I'm told I should be a writer

Here's an excerpt from an essay I wrote on NASA

Constructive criticism or just criticism... welcomed.
 
The insatiable hunger for new knowledge, coupled with maniacally unearthing virgin frontiers to quench that ache, has served to implant deep within Human culture… wanderlust. Throughout history, societies have coerced their people and technologies towards being first to behold the new and strange. In the early sixteenth century, Europe was fixated on exploring and colonizing the new world. Tomatoes, corn, tobacco, and immaculate land were the rewards to whom was first to lay claim. It took several hundred years for mankind to conquer that expanse, and soon after, the sky became the target of our all-controlling desires. On wooden-wing and reliable zephyr that youthful frontier was tamed and collared, for the benefit of all. Still not satisfied, lunar ambitions soon become the twinkle in the eye of society. Seated foremost, Mankind hurled itself, with the fiery roar of colossal engines, away from the steadfast constraints of Terra Firma. Sadly, the resolve to endure and occupy the celestial hinterlands seemed to atrophy, like the once zealous dedication shown in striving for that now—actualized accomplishment. The all-enveloping sense of wonderment and curiosity for the unknown, which was coerced by society to fuel immense advancements of societal and technological progress, is now under threat of becoming defunct. If the status-quo of allowing the cultural significance of NASA to further wallow in mediocrity and uncertainty, America will soon lose the long treasured societal pastime: of looking towards the future with wonderment, and with genuine eagerness to explore the exotic or unknown.

It looks to me like you use big and pretty words to cover the gaps in your skill.

In actuality, you remind me of a fellow student when I was in high school who used to write his essays using Word thesaurus. The problem with that is that in the English language, no two words are exactly the same. They may seem very similar. But they aren't the same word.

Your problem is mostly incoherence. I don't know if you are aiming for colourful description or pseudo-intellectualism, but most of what you have written only makes sense to the semi-illiterate. The kind of writing that gets good grades in school, but would be picked apart by actual journalists and writers.

TBH I didn't use a word thesaurus, I'd like to know what words I used incorrectly or awkwardly. I'm proud of my vocabulary, and if that comes off as conceded, then I'm fine with that.

I'm a very long winded writer, I enjoy painting a picture, not getting to a point and moving on. 

Thanks for your comment, and if you have more I'm open to them.

I didn't mean to sound harsh and to be honest, it's not the words you used necessarily. It's the context in which you used them.

What led me to believe you used the thesaurus was that similar words would work better in those contexts, but the word you chose sounds awkward in place of them. In the line "has served to implant deep with Human culture...", for example, "implant" would perhaps be better served with the simpler "root" or "plant" (coupled with a re-arrangement of the sentence, of course).

And then there's phrases such as "and immaculate land" or "of colossal engines" which are a little redundant. The word is perhaps too grandiose. It makes you sound a little pretentious.

On second glance, you are not an unskilled writer as I implied in my first post. If you toned the description down somewhat, it would serve you better. I think the large and varied vocabulary displayed in that essay seeks to drown your prose.

I'm not 2, just so we're clear.

>Tomatoes, corn, tobacco, and immaculate land were the rewards to whom was first to lay claim.

Incredibly awkward.

In fact, it's pretty awkward to read in general. I get that you're trying to be colorful/descriptive, but I think you're going about it the wrong way.

2,4: Thanks for the tips. I'm getting: be less grandiose, and don't reiterate words with descriptions.

5: I see what you're talking about. TBH I didn't like that sentence, but in the ruff draft my professor thought it was a word-gasm, so it stayed in. 

And man, do you guys fear hurting my feelings. I'm not a professional writer by any means, and not for a moment did I expect to be welcomed as one. To accompany the first paragraph, here's my last.

If a future trial were to be convened, to better direct our fingers of indignation at the soul responsible for the death of the American Space program, and with it—the American dream.  At the end, the distance traveled by the implicating appendage would be quite brief; it would only need to point inward.  By becoming so mired within the novelties of our on blinding success and tragic failures, forgetfulness on how they were achieved grew profound.  The expression “Great ambition and conquest without contribution is without significance,” comes to mind.  NASA is not just a program directed at taxiing Humanity to other worlds.  It’s a continuation of a long tradition, championed by anyone willing to wonder what endured just out of sight; those who did not accept the notion, of what was out of sight… was out of mind.  Is society so pidgin boned, that we were beaten back and broken by petty apparitions of our own making?  Fortunately, that threshold between crisis and impending doom still lies uncrossed.  The ability to redirect the mighty resources of this country, and for that matter the world, is still feasible.  A most basic understanding is all that’s required in grasping the extensive potential space exploration embodies.  How sad would it be if, looking back, it was this generation’s heavy feet and clumsy hands that doomed society’s capacity to wonder, to dream, and to explore?

2,4 here again. Yeah, you have a great love of adjectives I can see. "The ability to redirect the mighty resources of this country" could just be "the ability to redirect the resources of this country" or maybe "vast resources" if you feel the need to imply the extent of the USA's resources.

Speaking of that sentence: "The ability to redirect the mighty resources of this country, and for that matter the world, is still feasible." I am not sure that that quite works. The ability being feasible. That part in particular.

It would work better as: "It is still feasible to redirect the vast resources of this country or, for that matter, of the world."

superlatives do not equal great writing.

a great writer expresses his ideas in the simplest form possible, nothing is overcomplicated.

>>8
>a great writer expresses his ideas in the simplest form possible, nothing is overcomplicated.

I just wanted to add that my University professor (not OP, by the way) always tells us the same thing. He usually quotes (I think) Hemmingway on it, saying 'your light reading is my hard writing'.

>>8
>>9
That's the post modern style of writing, beauty through simplicity.  More like mediocrity (not a big fan of Hemingway)

try reading some Dickens, or Thomas Hardy, or Melville, or Conrad, or Tolstoy, or Walter Scott. 

You know, something above a High School reading level.  Where... my god you may actually have to 'think' and not just follow along.

>>10
haha you don't understand hemingway lol

>>10

Wow, you have no idea what you are talking about.

>>10

Well, I have to say that I don't know that much about writing styles, but I've been planning to read some Tolstoy for a while now.

The cardinal rule of writing is to tell a story; style and subject matter are afterthoughts. If you write a piece, ask yourself, "Did I convey the story clearly"? What good is a story that no one understands?

http://thevictorsblog.co.cc/

Might as well tear you a new one.

The insatiable hunger for new knowledge, coupled with maniacally unearthing virgin frontiers to quench that ache,
“coupled with the maniacal unearthing of”

has served to implant deep within Human culture… wanderlust.
Did you pick that funny word order just so you could use the ellipsis an Unicode character? Aaaawkward. And is it really the act of unearthing frontiers (what does that mean, unless you're on a journey to the center of the Earth — your metaphors are confusing in their import) that has infused our culture with wanderlust, or is that a symptom of the same? Can a culture have wanderlust, or would “psyche” have been a better word?

Throughout history, societies have coerced their people and technologies towards being first to behold the new and strange.
This doesn't mean anything clear to me. I think you're trying to say that in Western society, there is a long-lived desire to reach for the future... but the agency of coercion is by no means clear to me, nor that there is any coercion whatsoever, if it's a popular impulse.

If you're going to drop “throughout history, societies”, I want to see more societies than just lolwest, and a history older than 500 years or so.

In the early sixteenth century, Europe was fixated on exploring and colonizing the new world. Tomatoes, corn, tobacco, and immaculate land were the rewards to whom was first to lay claim. It took several hundred years for mankind to conquer that expanse,
Mankind being Europeans, I suppose? I'm not some kind of bleeding heart Sherman-Alexie–reading faggot, but I wouldn't go out of my way to be an imperialistic paternalist dickhead either.

and soon after, the sky became the target of our all-controlling desires.
Controlling all of what?

On wooden-wing and reliable zephyr
Zeppelin? A zephyr is a western breeze. Also your hyphenation implies that this this zephyr is both reliable and has wooden wings. Also “on wooden wing” sounds unbearably pretentious.

that youthful frontier was tamed and collared, for the benefit of all.
In what way did it benefit everybody? What definition of “all” are you using? You also just said we put a collar on the fucking sky. Wat.

Still not satisfied, lunar ambitions soon become the twinkle in the eye of society.
“‘The’ twinkle”? Unidiomatic. Talking about the eye of society is both an overwrought metaphor and leaves me with some confusion about what you mean by “society”. I take it to mean America and the USSR, since that's who was involved in the space race, but I'm not sure, and “society” is awfully all-inclusive. I'm willing to bet their were a fair number of people who didn't give a shit or were actively against space flight. Don't thoughtlessly steamroller them in your zeal to produce maximally inflammatory rhetoric.

Seated foremost,
Who was in coach?

Mankind hurled itself, with the fiery roar of colossal engines,
Oh, spare me.

away from the steadfast constraints of Terra Firma.
Looks like they ain't standing so fast after all.

Sadly, the resolve to endure and occupy the celestial hinterlands seemed to atrophy,
Strange choice of words all around, and tremendously overblown.

like the once zealous dedication shown in striving for that now—actualized accomplishment.
Er, how is the dedication here different from the resolve above? If you really want to make this distinction, spend more time on it. If it snuck in in the general rush and serves no particular purpose, throw it out. And you seem to be saying that the now-actualized (horrible, horrible phrase) accomplishment is in fact to endure and occupy the celestial hinterlands. Unclear antecedent.

The all-enveloping sense of wonderment and curiosity for the unknown, which was coerced by society to fuel immense advancements of societal and technological progress, is now under threat of becoming defunct.
This is pretty much all gibberish. Another odd use of “coerce”, and a strange statement all around, that curiosity for the unknown fueled these advancements you don't specify.

If the status-quo of allowing the cultural significance of NASA to further wallow in mediocrity and uncertainty, America will soon lose the long treasured societal pastime: of looking towards the future with wonderment, and with genuine eagerness to explore the exotic or unknown.

This sentence is both contorted, pompous, speciously punctuated, and not much of a conclusion to that paragraph.

Overall, you're making a lot of grandiose claims that you'd better have backed up in the bulk of the paper. You're referencing this outmoded idea of expansion and technological progress that in 2009 needs support; it can't go without saying. You're using far more words than elegance demands, and mostly more than it permits. But worst, there's some kind of fuzzy-headed thinking going on that gives me the impression that you aren't really clear what concepts you're trying to describe to me.

You need to take your hand off your dick, stop thinking about space ships and how many big words you're using, and home in on your semantics and the point you're trying to make. Maybe you're getting as mired in adjectives as your readers do, and you're perfectly capable of expressing yourself clearly when left to it, but you need to make that your foremost focus, even before writing in a pleasing fashion. An essay is nothing, nothing without a rock-solid structure to drape your words on. This writing sounds more like you're trying to get me excited to distract me from the fact that what you're saying is shaky as hell.

op here.

16: I respect what you have to say, and honestly, I agree with a great portion of it, from the view of what was posted being the serious aspect of the essay.  What I posted, was the beginning and ending paragraphs of the essay at hand.  I specifically wrote them to be as artsy, as grandiose, as epic, as possible;  Big opener, big ending sort of thing. I guess it was my mistake for posting something that was written with fiction in mind, about a factual tropic, and fully expecting it to be judged on sentence vitality and word usage. 
Based on the time you put into producing your critique, or ass handing to, of my work. I gather you are a regular of this board, so I'll post the rest of essay.  Read it, burn it, Whatever.

Also;
11: Trolled, fanboy.

13:
READ Anna Karenina; it's his best work, and honestly, once you get into it a little bit, it's a breeze to read.



Thanks everyone for your comments, /b/ook; It's refreshing to see an intellectual debate on something affiliated with 4chan.

Here is the rest of the essay as promised.

To charge space exploration as some damp and forgotten relic of the cold war is nothing less than cultural suicide.  The sheer impact of its intrinsic motivation over this country’s technological innovation capabilities and progress as a whole is astounding.  Not only is the space program able to affect the direction and velocity of technological development, but also greatly influence societies interest and eagerness to strive for more.  The past national obsession with the American Space program is summed up well by Walker, “In the Early 1960’s, people were enthralled by cosmonaut Yuri Gargarin’s first orbit of Earth in the days following the event, All were interested in the feat’s prospects, In the United States, that interest had the character of a competition. In the view of the American political and military leadership, the hearts and minds of the non-communist world were at stake.” (Walker 1)  How could the intense, almost hysterical, public interest for NASA and its exploration of the heavens dwindle to the current level of mere casual concern?
    To tally up the achievements of NASA within one category: landing on the moon alive, would severely under credit the organization as a whole. Yes, the milestone has never been match by any other earth society, but only giving credit to a singular achievement like it was the final act of an epic play, only serves to desensitize the public to any posthumous triumph.  Walker agrees with the situation of desensitization, but blames a slightly different cause.  “A change in the public’s perception of the thrill and novelty of spaceflight is one reason for its diminished popularity. Since the 1970’s, television, more opportunities for travel, and the personal computer and internet connectivity have brought rapid and accessible “adventure” to the public.” (Walker 1)  The idea that NASA was sowing the seeds of its own demise is quite disheartening.  The very technological achievements that the public expected NASA to cultivate caused the wide expanse amid what-we-currently-have and what-we-think-is-possible, to shrink drastically and suddenly.  Isn’t this the government’s job to curtail?  The purpose of a government by the people is to guide, and focus, the erratic will of the public at large.  Unfortunately, the American government is one of an everlasting popularity contests, and there was no way in hell the liberal-arts and political-science experts were going to let a bunch of scientists or engineers direct the flow of the almighty dollar.  Walker agrees, “American presidential administrations and Congress have directed NASA to minimize its self-promotion.  The political bosses don’t want another popular agency and program demanding federal money they wanted to spend otherwise. So spaceflight became boring.” (Walker 2)  Ultimately, since we elect our own officials, the blame and years of forfeited progress endure atop a very familiar locale… society’s shoulders.  So space exploration is passé now; been there—done that, and don’t we have more pressing issues to contend with?  Like figuring out how best to evade the responsibility of replacing crumbled infrastructure, or convincing the un-ordained that burning the liquid remnants of dinosaurs continues their legacy.  In all seriousness, what will society mirror once the wonderment of reflecting upon what could be becomes displaced by an aversion to altering, or refurbishing, comfortable realities?  What if European powers rejected the idea to leave that little piece of the world, and instead concentrated on improving the complexity of ornate dress?
    The exploration of the unknown does not only entail planting the American flag on alien soils.  That type of exploration can only be derived from uncertain ventures into the infinite sphere of exotic technological knowledge.  The term “it’s the journey, not the destination” cannot be likened to a more appropriate undertaking.  The development of the initial space programs: Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, to the continuation of the current Shuttle program, has elicited a type of collateral damage.  Inadvertently or not, the destruction of old—obsolete technologies and ideas has made way for the fruits of innovation to blossom.  The running analogy to agriculture is not by accident.  NASA’s seemingly small and laser-directed innovations of singular technologies create seeds of exponential growth within businesses, culture, and even individuals.  By perfecting the technology to put satellites into orbit, American businesses pioneered instant and horizon-less data communications, which was profited by all.  The Hubble Space Telescope gave society crystal clear images of worlds trillions of light-years away; the old notion that the Earth is alone within the Universe is dead and gone.  Senator Brownback illuminates the effect of NASA on the Individual, for the best and worst.
“NASA has, from its inception, been charged with making the impossible possible… NASA has given us a sense of national pride.” He continues with, “In fact, American society itself is built on the idea that success only comes from a stern effort… The importance of persistence throughout history seems almost too obvious to clarify. We universally celebrate our heroes who drive past obstacles and hardships.  But it seems as if we often take them for granted. When faced with current challenges, such as the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia, many are quick to hesitate and mellow.  They assume that success is born easily; that setbacks are failures in principle rather than unfortunate steps in practice along the way.”  (Brownback)
There are many that would say all of the domestic gains from the Space Program are eventual, and that it’s unwise to sink crucial resources into a program that does not directly respond to the ample needs of the people.  I say, we have never given the program a respectable budget throughout its entire existence.  At its peak in 1966, NASA received 5.5% of the federal budget, and has only since then, dwindled to the current level of just over half of one-percent.  All While Social Security and Medicare consume over forty-percent of the almost three trillion dollar Federal budget. (Wiki)  I’m sure the eradication of the struggles and personal hardships faced by the American underprivileged, and likewise the altruistic programs charged with giving aid to them, are merely 0.5% away from realization.  Masking the humiliation generated by the impotency of poorly crafted relief programs behind a conveniently faltering exploration program, is a grotesque disservice to the public.

>>17
I guess it was my mistake for posting something that was written with fiction in mind, about a factual tropic, and fully expecting it to be judged on sentence vitality and word usage.
I was just trying to keep the nitpicking down. E.g.:

To charge
Wrong word.

space exploration as some damp and forgotten relic
Damp? Fucking weird. Try an adjective that resonates.

of the cold war is nothing less than cultural suicide.
Nice hyperbole there.

The sheer
Overdoing it.

impact of its intrinsic motivation over
Over isn't the right word, and intrinsic motivation is wonky. The intrinsic motivation of what, anyway? Of space travel, and you're referring in the most circuitous way possible to our need for exploration?

this country’s technological innovation capabilities
Bad wording, especially if you're trying to arouse passions. “Capabilities” is so dry, I've nearly gone flaccid by the time I reach the end of the word.

and progress as a whole is astounding.
Astounding to whom? Better to excite people than to tell them how excited you are.

I would have written something more like:

“Dismissing space exploration as a relic of the Cold War is cultural suicide [going with the flow here; I would probably never make that claim]. The impact of the space program on this country's technological development [this phrase is bad, but I'm drawing a blank on coming up with one that a normal person wouldn't tune out on, much less give a shit about] can't be overstated [a solid landmark would be better here].”

“Space exploration cannot be dismissed as a relic of the Cold War — to do so would be cultural suicide. Fueled by a lust for progress, our country's technological development has been unmatchable. Not only does the space program guide the direction and pace* of technological development, it also buoys the people's passion for progress.”

* Velocity is already directional.

I mean, you're busting out (supposedly) high-impact phrases like “damp and forgotten” and “technological innovation capabilities” and totally overshadowing your “cultural suicide” and the like. You're drowning your big moments in poorly worded fluff.

How could the intense, almost hysterical, public interest for NASA and its exploration of the heavens dwindle to the current level of mere casual concern?
This one is fairly nicely done, though.

>>1
I've rarely read such nonsensical and pretentious rubbish. The prose sounds incredibly forced and unnatural, and some sentences are grammatical abominations, such as:

Tomatoes, corn, tobacco, and immaculate land were the rewards to whom was first to lay claim.

>>20

Seconded. "Write how you speak" is good advice, and you're obviously not following it. Assuming you don't walk around with a Thesaurus and have at least passable grammar.

>>17
Trolled, fanboy.
If you think stating your honest retarded opinions counts as trolling then you have no idea what you're doing

OP is the real troll here. Conceded for conceited in post 3 was a dead give away. I wonder why you would put so much effort into a troll thread though, because the story does seem original. If in fact you are not a troll stop reading Tolstoy and Melville they wrote those books when people read by candle light and bought books by the pound because they were bored to tears at night.

>>23
ya seriously man. nowadays we have things like tv, movies and video games to keep us entertained. who needs those gayass books lmao

>>1
The insatiable hunger for new knowledge, coupled with maniacally unearthing virgin frontiers to quench that ache, has served to implant deep within Human culture… wanderlust.
This is hard to read and, therefore, badly written. As simple as this.

Naturally, maybe you'll find it interesting that normally, one is told he shouldn't write but feels like writing anyway, not vice versa. If you enver thought of writing yourself and then somebody said something silly to you, jsut ignore them. It may sound like uselessly loud words, but it is the only possible truth: you shouldn't write unless you can't afford to not write. If you can go on without writing, this is what you should do.

OP sounds like he likes hearing his own voice.

Yo, op here.

Just a little update here, for those that remotely care. 
I rewrote this, fixed it up a bit, and funny enough received a 23/25 on the paper.  This was for a University advanced rhetoric and argument class, and the assignment was to argue an impending crisis.  The guy is used as a source in the book "Sin and Syntax", so I trust his judgment.
For your reading pleasure, the better version.

>>25
I do wish to be a writer. I have voice and stilting word problems, can't lie about that.  TBH I posted my worst and most unreadable essay because I wanted comments on why the fuck people couldn't follow what I was saying.  In that venture, I've gained quite a bit.

The paper in two parts, too big.

The insatiable hunger for new knowledge, coupled with an unending sense of wonderment towards the unknown, has implanted deep within human culture… wanderlust.  Throughout history, nations have encouraged their people towards being the first to behold the strange and new.  In the early sixteenth century, Europe was fixated on expanding its sphere of influence by colonizing the new world.  Immaculate land and virgin resources were the rewards to those first to lay claim.  So strong was the ever-present drive for exploration and conquest that the American-Natives never stood a chance.  Several hundred years after, and once manifest destiny took its course, the sky became the target of our all-controlling desires.  On wooden-wing and reliable zephyr man took to the wild blue yonder.  Mere decades later, Circumnavigating the globe was the norm.  Still not satisfied, lunar ambitions become the twinkle in the eye of society.  Seated foremost, Mankind hurled itself away from the steadfast constraints of Terra Firma.  Sadly, the resolve to endure within the celestial hinterlands seemed to atrophy, like the once zealous dedication shown in striving for that now—actualized accomplishment.  The once empowering sense of wonderment and curiosity for the unknown is now under threat of becoming defunct.  If the status-quo of allowing the cultural significance of NASA to further wallow in mediocrity and uncertainty, America will soon lose the long treasured societal pastime: of looking towards the future with wonderment, and with genuine eagerness to explore the exotic or unknown. 
To charge space exploration as some forgotten relic of the Cold War is nothing less than cultural suicide.  A society that can no longer grasp the importance of striving for the unknown is not worth having.  The sheer impact of the intrinsic motivations incurred from NASA’s excursions to the celestial beyond cannot be overstated.  Not only can the space program affect the velocity of technological development, but also greatly influence society’s interest and eagerness to strive for more; if we cease to grow and mature, then our own demise is all that we’ll explore.  The past national obsession with the American Space program is summed up well by Walker, “In the Early 1960’s, people were enthralled by cosmonaut Yuri Gargarin’s first orbit of Earth in the days following the event, All were interested in the feat’s prospects, In the United States, that interest had the character of a competition. In the view of the American political and military leadership, the hearts and minds of the non-communist world were at stake” (Walker 1).  How could the intense, almost hysterical, public interest for NASA and its exploration of the heavens dwindle to the current level of mere casual concern?
    To tally up the achievements of NASA within one category: landing on the moon alive would severely under credit the organization as a whole.  By us, society, viewing the moon-landing as if it were the final act of an epic play desensitizes us, and thus devalues the impact of any sort of posthumous triumph.  Walker agrees with the situation of desensitization, but blames a different cause.  “A change in the public’s perception of the thrill and novelty of spaceflight is one reason for its diminished popularity. Since the 1970’s, television, more opportunities for travel, and the personal computer and internet connectivity have brought rapid and accessible “adventure” to the public” (Walker 1).  The idea that NASA was sowing the seeds of its own demise is quite disheartening.  The very technological achievements that the public expected NASA to cultivate caused the wide expanse amid what-we-currently-have and what-we-think-is-possible, to shrink drastically and suddenly.  Isn’t this the government’s job to curtail?  The purpose of a government by the people is to guide, and focus, the erratic will of the public at large.  Unfortunately, the American government is one of everlasting popularity contests, and there was no way in hell the pundits and politicians were going to let a bunch of scientists or engineers direct the flow of the almighty dollar.  Walker agrees, “American presidential administrations and Congress have directed NASA to minimize its self-promotion.  The political bosses don’t want another popular agency and program demanding federal money they wanted to spend otherwise. So spaceflight became boring” (Walker 2).  Ultimately, since we elect our own officials, the blame and years of forfeited progress endures atop a very overloaded and familiar locale… society’s shoulders.  So space exploration is passé now; been there—done that, and don’t we have more pressing issues to contend with?  Like figuring out how best to evade the responsibility of replacing crumbled infrastructure, or convincing the un-ordained that burning the liquid remnants of dinosaurs serves to continue their legacy.  In all seriousness though, what will society mirror once the emotions of wonderment and curiosity towards the distant future becomes displaced with the intense, irrational fear to altering or losing our comfortable realities?  What if European powers rejected the idea to leave that little piece of the world, and instead concentrated on improving the complexity of ornate dress?

The exploration of the unknown does not only entail planting the American flag on alien soils.  That type of achievement can only be derived from uncertain ventures and explorations into the infinite sphere of exotic technological knowledge.  The phrase “it’s the journey, not the destination” can rarely be likened to a more appropriate undertaking.  The development of the initial space programs: Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, to the continuation of the current Shuttle program has elicited a type of collateral damage.  Inadvertently or not, the destruction of obsolete technologies and ideas has made way for the fruits of innovation to blossom.  The running analogy to agriculture is not by accident.  NASA’s laser-directed drive in innovating or inventing singular technologies, of which at times seem far above-and-beyond any sort of earth-bound use, have sowed seeds capable of exponential growth within business, culture, and even individuals.  By perfecting the technology to put satellites into orbit, businesses of all nationalities honed the notion of instant and horizon-less data communications.  The Hubble Space Telescope bestowed mankind with crystal-clear and awe-inspiring photographs of worlds trillions of light-years away; the old notion that the Earth is alone within the Universe is dead and gone.  Senator Brownback illuminates the multiple effects NASA has had on the Individual, for the best and worst.  “NASA has, from its inception, been charged with making the impossible possible… NASA has given us a sense of national pride.”  He continues with,
In fact, American society itself is built on the idea that success only comes from a stern effort… The importance of persistence throughout history seems almost too obvious to clarify. We universally celebrate our heroes who drive past obstacles and hardships.  But it seems as if we often take them for granted. When faced with current challenges, such as the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia, many are quick to hesitate and mellow.  They assume that success is born easily; that setbacks are failures in principle rather than unfortunate steps in practice along the way.  (Brownback)
There are many that would say all of the domestic gains from the Space Program are eventual.  And, that it’s unwise to sink crucial resources into a program that does not directly respond to the ample needs of the people.  I say, we have never given NASA a respectable budget throughout its entire existence.  At NASA’s peak in 1966, they received 5.5% of the federal budget and has only since then ebbed to just over half of one-percent.  Conversely while NASA shrunk, Social Security and Medicare ballooned to now consumes over forty-percent of the almost three-trillion dollar Federal budget (Wiki—National budget).  I’m sure the eradication of the personal hardships faced by the American underprivileged, and likewise the altruistic programs charged with giving aid to them, are merely 0.5% away from realization.  Masking the humiliation generated by the impotency of poorly crafted relief programs behind a conveniently faltering NASA program, is a grotesque disservice and a blatant lie to the public.
    If a future trial were convened with the charge of illuminating or exposing the entity responsible for the demise of the American Space program, and with it the American dream.  The culprit to which society’s implicating appendage would ultimately point to would be quite familiar; it would only need to point inward.  By becoming so mired within the novelties of our own blinding success and tragic failures, forgetfulness on how they were achieved grew profound.  The expression “Great ambition and conquest without contribution is without significance,” comes to mind.  NASA was not implemented with the singular goal of taxiing Humanity to other worlds.  It’s a continuation of a long tradition.  A tradition championed by anyone willing to wonder what endured just out of sight, and dismissed the notion of what was out of sight… was out of mind.  Is society so pidgin boned that we were beaten back, and broken down, by petty apparitions of our own making?  Fortunately, the threshold between crisis and impending doom still lies uncrossed.  The ability to redirect the mighty resources of this country, and for that matter the world, is still feasible and viable.  A most basic understanding is all that’s required in grasping the extensive potential space exploration embodies.  How sad would it be if, looking back, it was this generation’s heavy feet and clumsy hands that doomed society’s capacity to wonder, to dream, and to explore?

>>27
I have no clue what a voice problem is. You should have something to say, start as close to the end as possible, use as few words as possible (therefore choosing only the right words) and be as clear as possible.

Now, as to your writing material: being a writer is wanting to communicate something. I pray to God you want to communicate something good, but that's irrelevant. Say only what you want to say. Write what you want to READ, not what you want to write. I'll repeat: you write what you want to read, not what you want to have written. Do you understand?

Oh wow. I thought this was a 14 y/o kid or something. If you're really in university...just wow

>>31
Give him some credit. At least the diction is high level, if not also occasionally incomprehensible.

>>30
Voice is not what you say, its how one says it.
Voice contains the pace, general sentence structure, complexity of the prose, verb usage consistency, and diction.

I do write the way I enjoy reading things.  I, personally, enjoy complicated sentence structures.  I seek out authors that craft sentences that can be pondered on, with multiple ideas or arguments contained within.
If I'm alone in this joy, then I guess I'm SOL.
I've always found straight-to-the-point, simplistic, and intuitive sentence structures... well, boring.
I like the challenge of tearing away layers of prose, which within the act, guide my mind to intrinsic meanings.

>>31
Man, I guess I'm lucky there aren't any 16 y/o in my... Advanced Rhetoric and argumentative analysis class.

>>32
...I guess I'll take that as a compliment.  What did you find incomprehensible BTW?  Word choice, sentence vitality, flow of logic, ETC.

I'm really curious about why I've gotten nothing but compliments from my academic side of life, and nothing but contempt from the interbuts.

I am in no way attempting to belittle or act condescendingly from my academic pedestal.  I'm honestly confused by the vast difference in reactions I've received, from Pulitzer prize winners at my university to the anonymous public at large.

I know a small portion of comments are from people joining the flame bandwagon.  Trying to satisfy their own egotistical needs by coming up with a remark that they think might hurt me emotionally. TBH I thought this thread would be dead and gone within hours.  Replaced by another Tolken Dick sucking parade, or more ya--nay yellings about Ayn Rand.

Unfortunately for some and to the dismay of many, I think I'm going to stick around this place for a while.  You may see a V2 of this thread, with a different sample of writings, in the not too distant future.  I look forward to being torn a new one.

This will be my last comment in this thread because it's gone on way too long, and it's worn out it's welcome.  Let it rest wakefully in the pile of perceived pseudo-intellectualism.

>>33
>I do write the way I enjoy reading things.  I, personally, enjoy complicated sentence structures.  I seek out authors that craft sentences that can be pondered on, with multiple ideas or arguments contained within.

There is nothing wrong with "complicated sentence structures" and "multiple ideas and arguments" embedded in a short text.

Pynchon, Twain, a lot of the older writers have remarkably dense prose.

Your problem is awkward use of adjectives and overuse of description. What you think you are doing is creating colour and depth, but what you are really doing is creating confusion and spoiling your prose.

Colourful adjectives are not synonymous with depth. You don't achieve "complex sentence structure" by merely fitting your sentence with as many varied adjectives and verbs as you can.

It's like painting. At some point a canvas can become too crowded. The painting can be sparse and still be incredibly complex in nature.

You are mistaking clutter for complexity. When you are being told to simplify your prose, it in no way means you should simplify your message or your narrative. I don't really know how else to explain this to you, but there is no depth in your writing just confusion and chaos. It may contain many different meanings and layers, but only as a result of misunderstanding; not as a result of complexity.

>>34
your smart

Less is more, OP.

>>36
Listen to this OP. Complicated, excessively detailed writing is a niche style and hardly works with most readers so if you want to be a profitable writer don't follow that small niche.

Hemmingway is not the best example of less is more since he hardly uses adjectives, less description but somehow still fills his stories with the most filler I've ever seen but he gives a good example. Here's a six word story that impressed me
----

"Sale: Baby shoes, never used"

>>29
The major problem with your writing is not that it isn't easy to understand I know exactly what you're saying. It's that with such complex words clunked up together the reader is forced to read at a slow pace to get it all in. When a reader reads, they do it at a somewhat quick pace and making them have to actually concentrate on every sentence and make certain they understand what is being said is no different than make a runner at a marathon take pictures of the scenery as he's trying to win at the same time.

Less is more, OP.  You want to the reader to pay attention to your argument, not wonder WTF you just said.

First thing's first: READ THAT MOTHERFUCKER OUT LOUD.  If it doesn't sound natural, then it won't read naturally, either.  If you need to take in a couple of deep breaths to get through one sentence, it's too long and needs to be chopped up.  In other words, if it sounds clunky and stilted when you're reading it out loud, it's going to read clunky and stilted when your reader scans it on the page.  I'm not saying it has to be poetry, but if the words on the page don't follow a natural rhythm, it will be difficult to read, and soon, your reader will just skip to the end just to find out what you were trying to say, and in the end, probably mis-read your message.  When it comes to your position, leave no room for misinterpretation, ever.

Choose your modifiers carefully.  This cannot be stressed enough.  Simple is best until simple stops working.

Now onto structure.  A paragraph is a basic structure made up of three components: a topic sentence, the body sentences that either support and refute the topic, and the concluding sentence.  Remember this: it is not a bowl of Alpha-Bits, it is a structure of ideas.  An essay is the same: a paragraph that presents your argument, paragraphs that support it, and a paragraph that summarizes the body while re-presenting your argument.

If a word takes up more than three syllables, make sure it doesn't happen too often.  You're working on a class writing project, not pornography for philologists.  Your goal is not to show your teacher that you have a large vocabulary, but to show that you know how to do research.  Do you have an argument?  Can you support it?  Can you cite your sources properly?  Can you write up a working "works cited" page?  THAT is what an essayist should be most concerned with, not the size of one's vocabulary.

>>39
Samefag here.

There's nothing wrong with a large vocabulary, BTW.  Nor is there anything wrong with complex sentences.  However, as I've said before "simple works best until simple stops working."

If a job requires a simple hammer, it seems overkill to use a mechanically-powered one; if a calculation requires a pencil and paper, it's overkill to use a supercomputer, and if a thought requires simple words and simple sentences...well, you get the idea.