On Throwaway Writing

There are a number of reasons I never pursued journalism.  One of those reasons is that it is throwaway writing.  You read a headline and you've got 75% of the story.  You read the first sentence or two and you have the rest of it.  News articles are about what is current when they're written.  As soon as time passes, it's old news and nobody cares.  Often, more information becomes available, which makes an article even less significant.

Throwaway writing exists in all fields of writing, though.  Those writing exercises that we're encouraged to do, which we do, maybe half-assed, and then never look at again - those are throwaway writing.  You do them for the experience of writing them, not for the content that is produced.

I considered my blog to be throwaway writing because it is an exercise.  I write it off the top of my head, do no post-editing, and move on to the next one when the next day comes.

But every now and then, I search through my archives, usually looking for a specific one.  And in doing so, I end up reading a number of my entries.  The funny thing is that I like them.  They could certainly be better, but the hearts of them are good.  Sometimes I am actually amazed by what I read.  This is not throwaway writing.

So what's the difference between a news article and one of my blog entries?  Really, it's the subject material.  Most things that are reported on are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.  As more things continue to happen, a news story becomes a grain of sand on the beach.  But with my blog, I am talking about universal subjects (in theory, at least).  I am discussing timeless subjects, trying to do so in a way that people of all kinds of backgrounds and life paths can understand.

In a year from now, or five or fifty, these posts will be just as relevant as they are now.  That's the exact opposite of throwaway writing.