How Long It Actually Takes To...
read The Economist Espresso: 6:55.18
So the point of this HliAT is to explode something I do, which maybe you do, too. It won't succeed in "exploding" it, but it's a push.
I often set up my workday in units of time (common freelancer thing, I imagine). And, depending on how much I value a given unit--how much I want to protect every minute of it (Erra's Throne)--I may tell myself that I don't have time to do certain things that cut into that work session.
In some cases this makes sense: there are days where the quiet early morning hours are valuable for real writing, so even if it would be nice to spend 30 minutes making and eating some pancakes (I don't need to HliAT this: there's a clock in the kitchen -- I'm always amazed by how long pancakes always take), it makes more sense to grab a delicious bar out of the fridge, make some coffee, get going.
Buuuuuut there are things that I deny myself sometimes in those moments that I know aren't that time-consuming. And this--reading the six or whatever little blurbs that comprise The Economist Espresso every day--is the canon example. Especially because I think it takes "too long"; the reason I think it takes "too long" is that it is in some small way balancing, distracting, transporting -- it's an extremely well put together little applet that is like a teaser for the day, and provides a few small hooks into the world. Now, there may be a valid argument sometimes to not "hook into the world"; there are in particular times when I don't want to be pulled out of non-real worlds. But usually not: usually it's nice to sit and center a little, and then "slip into it", which is the kind of language I use about going into real writing.
So ALL OF THIS IS TO SAY: the little balancing things often don't take so long. I should probably do them. Verified; quantified -- data 4 bettr living. xo ;)
read The Economist Espresso: 6:55.18
So the point of this HliAT is to explode something I do, which maybe you do, too. It won't succeed in "exploding" it, but it's a push.
I often set up my workday in units of time (common freelancer thing, I imagine). And, depending on how much I value a given unit--how much I want to protect every minute of it (Erra's Throne)--I may tell myself that I don't have time to do certain things that cut into that work session.
In some cases this makes sense: there are days where the quiet early morning hours are valuable for real writing, so even if it would be nice to spend 30 minutes making and eating some pancakes (I don't need to HliAT this: there's a clock in the kitchen -- I'm always amazed by how long pancakes always take), it makes more sense to grab a delicious bar out of the fridge, make some coffee, get going.
Buuuuuut there are things that I deny myself sometimes in those moments that I know aren't that time-consuming. And this--reading the six or whatever little blurbs that comprise The Economist Espresso every day--is the canon example. Especially because I think it takes "too long"; the reason I think it takes "too long" is that it is in some small way balancing, distracting, transporting -- it's an extremely well put together little applet that is like a teaser for the day, and provides a few small hooks into the world. Now, there may be a valid argument sometimes to not "hook into the world"; there are in particular times when I don't want to be pulled out of non-real worlds. But usually not: usually it's nice to sit and center a little, and then "slip into it", which is the kind of language I use about going into real writing.
So ALL OF THIS IS TO SAY: the little balancing things often don't take so long. I should probably do them. Verified; quantified -- data 4 bettr living. xo ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment