloomier, horror-themed gothic punk band, I decided to check out some of their really early stuff on Youtube when I was wondering whether those albums were worth buying or not.

The “early” AFI songs I heard sounded completely and utterly different to what I consider AFI to sound like. They sounded a lot “lighter” and some of the song titles were a bit sillier. Whilst the music certainly wasn’t “bad”, it’s certainly not what I personally think of as “AFI”. They just sounded like a fairly average 1980s-influenced American punk band. Yet, reading the comments below the videos, you’d think that the band had committed some huge cataclysmic betrayal because they don’t make music like this any more.

This provides the perfect example of how and why creative works change over time. Originally, the band was an “ordinary” punk band who were clearly inspired by other punk bands of the time. They made the music that they considered to be cool. Yet, they gradually expanded their range of influences as they grew older and more experienced (eg: their “A Fire Inside” EP contains a cover version of a song by The Cure) and their music became more distinctive as a result.

This is a good thing to bear in mind regardless of what you create. If you are only inspired by one genre, then your work is just going to be “average”. But, if you are willing to take inspiration from “cool” things that don’t fit into the genre that you create things in, then your work is going to be a lot more original and distinctive as a result.

The changes in AFI’s musical style are also a perfect example of good creative changes. After all, the changes didn’t happen suddenly. If you listen to “The Art Of Drowning” from 2000, then it sounds like heavier and slightly more introspective punk music – but it’s still fairly energetic. When you listen to “Sing The Sorrow” from 2003 – the music sounds even heavier and the gothic elements are slightly more overt, but many of the songs still have the same energetic punk pacing to them. The albums sound different, but one is clearly a natural evolution from the other.

In other words, creative changes work best when they happen slowly and/or organically. Yes, trying out totally new things can be exciting and there’s nothing wrong with experimenting creatively occasionally (it’s pretty much essential). But, the kind of creative changes that last and work well are the sort of things that happen so “naturally” that you sometimes don’t really notice them too much at the time. You see something cool and you think “how can incorporate what makes this thing cool into the things that I make?” and it just kind of happens.

For example, most of the art that I’ve made over the past year uses a slightly limited palette instead of more “realistic” colours. Although I’d experimented with smaller limited palettes in the past (based on one pair of complementary colours), they never quite seemed “right”. But, after seeing how the visual design in these “Doom II” levels used 2-3 pairs of complementary colours instead of just one, something just clicked. And my art changed.

For example, here’s an old cyberpunk paintingthat I made in late 2015 (and posted here in spring 2016). As you can see, it uses a slightly understated blue/orange colour scheme, but it still looks vaguely “realistic”:

"Strange Case" By C. A. Brown [2015/16]

“Strange Case” By C. A. Brown [2015/16]

And here’s a version of this painting that I made in 2016 (but posted here this year) that uses my new palette (as well as a couple of extra image editing techniques I’d learnt).

"Strange Case (II)" By C. A. Brown

“Strange Case (II)” By C. A. Brown

It looks different (eg: less “realistic”), but you can hopefully just about see the evolution from a more limited blue/orange palette to a palette that includes multiple colour pairs (there’s purple and green, plus red and blue!). But, I wouldn’t have known how to do this if it hadn’t been for my earlier experiments with more limited palettes. One is an evolution of the other.

———-

Anyway, I hope that this was useful 🙂

Three Reasons Why Early Works Are So Strange

2017-artwork-why-early-works-are-so-strange

If you look at a webcomic, Youtube channel etc.. then you’ll probably notice that the earlier updates are often stranger in some way or another. Leaving aside differences in technical quality (due to differing levels of practice and experience), they’ll often be significantly different in all sorts of ways. And I’m no different to many in this respect.

Although I only started this blog in 2013, I was posting art (and occasionally comics) online as early as 2009/10 and quite a bit of my earlier stuff (especially comics from 2010-13!) that I posted online was either cringe-worthily strange and/or radically different to the stuff that I post online these days.

So, why do earlier works often end up being stranger or more eccentric than more current things?

1) The internet: Put simply, in the old days, you usually needed some kind of publisher or physical gallery or whatever. This was both a good thing and a bad thing. On the plus side, it meant that someone already had to have had quite a bit of practice before anything they made saw publication. It meant that stories, comics etc.. had to pass an editor and other quality control methods.

On the downside, it meant that there was a gatekeeper between writers, artists etc.. and their audience. It meant that things had to be more mainstream, since there were more financial concerns. It meant that new artists, writers etc… had to win the approval of a complete stranger in order to show the things they make to thier audience.

On the internet, however, anyone can post anything. And this means that creative people can show off their work whilst they’re still learning. This is great, for both the audience and for the writer/artist (since posting stuff online is a great motivator to keep making stuff). But, this can mean that their early works are a lot stranger because….

2) Styles take a while to develop: Most artists and writers don’t find their “niche” or their “style” instantly. Usually, it’s a continuous process where you experiment with different things over time, whilst also being inspired by new things that you encounter along the way too.

For example, my current approach to using colours in art was something that I only really started doing after I played this set of “Doom II” levels. Prior to that, I’d experimented with vaguely similar things (eg: limited palettes using just one complementary colour pair). But, seeing how the visual design of those “Doom II” levels combined complementary colour pairs in interesting ways inspired me to do the same in my own art.

One example of this with webcomics is that my long-running occasional webcomic series (more recent parts of it can be found in the 2016 and 2017 segments of this page) used to contain quite a few fantasy elements (eg: magic, crossbows etc..) back in 2011-2013. This was because the original inspirations for the comic series were “Buffy The Vampire Slayer” and “Angel”, which I watched quite frequently at the time. Since then, my tastes, inspirations and sensibilities have changed slightly and the comic has gradually changed as a result.

Likewise, with writing, I’ve gone through quite a few narrative styles over the years. For example, when I was about 16/17, I was fascinated by late 19th century/ early 20th century fiction. So, a lot of the stuff I wrote back then tended to be written in a very old-fashioned style that makes me cringe whenever I re-read it.

Likewise, during my early twenties, I read a lot of really influential cyberpunk, gothic and hardboiled novels that led to radical changes in my writing style. Although I didn’t really write that much fiction during my early-mid twenties, when I returned to it occasionally in my mid-late twenties, my writing style had changed slightly since I’d read more things (and written a lot more non-fiction) during that time gap.

So, a writer or artist’s “strange” early works are usually just an example of their style being less well-developed than it is now. Then there’s also the fact that…

3) We don’t realise it at the time: No writer, artist or comic maker intentionally sets out to make “strange” early works. Usually, it’s something that can only be noticed in retrospect. At the time, a writer/artist/comic maker is more likely to think that they’re making something “cool” or “interesting”.

Likewise, if new members of the audience start by looking at someone’s current works, then the earlier ones are going to seem strange by comparison too. Whereas, if you’ve been a member of the audience over quite some time, you’re more likely to see the changes as part of a gradual progression or evolution.

————–

Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂

Four Ways That Making Art Regularly Changes How You See The World

2017-artwork-art-changes-the-way-you-see-the-world

As I’ve probably mentioned before, making art regularly can change the way that you “see” the world. So, I thought that I’d explain some of the many ways that this can happen:

1) All of the usual technical stuff: This all goes without saying, but there are a lot of subtle ways that the technical details of making art regularly can change how you see the world.

For example, you’ll get a lot better at noticing and discerning exact colours. Likewise, you’ll instantly notice complementary colour schemes whenever you see them (the famous “most modern movie posters are blue and orange” thing springs to mind) Seriously, I’ve learnt more about colours within the past 2-3 years than I have done in the time before then.

You’ll also occasionally find yourself doing things like mentally converting 3D objects and scenery into 2D images, as if you were copying them by sight. Or, if you see something interesting, then you’re probably going to know how to memorise it so that you can paint it later (unless you carry a sketchbook, or one of those newfangled smartphones).

2) You respect artistic skill more: Last November, I somehow ended up reading an article about an ultra-conservative painter from America. My reaction to the rather provocative political paintings shown in the article was something along the lines of “I strongly disagree with the political sentiments but, on a purely technical level alone, these are quite impressive pieces of art – they’re more detailed and realistic-looking than any of my paintings are“.

Of course, when I looked at the comments, I occasionally saw people conflating the unsophisticated quality of the political messages in the paintings with the (much higher) level of technical quality in the paintings themselves. And I was completely bewildered by this for a few seconds. But, I realised that – without having the experience of making art – I also wouldn’t know the sheer amount of effort, time and practice that must have gone into all of these paintings.

So, yes, if you make art regularly, then you’ll tend to notice art a lot more. If you see an interesting illustration on a website, or even in an advert – then you’ll tend to either see if there’s anything you can learn from it or you’ll think “that’s an interesting piece of art”. Likewise, even if you don’t like a piece of art for some reason, you’ll probably still respect the technical skills of the artist who made it.

3) You become an analyst: If there’s one thing to be said for making art, it’s that it teaches you a lot more about images in general. In other words, the kinds of analytical skills that you need when working out how to make a painting (or researching how to draw something) can also be applied to any images that you happen to see.

In an earlier draft of this article, I had originally written a short essay about how a stock image in an online news article about science was potentially misleading (and how I was able to work out that it was a work of digital art rather than a realistic photo). But, then I worried that it sounded too cynical and I noticed that the stock image had technically been attributed (albeit with a potentially-misleading caption which could possibly lead readers to think it was a photograph of a real place). So, wary of sounding unfair, I decided to replace this part of this blog article with this description. Sorry about this.

But, yes, making art regularly can seriously improve your image analysis skills.

4) You notice beautiful scenery more: If you make art regularly, then when you see beautiful scenery in real life, then your first thought will often be something along the lines of “I should paint this” or “how do I paint this?”.

In other words, you will not only be more likely to look for interesting views of the world when you are out and about, but you’ll also be more likely to see artistic beauty in otherwise “ordinary” places.

———–

Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂

Three Basic Reasons Why Remakes Change Things

2017-artwork-remakes-changing-things

I’m sure that I’ve probably talked about this before (and tomorrow’s article will be a much more interesting interpretation of the topic of remakes), but since I was in a slight rush at the time, I thought that I’d go over some of the most basic reasons why remakes change things.

Although it won’t be posted here until August, the day before I wrote this article, I re-made one of my favourite paintings from last year called “La Chanteuse” because I was feeling too uninspired to come up with a totally new idea for a daily painting. Here’s the original painting from 2016:

"La Chanteuse" By C. A. Brown [2016]

“La Chanteuse” By C. A. Brown [2016]

And here’s a reduced-size preview of the new version:

The full-size painting will be posted here on the 18th August.

The full-size painting will be posted here on the 18th August.

As you can probably see, it looks fairly different to the original version. Personally, I’m not sure which version I prefer, but I thought that I’d talk about some of the reasons why remakes can end up being different from the things that they’re based on.

1) Skill changes: If someone returns to something they’ve made a long time ago, or if someone remakes something by someone else, then there’s a good chance that the person making the remake has at least slightly different skills to the one who made the original.

For example, between the time that I made the original version of “La Chanteuse” and the remake, my attitude towards using colours in art completely changed. I went from using strict limited palettes, to using a slightly wider palette in a particular way. Likewise, I’ve become more interested in (and/or very slightly more practiced at) painting realistic lighting. I’ve also learnt a few new digitial editing techniques for my art too.

So, when I made the remake – I ended up using all of this new knowledge. After all, what would be the point of remaking something if I wasn’t able to add everything I’ve learnt to it?

2) Inspiration changes: Likewise, the inspirations that someone brings to a remake will probably be different to the inspirations that were behind the original thing. This can either be because the remake is being made by someone else or because the person who made the original has found new influences.

A good example of this can be seen in the 1982 film “Blade Runner“, which is an adaptation of a novel from the 1960s called “Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?” by Phillip K. Dick. The setting of the original novel is closer to a semi-abandoned post-post-apocalyptic city than anything else. This was probably at least partially inspired by anxieties about nuclear war, pollution etc.. at the time.

But, when Ridley Scott directed the film adaptation, he was a lot more influenced by old film noir movies and contemporary cities in Japan, South Korea etc.. when shaping the ‘look’ of the film. So, far from being the decaying remnants of a civilisation, the city is a bustling futuristic metropolis that is lit with neon signs, filled with towering buildings and omnipresent rain.

The book and the film tell slightly similar stories, but their settings are very different because they were made by people who had different inspirations.

3) Times and trends: As I hinted at in the previous point on this list, the time that a remake is made can also cause changes too. Popular fashions can change, popular trends can change, technology can change, popular politcs can change etc… And this can often be reflected in remakes.

For example, things in the horror and dystopian sci-fi genres that tapped into contemporary anxieties when they were originally released will often be updated to reflect current anxieties when they are remade. Likewise, bringing a story “up to date” can sometimes involve transposing an old story to a modern setting – with mixed results.

This is especially noticeable when Shakespeare is performed live these days. Although a lot of people have tried to “update” these plays by setting them in the modern age, few directors would dare to change the original dialogue too much. So, you end up with this surreal situation where modern people are talking in 16th-17th century English. It’s hilariously bizarre.

So, yes, the time that a remake is made can also have a huge effect on it too.

——–

Anyway, I hope that this was useful 🙂

Three Ways To Make A Change To Your Webcomic Series (Without Alienating Too Many Of Your Readers)

2017-artwork-webcomic-major-changes-article-sketch

Although this is an article about making webcomics, I’m going to have to start by talking about TV shows for a while. As usual, there’s (almost) a good reason for this that I hope becomes obvious later.

The day before I wrote this article, I started watching the second season of “Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex“. Even from the opening credits alone, I knew that this season was going to be different. Everything in the opening credits had a much more gothic look to it, and the theme tune had hints of symphonic metal music in it. I was literally awestruck when I saw it for the first time.

When I started watching the episodes, I noticed that they’d gone from being intelligent sci-fi thriller episodes to being much darker and more complex political thriller episodes. Visually speaking, the set design in the first four episodes had a much stronger resemblance to both the original “Ghost In The Shell” movie and to “Blade Runner”. Needless to say, it was already my favourite season of the show after binge-watching a mere four episodes.

It’s an example of a change to a series done properly. And, since my own occasional webcomics have changed a bit over the past year or two (eg: I’ve moved more towards story-based comics etc..), I thought that I’d give some advice about how to make changes to your own webcomics. I’ve probably said some of this stuff before, but it bears repeating.

1) Have a good reason: As many users of a popular online art gallery site will probably tell you, change for the sake of change benefits no-one. In other words, you should only change your webcomic if there’s actually a good practical reason for doing so.

The main reason why webcomics change dramatically is because the change helps to keep the person making the webcomic inspired. Some people are able to make the same sort of thing repeatedly for years, and other people need to do different things in order to stay inspired. If you’re making webcomics, then staying inspired should be your top priority.

If you feel absolutely fascinated by a different type of comic, then make it! If your characters are developing in a way that you didn’t expect them to, let them develop! If you’re in a different mood to the one you usually are in when you’re making your comic, let your comic reflect that mood!

But, don’t make changes just for the sake of it, or to be fashionable. If a change doesn’t genuinely help you to feel more inspired, don’t make it.

Yes, inspired changes might annoy a few of your readers, but the higher quality that will result from these inspired changes will probably help you to keep readers or gain more of them.

2) Continuity: Even if you make a major change, try to keep some things the same. In other words, there should be something that regular fans of your webcomic will recognise instantly. This can be a similar style of humour, this can be recurring characters, this can even be a similar art style. Generally, changes tend to work best when they are part of a gradual progression – rather than a more abrupt change.

So, leaving parts of the “old” version of your webcomic in your new updates can help your audience to adapt to the changes you’ve made more easily.

For example, although I moved over to making more narrative-based webcomics (compared to more self-contained comics), many of my earlier narrative-based series included brief story recaps in the dialogue of each update, so that many episodes could theoretically be read on their own. Like this comic from “Damania Repressed“:

"Damania Repressed - Analytical Engine" By C. A. Brown

“Damania Repressed – Analytical Engine” By C. A. Brown

Plus, in the mini series that will appear here in late July, I’ve been experimenting with including a better mixture of story-based updates and self-contained updates, in part to appeal to people who prefer the “old-school” versions of my comics. Here’s another preview:

The full comic update will appear here on the 23rd July.

The full comic update will appear here on the 23rd July.

Likewise, the switch to more story-based comics wasn’t too difficult to make since I’d already made occasional story-based comics before (like this one, this one or this one). Yes, I’d used a slightly different visual style and panel layout for them, but regular readers of the series will hopefully realise that story-based comics aren’t an entirely new thing for me.

3) Practice and improvment: Many of the best changes in my webcomics have probably been the less noticeable ones. In other words, the improvements I’ve made in both the art and dialogue in my comics over the past year or so. Here’s a chart to show you what I mean:

 As you can see, I've started using slightly more detailed art and more extensive digital editing.

As you can see, I’ve started using slightly more detailed art and more extensive digital editing. (Note: The release dates refer to this blog, rather than to DeviantART)

In other words, if you practice making art and/or making webcomics regularly, then you’re going to improve. This will, over time, lead to changes in the “look” of your webcomic. These changes will probably happen without you even really noticing them at first. It goes without saying, but these are the kinds of changes that your audience is least likely to complain about.

So, if you want to change your webcomic without changing it, then just keep practicing (even if you only make webcomics occasionally, do art practice as often as possible).

———

Anyway, I hope that this was useful 🙂

Does Your Fiction Writing Style Change If You Haven’t Practiced For Quite A while? – A Ramble

2017 Artwork Does Your Writing Style Change article sketch

Last Halloween, I got back into writing fiction after spending a while (probably less than a year) where I didn’t really write prose fiction. Before that, I’ve had other times where I didn’t write fiction for 1-2 years.

So, I thought that I’d look at the question of whether your writing style changes if you don’t write fiction for a while.

In short, it both does and doesn’t. When I wrote my Halloween stories, I noticed that they contained a mixture of writing styles rather than just one consistent “style”.

Several of them contained elements from various older versions of my writing styles – for example, this story sounds a lot like something I would have written in 2009-10 and this one sounds like a slightly improved version of something I would have written in 2005-7.

As well as this, some stories also sometimes contained elements from the slightly formal style that I use when I write these daily articles. This was especially interesting, since I found that I could write some stories a lot quicker if I made them sound a bit like a non-fiction article (like I did in this story and this one).

Not only that, my regular non-fiction writing and art/comic making practice also meant that I had all sorts of techniques for dealing with writer’s block/ uninspired moments that I didn’t have when I used to see myself primarily as a fiction writer.

So, some skills can transfer from other creative things that you may have been doing instead of writing fiction. This may or may not affect your writing style.

In the end, whether your writing style will or won’t change if you haven’t written any fiction for a while all comes down to experience and practice. If you’ve been doing other writing-related things in the meantime, then this will probably have some effect on your writing style.

Likewise, if you’ve read anything that uses a writing style that you really like, then parts of that style are probably going to seep into your own writing style when you get back into writing again.

However, if you’re out of practice, then your natural instinct will probably be to “pick up where you left off”. In other words, it’s very likely that you won’t completely lose or forget your old writing style. Because of all of your past experience with writing, you’re probably going to unconsciously end up using a similar style to the styles that you used to use.

Plus, if you haven’t practiced for a while, then your style is probably going to have all of the same flaws that it used to have. In my case, this is an annoying tendency to use rather “functional” narration if I’m writing fast. Likewise, I sometimes tend to over-use certain descriptions and sentence structures. So, you’ll probably end up keeping most of the flaws from your original style if you’re out of practice.

In addition to all of this, you have to take the fact that you haven’t practiced into account too. If you practice a skill regularly, then it soon becomes fast, fluent and intuitive. It becomes something that is almost second nature.

This feeling can go away a bit if you haven’t practiced for a while. As such, don’t expect the very first thing you write after you haven’t written for a while to be as flowing, eloquent or polished as the things you used to write.

Getting back to that level of skill and that distinctive style may take a little bit of practice, although it’ll probably take considerably less time that you would have to spend if you had no prior experience.

Still, this is probably different for everyone. I’ve been talking a lot about my own experiences and trying to find general lessons in them. But, I guess that the only real way to see if your style has changed or not is to try writing something.

———

Anyway, I hope that this was useful 🙂