30 Days -- Analyzed

I took up the challenge to blog for 30 days straight.  I felt that if I had a commitment, moreover one of which others were aware, I would complete it and this would somehow help me find my writing mojo.  I was partially correct.

I felt obligated to comply with a 30-day writing scheme.  I had a different topic for each day, although some were admittedly lamer than others.  I am writing now to share what I have learned from this challenge.

First.  I hated it.  There is something perfectly dreadful about making yourself do something you love.  It takes the pleasure out of it and leaves little more than drudgery.  Yuck.

Secondly.  I frequently take a paragraph to express what could have been communicated in a sentence.  This goes long for the readers.  They lose interest.  Stink.

Thirdly.  Closely related to the previous note, due to the frequency of the writing and the overbearing quantity of words, feedback is limited.  Low feedback means that I feel more frustrated writing because I think nobody else is reading.  Unfortunate.

Fourthly.  The topics are sometimes stretching me to talk about things about which I would never talk.  I suppose that could also be considered a perk.  But sometimes, all a girl really wants is her comfy jeans and t-shirt, y'know what I mean?  Uncomfortable.

And there you have it.  I think I would simply do better to aim to write at least a couple of times a month.

From an observer's point of view, what were the highlights?  The drawbacks?  Were there specific posts you enjoyed more than others?