by Zahra Hayder

Procrastination under the impressions of academics can assume a position of inferiority. Although, the truth behind the procrastinators behavior is, lack of motivation. Pedagogical authority impedes on those who are uncanny and honest. A past work of literature that could potentially (re)produce a new structure of words such as this piece will be considered only in light of, effort. Lexicons, dictionaries, and simple elements of a beset narrative are all obsolete in the face of old tradition or new certifications. Procrastinating infidelities of this work leading to the next, without a familiar presence, within the clock-work narrative, of time, might venture into a category of its own. The steadfast cause of unpracticed originality, in the face of immortality, can be seen as a getaway to thoughtless, reality. So, what then should we accustom ourselves too? Time management or knowledge based narratives which seem ultimately obsolete when a grading system is in place? Either way we cannot foresee the elements that place our work in the hands of others who categorize and inform the unprecedented audience.

Availability heuristics are the things we know (according to social psychologists) as being integral parts of our cognitive structures. Which means, the knowledge we have available in our mind is simply what we tend to use right away rather than, deliberative thought processes. This idea is very much similar to the unfocused narrative of our writing. When writing becomes overtly synthetic and unaware, we tend to recognize it as a piece acceptable by the majority and dependable according to new certifications. New certifications, in this sense is a kind of unraveling of academic approvals. What is deemed acceptable and appropriate within the writing process and/or the narrative itself. A pedagogical referent to our writing within the academic world is basically the route to success. However, is this a fair attempt at originality?

Procrastination is not an easy process to overcome and the handling of new ideas needs to be filtered through a mind, based on academic teachings. The unpracticed originality of a writer(s) text is simply because the writer wants their work to outlive their vessel, thus the writer becomes ‘immortal.’ The writer’s history and/or legend literally lives on by way of the written word, only the written word. No person lives on after death as does their writing. The written word has kept legends of the ancient world alive such as Mutanabbi, Socrates, Hammurabi, Plato and so on. From philosophers to potent warriors, the name lives on by way of generated text. An intimate relationship between writer and reader turns into a deflowering of knowledge that has been acquired by the writer then permeated to the reader/audience. The exchange between all parties according to pedagogy should maintain specific structure in syntax and form yet claim originality. How can this be achieved without rumination which ultimately leads to confusing procrastination?

For purposes subject to this narrative I shall proceed with defining of rumination in context. The obsession over negatively charged ideas as the direct result of inequitable gambit put forth by ‘proper’ education is the very meaning of rumination within this flailing clock-work narrative! Whether we operate on the availability heuristic or descriptive thinking the dyer goal subsequently, is, to have a steady balance between varying terminology and styling of the written word as approved by higher priests. We have various academes that would implore the use of specificity even, with reading of texts! Not only is this a staled attempt to control the writer(s) contrived text, but, it is infringing upon the very nature of the process and development of the written word. Thus, procrastinating is deemed practical among the impractical grading system in the academic world.  According to rhetoricians, a piece such as this before you may have no place in the pigeonhole categories of a ‘good’ or acceptable piece. How so, you may ask. Well, for starters it has no argument or persuasive aspect to it.

Not unless the writer is willing to generate a plausible argument opposing their own ideas. Why shall a writer contradict their thought process, endeavoring to a wildly displaced augmentation of knowledge? Presently, combining old and new curriculums that are rapidly building to block personal expression seems to echo the academic problems of the beat generation. All (literary novices) know the problem with the beat generation was that their (the beats) work had no place in the ‘academic’ world. Since the wordsmith(s) narrative(s) of expression, were not deemed acceptable enough for the higher priests. The distribution of numerical agendas does not guarantee execution of a stamped article validating the knowledge of the wordsmith. Therefore, innovation lacks implementation when immortality breeds negligence. Remember, in the beginning of this piece we spoke about how a person can outlive their vessel? By way of the written word, only! Many would ‘argue’ a person’s legend may live on through consanguine relatives, however, names gradually get phased out of lexicons when atoned alphabets are unavailable. We see rhetoricians in propagated combat with politicians, and romanticists in due battle with humanists, yet no one contributing to the forlorn literary “novices” whom, are only referred to by way of lectures. Respectively, the higher priests audit and categorize the literary “novices” as articles of mischief dedicated to procrastination while soliciting sympathies.

Last I understood writing and the process of said writing needs to be unique, structured, interesting, and boldly controversial; if of course that kind of thing suits your personal tastes! Writing in today’s world as defined by the academe is formed in “genres” which are “determined by the narrative technique, tone, content & by critics’ definitions of genres”. Notice the definition from wiki[pedia] states that the content actually does matter. The content of course must align with a specific Subcategory under the ‘genre’ umbrella as in mystery, comedy, tragedy, fantasy and so on and so forth. Yet at the same time the defining statement claims that critics’ definition pigeonholes the narrative. Basically, the wordsmith themselves do not contribute to the validation or categorization of their personal writing. In retrospect the matter is not of originality, nor of content within the scope of perceived knowledge it is a matter of priests within the academe who have complete and utter control over the grading and finalizing of the writer’s own work! Well, let us examine this a bit deeper, if the content of this piece you are reading now does not reflect either ‘genre’ nor does it supply any critic with due taste, how then is the procrastinator supposed to manage without rumination? I leave you with this thought, once an answer is achieved do shed some light on this horrid exposé of an individual’s thoughts.

 

Series Navigation

<< To Absorb or to IgnoreComparative Analysis of “Who Goes There?” and It’s Adaptations to Film >>