I am not 100% certain of the essence of the question. But in answering I HAVE a way that feels more certain than other options of analysis:
Writing is a question of combining information, relevance, flow with brevity in a logically coherent and obvious way.
You begin somewhere that makes sense to you:
- Various theories have it that you start off with a tiny mystery or a descriptive feeling to draw the reader into the text. But a form like that sends a clear signal to the seasoned reader that you are not a “free writer”; you are out to please, ie. to sell, ie. you might care more about your own livelihood than delivering the goods. Maybe.
Put yourself in the reader’s place:
- Nobody wants a bumpy ride, where the text cannot come to terms with itself, but if the information, the story, or the range of descriptive feelings is relevant enough, readers might go along for the ride. But the unevenness might be an intended purpose, a sense of struggling uphill, grasping for some unknown handhold, producing a damning desire of fulfilment as payoff for all of the hardship…
- Only a particular clientele wants a smoothed out ride, where all things are without corners, prongs, thorns, grating or holes and all behaviour is within acceptable societal parameters and justice is served at every table and nothing really hurts. But lack of pain and opposition can make things go down, which would otherwise be rejected…
Every story, every information delivery, has something at heart, and the choice of language frees this something, or it does not:
- A really slow story
A slowly developing story
A story developing really slowly
A story being really slow to develop
A story-development on the slow end
A story taking its time to come to fruition
- A really slow story
Which one is it? What is your personal like or enjoyment of language? Hopefully the words that feel right strung together.
Finding certainty in the delivery is what the writer does. Weighing the words that come to describ
- the personal understanding of facts
- the development of a scene
- the mechanics of a reaction or
- the parameters of feelings or an emotion
which later in the editing proces still bring the intended result. And all of the little words connecting everything, pointing to directions, changing time and perspective, all of it, hinge on the intent. Is it a direction, a center, a show, a precision? The intent causes words to form. The intent rules. As a conscious, well-planned-out thing or from-the-heart improvisation, the method should only matter to the writer.
So, to answer the question again:
And am I sure that the choice of words up above are just the right words?
- That would be a definite “No” – because they cohere as one answer to a question with more than one interpretation. And editing can go on until Entropy is done taking a break.
- But having edited the present full answer for 35 minutes the stringing of words is now intentional and deliberate, fulfilling my intent of an adequate reply to an unclear question, while also adding an amount of the writer’s meta-thinking for some readers to take heed of, to make the answer a “yes”.
Thanks for the opportunity to think about it.