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.

>>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.