Response to Lamott and Orwell

I first read Lamott's writing; I found it to be truly beneficial. Most of us obviously know that writing a first draft is always a good way to start, but I constantly tend to  find myself trying to write a good first draft instead of just getting all my thoughts down on the paper.  Instead I continuously find myself adding more important information when I'm revising my first draft.  I am confident enough to say I don't believe I'm a good writer, but it was reassuring to know no one always is.  Even the best writers write shitty first drafts and find each new composition a challenge.  Even though its common sense, I thought the hint of revising several drafts and making each one better was a useful tool. Lamott's advice overall showed me how to start and improve a paper by using multiple drafts.

As for Orwell's document, I completely agree with his discussion of contemporary English being too vague.  Writers should express their thoughts in a clear precise manner instead of leaving it open for interpretation.  I honestly don't see the point of someone writing if they are not getting their specific point across, except to protect themselves. Like Orwell stated, interpretation opens the door for dishonesty and lies.  I believe a writer should man up to their work and take passion as well as responsibility for their thoughts and ideas.  As you can tell I don't like poetry or abstract thinking, but rather concrete facts and concrete thoughts. Lastly, I found the 6 "elementary" rules to be to useful tools.   

Both Lamott and Orwell both expressed useful information for helping me learn to be a better writer. A great document needs to be well structured and contain beneficial information. Most importantly the author must clearly express his point in order for the reader to understand the message the author is trying to convey.