Sponsor Me!

Currently, I'm publishing sporadically (as in, there has been a span of 10 months between the last post and the current post). I'd like to write and publish more. Unfortunately, I'm a super busy person, especially since I work a 9 to 5 job five days a week. If you want to help me free up more time, so I can write and publish more, please buy me a coffee or sponsor me through recurring Patreon payments (so you don't forget!).

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com


Become a Patron!


Showing posts with label writing craft. Show all posts
Showing posts with label writing craft. Show all posts

Sunday, May 05, 2013

C2E2: Part 1 of My Response, including a John Scalzi panel and the changing forms science fiction media


My response has turned out longer than expected. I’ve broken it up into a couple entries. More will come after this one.

C2E2 ranks up there as one of the most strenuous activities I do in the year. Sounds sad, but really, stumbling around for 24+ hours in a weekend, trying to avoid people and trampling them, gets taxing for mind and body.

Didn't help that allergies muddled my mind, either. Social and cognitive activity didn't work well. This response won't have much for concrete events. I will focus more on my reactions and thoughts that bubbled up in the process.

This attendance makes for my third trip to the Chicago Comics & Entertainment Expo (C2E2). It has occurred four times in the last four years. We skipped the second one when I vacationed in Costa Rica. A tough decision, seriously, but glad I went to Costa Rica.


C2E2 has provided a great experience every year. Any general complaints I may have come from me not falling into the primary demographic. I don't get into merchandise much, don't read too many comics and don't connect so much with visual art. By nature, I don't get into permanent, materialistic things or visual mediums. Comics, I admit some prejudice in my youth and haven't found time since to explore them.

The stands had A LOT of Doctor Who merch, though. I mean, A LOT, as in about a football field’s worth of stands. Talk about oversaturation of a market. I wonder how much individual stands sold. Many other stands had a lot of similar stuff. Does the market really have that level of demand?

This remark comes from half of a couple that purchased sandblasted steins with a Dalek and a Cyberman on them. They came from a stand that had a wide variety of geek graphicked steins and mugs, though. I’m also the type of guy who spend hours at a time researching Doctor Who canon for no good reason.


My interest lies more in tabletop board and role playing gaming, TV, cultural production and literature. I find myself lacking in the latter category, even. I have more familiarity with the "golden age" of science fiction than any other. These other categories have their own cons. I should go to one of those.

I could have also partook in the gaming room run by the Chicago Game Lovers. With so much to do and people to see at C2E2, though, breaking from the familiar didn't feel appealing. Getting involved in a game then having to run off to get in a line for a panel didn't strike me as fun.

C2E2 organizers did a great job with the floor this year. They got the most gigantic room yet. A lot more stands could squeeze in. Having the dungeon bathrooms in the middle proved a godsend (especially since no one else found them, no line!). Artist alley didn't get squeezed all the way in the back, even though I didn't find it until the next day (again, gigantic!).

The floor felt well organized. Stands settled into themed neighborhoods (e.g. merchandise, comics, Artist Alley, celebrities, etc.). If managed my time better, it would have been perfect.

I only found one game stand: Chicagoland Games/The Dice Dojo. If there were more, I blame myself. I didn't have the clarity of mind to take in everything and manage my time better. Like with the gaming room, though, getting in line for the panels proved a pesky detriment.

Organization of the panels makes for the biggest shortcoming this year. Michi cited a statistic that the panel audience this year equaled the people roaming the floor. (Michi - formerly, The_Wife. . .now won't hesitate to use her name since her name has become something of brand.) Panels have elevated C2E2 above other fan/comic/pop culture conventions I've attended. This statistic goes to show that other fans have a similar opinion, if not the same.

I made the misfounded complaint that few of the panels looked interesting. Looking at the schedule now, it overwhelmed me while at the convention. This year I didn't prep by studying the schedule beforehand or use my computer to schedule and decide between conflicts. Fault on me there.

At worst, few of the panel titles jumped out at me and the schedule grid just had so much on it. I don't know how much of that has to do with me failing to prep before going. Having so many panels shows their success.

Titles failing to grab attention could contribute to making things look a little bland. At the same time, I'm not the prime demographic for these cons (even though past years had panel names that stood out). Maybe their titles attracted the attention of other people attending.

Long lines and small rooms for panels made for big disruption. I already mentioned that I didn’t partake in some activities because I didn’t want them disrupted by having to run for a panel.

The first year of C2E2, nothing to worry about rooms filling up or long lines. I had faced more trouble finding panel rooms in the labyrinth of McCormick Place. Getting in and finding a good seat had proven little difficulty.

Michi and some others tried to get into the Fierce Females of Television panel without luck. They got in line too late. Apparently the organizers had divided rooms in half for most panels. Doing so helps provide many panels and a variety of topics. Having to turn people away at the door or disrupting other activities sucks, though. Talk about huge opportunity cost to sit in on a panel.

Of course, C2E2 is still young and learning. I have to give them credit for trying to increase the variety of panel topics. I also think the increased industry and celebrity presence caused disruption. Typically those panels should get prime attention since they draw people to the con.

Panels with less assumed drawing power in the past have done a lot to build the C2E2’s reputation for great panels and contributed much to this year’s equal attendance for panels and floor. A difficult balance to strike, but I think giving more credence to topic-oriented and less-assumed audience drawing can go a long way.

Less panels with bigger rooms also might help. After all, anything that doesn’t make the schedule can get scheduled for the following year.

Has it become obvious that I didn't attend too many panels. I only went to three:
I had some personal connection or interest in them all:
  • FUTURISTIC FRIGHT, I read John Scalzi's blog on a regular basis
  • Peter Davison portrays my Classic Doctor Who
  • Exorcising the Spectre of the Fake Geek Girl, Michi put it together
FUTURISTIC FRIGHT PANEL

For FUTURISTIC FRIGHT, John Scalzi and Alex Hughes had a fairly free form discussion about
  • Imagining the future
  • Their own imaginings and story ideas
  • Navigating the publishing industry to market their imaginations
  • Some of the parodies we all make about
    • Red Shirts of a landing crew
    • Reversing polarities to save the day
    • Varied reactions to Tolkien’s writing (or dramatizing his world building)

A moderator helped to start the conversations by asking some questions. Scalzi, Hughes and the moderator all had good presence. They had a pretty good rapport with audience. I don't have the best recall of topics other than ideas and the development of technology make for an interesting interaction.

I regret that I don’t remember much about Alex Hughes. She made a great remark, though, about how to deal with an author having an idea that scientists and engineers are developing. Make your story better than reality, she said.

Michi bought Hughes’s first book, Clean. Michi liked it a lot and plans on reading the sequels. I plan on giving it a shot, too. Being the first time I heard of Hughes, my brain hadn’t calibrated that much for emotional investment at the panel.


Scalzi provided a lecture on the evolution of the form taken by science fiction media. In the beginning, science fiction came as small pulp magazines in the supermarket.

The industry somewhere along the line decided to consolidate the wholesale distribution channel from a lot down to two or three. Book stores came into the picture, especially big stores like Barnes & Noble. They asked for science fiction to come in the form of a book with page counts between 120 to 300 or so as we have become used to.

Now we find ourselves in the electronic Internet age. Many other medias have gone through chaos: music, movie and TV. The story of Internet music distribution has all but been finished by the acceptance of iTunes and other means. We see the stories of movie and TV unfolding in the news every day with Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Youtube and Bit Torrent.

The evolution of electronic distributing stories, fiction and poetry doesn't make it into the news that much, though. Scalzi has jumped to the front of experimenting with this realm. He wrote The Human Division. It’s a series of related but not directly connected episodes all released separately, about a week apart from each other. TOR will collect it into an individual volume and release it soon.


Episodic short-form fiction makes or an expensive undertaking in the time of paper. Especially if the industry pushes to have it in book form of 120 to 300 pages. Episodic short-form issued electronically makes for a less expensive of an undertaking.

I bet this approach has other advantages, too. I can't think of it all. Releasing something new on a regular, shorter basis keeps a brand on the mind of consumers. Infrequent releases of something longer form may not stay in the public’s mind as long. In this day and age when there's so much going on, publishing something often like The Human Division will keep Scalzi on peoples' radars.

I have no illusions that one paradigm is better than another, just better suited for a situation. History and anthropology show us that humanity organizes technology to adapt to their environments, whether that be natural or socially human created. Human adaptation creates feedback loops that have gotten us where we are now and will get us to where we go in the future.

I respect Scalzi and everyone else who can keep up with all this change. Albeit they have more of an immediate necessity than I do at the moment. They get their everyday livelihood by keeping abreast of these things and staying ahead of everyone else.

My fear comes from feeling behind. Right now, I'm just working on developing material to market and distribute. Whereas Scalzi and others have an interesting interplay of how their ideas interact with distribution. . .I'm somewhat stuck in an old paradigm, the novel. I'm hoping to make enough of a splash with a novel that I can write another one because people want another one.

It's great to see people thriving in this environment and willing to share their knowledge about it. Despite all that, it's kinda scary and intimidating to a beginner. I just hope to figure out how to navigate all this someday. . ..

More forthcoming. . ..

LINKS OF INTEREST:

Wednesday, January 02, 2013

Doctor Who: Saying Farewell to Old Friends, Picking Up New Exciting Mysteries & Letting Shady, Silent Enemies Fester


The last Doctor Who Christmas special, The Snowmen, has excited me enough about Doctor Who and TV/movies that I need to blog about it. I haven't been jazzed up about either for a long time.

A quick log of my last entries about TV/movies:

Doctor Who, BBC and Steven Moffat, despite his views of the female sex grating on my nerves regularly, have done a bang up job of making a TV plot line compelling again. I haven't been this sucked in and emotionally invested since a few isolated episodes of Series 6.

TV shows like

have kept me entertained. I'll even throw in most of the Doctor Who Series 6 into this category. All these shows kept bringing me back.

I didn't feel anxious about waiting so long (sometimes as little as a week) to see the next episode, though. I generally only got excited if the following episode was on TiVo or maybe for a single next episode. Not really for an extended amount of suspenseful time, though.


**** SPOILER ALERT: DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T WATCHED THE EPISODE (OR EVEN FROM SERIES 4 TO CURRENT) ****

But Doctor Who: The Snowmen has sucked me back into the bittersweet, agonizing joy of fandom. After the second appearance and death of the Doctor's enigmatic new companion, I again feel the sudden desire for more of what Steve Moffatt does so well at the end of

We're given a small compelling piece of emotionally-charged information/plot then pretty much told, now you get to wait awhile to learn more.

  • Cold Blood: Not the best of episodes, overall, but Rory dies, gets sucked into the Time Field, erasing him from time. On top of that, despite how hard the Doctor tries, Rory's fiancee, Amy, can't remember Rory. How does the Doctor handle that kind of guilt?

  • The Pandorica Opens: After being teased the whole season about the Pandorica opening, we learn what the Pandorica is, but then. . .Rory is resurrected as an Auton and kills Amy. The Doctor is put into the Pandorica. The camera zooms back from the Universe, showing all the stars extinguishing. How does the Doctor fix the erasing of EVERYTHING? How can the show even continue?

  • The Big Bang: The Universe gets rebooted, but we don't know who blew up the TARDIS. We have an inkling that it has something to do with the Silence that's been mentioned all season. What is the Silence and who wants to blow up the TARDIS? We have no idea and have to wait months, MONTHS to learn more.

  • The Impossible Astronaut: We see the Doctor killed by someone or something in an astronaut suit. He knows who it is. We can only wonder who it is until the end of the season. The who was actually predictable, but like at the end of The Pandorica Opens, we ask how the hell does that whole thing get resolved? And on top of that, we have a face to the Silents, but how and why are they or have blown up the TARDIS?

  • The Almost People: A bleh conclusion to a bleh two-parter (exception of fun of seeing the Doctor and his ganger have fun together). However, we learn that since the beginning of Series 6, the Amy we've been watching has been a Ganger (even though it's been her real consciousness the whole time). The real Amy has been in the custody of the lady who has been popping up for a few seconds here and there then disappearing. And guess what. . .Amy's about to go into labor! Probably would have been horrible to have to wait a week, but I'll admit it: we were able to watch A Good Man Goes to War immediately afterward. I don't know if I would have been able to wait a week to watch the Battle of Demon's Run.

  • A Good Man Goes to War and Let's Kill Hitler: We have part of the origin story of River Song, but the Silence kidnap her. The Doctor promises that she'll be safe and he'll find her. The origin story of River/Melody resolves quite satisfactorily in the madcap romp of Let's Kill Hitler.

    Nonetheless, we're left with some pretty annoying questions: How is the Doctor going to get out of being killed? How is the Silence going to blow up the TARDIS? Who is the leader of the Silence? How will the Doctor defeat the Silence? Sure, the Silence don't like the Doctor, but how did they get the knowledge and power to blow up the TARDIS when the Daleks, the Cybermen, etc. who have had plenty of reasons to blow up the TARDIS haven't done it?

    The best Daleks and Cybermen can do is put the Doctor into the Pandorica. He still gets out of it (yeah, he rebooted the Universe after it extinguished, but if it weren't for the Pandorica. . .the Silence would've won). How could anyone get so worked up to extinguish the universe and what is their escape plan (the Daleks had one)? If they don't have one, what has gotten them so worked up? And seriously. . .who is Prisoner Zero and could it have all that foreknowledge about all this stuff?

    What's kind of annoying. . .even now, after a series and a half and a few years, we still have all these questions! Seriously, though, I've made my peace that a few of them won't be answered. Steve Moffat seems to be the master of creating compelling world-building concepts then leaving them as non-sequiturs (for instance, what's up with the Papal Mainframe?).

  • Forest of the Dead: The question that this episode leaves us hanging with that has been mostly answered in hindsight: who is River Song? Is she just a red herring, but she knows the Doctor's real name! She has to be important. . .and we've gotten a satisfactory amount of information about River since then. As of now, we still don't really know how she learns the Doctor's name. We have a suspicion: it happens on the Fields of Trenzalore where the "First Question" will be asked. We're assuming River will ask the Doctor his real name. Since the whole "First Question" arc is so connected to the Silence arc, though, I'm yawning.

  • The Wedding of River Song: We learn about the "First Question" and the Fields of Trenzalore. It's something that the Silence want to prevent. At the end of the episode, we learn the "First Question" is WHO is the Doctor. Actually pretty anti-climactic, since the Silence plot arc has gotten old without any satisfying answers.

    Also, do we, the audience, want to know who the Doctor really is? Part of the show's fun is that the true identity of the Doctor is shrouded in mystery. The archetype of an alien traveling through space and time, fighting the forces of evil and calamity that he stumbles upon feels like enough. . .and plus he has fun doing it. Give him some kind of grand motivation, it feels like the magic could be sucked out of the show.

    Still. . .what are the Fields of Trenzalore? Why would the Doctor go (like Lake Silencio?) other than it's a fixed point in time. . .what a flimsy, uncompelling plot device to provide motivation for a character to go somewhere)? How does the motivation to go there, ask the First Question and answer the First Question develop?

    If it's River Song that asks it and is answered, why wouldn't the Silence have tried to prevent River from existing in the first place? Rather, they just participate in the events that caused her to exist in the first place to ask the First Question? Maybe that's why they blew up the TARDIS to extinguish the universe? It also seems like blowing up the TARDIS is what may have motivated the TARDIS to land in Amy Pond's back yard and bring about the existence of River Song. Is it just a predestination paradox?

    That's when I decided to stop thinking about it all back then. I realized Steve Moffat wouldn't answer even 10% to 25% of the questions I could think of. Even worse: Doctor Who would just beg more questions. I figured even if the show goes get weighed down with too any tedious unanswered questions, I would continue watching to see the train wreck occur and the fans let out collective yells of rage (Facing the ceiling, arms raised, "Moffat!!!!!!!!").

After the disappointment of Series 6, again feeling the aggravation and appreciation of suspense provides a breath of fresh air. Watching Series 6 after Series 5 felt like watching The Hobbit after The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit and Series 6 provided an enjoyable OK time with some high points, but nowhere near what had come before. I wanted more after Series 6, but I could wait.

I could say something similar about the first half of Series 7. However, it feels like both a breath of fresh air and the last gasps for air (for the Ponds), despite no strong push on larger plot points that the viewer knows of. For larger plot arcs, we

  • See people asking the First Question (but the First Question gets asked a lot -- even before Series 5 when this whole arc started)

  • Hear about history recording the Doctor's "death" then his existence getting expunged from all records

  • Reminded about the theme of the Doctor's enemies escalating their aggression because of the Doctor being viewed as a major threat to their race and existence

Each standalone episode has its own enjoyable dramatic tension but doesn't pull the viewer onto the next episode. Likability of characters and quality writing keeps the viewer coming back. I didn't feel as much aggravation week to week, but I couldn't wait to see the next episode.

Unless you actively avoid spoilers, Amy and Rory exiting is predictable. Weeping Angels involved, Amy and Rory would be zapped around in such a way that a fixed point in time would be created and couldn't be changed. I hadn't figured out the exact execution, but the general idea was apparent. Albeit, knowledge of their departure drives the season, both in appreciation while they're still around and for the chance to say goodbye.

For Dinosaurs on a Spaceship and The Power of Three, the three stars shine. They work together as a great team.

For Rory and Amy, Asylum of the Daleks feels like a throw away. Their motivations for their separating feels lame and not true to the characters. Only Rory acting like an ass feels right, claiming he loved Amy more. That works just because otherwise, Rory is too perfect. Not worth throwing away well-written characters a whole episode just to prove someone's human, though.

The teamwork with the Doctor didn't come out so much in A Town Called Mercy and The Angels Take Manahattan, but those episodes accomplished their goals well. Mercy reminds us again about the Doctor's dark side and history and how much he needs others in his life.

The Angels Take Manahattan shows the lengths of Rory and Amy's love. We also see how significant Amy has become to the Doctor. It harkens back to the strange mother/son-father/daughter relationship they have in the first half of Series 5. They end up playing such big roles in influencing each other's personality development. Amy even gets to show the brains and empathy to save the day in The Beast Below and Victory of the Daleks. I missed that Amy.

Not since Series 5 did we see how important they felt their relationship was. OK, maybe the ends of The God Complex and The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe (which, per IMDB, is the first episode of Series 7) illustrate the importance of their relationships. Even then, they were just bare glimpses. Seeing Rory and Amy save the day and Amy make a decision despite the Doctor feels inspired.

The first part of Series 7 does well not to focus on the Silence plot arc. It provides a reprieve. The arc has worn thin by too many loose ends either answered too slowly or not at all.

The first part of Series 7 is the farewell song for Rory and Amy. The show did good on that note. We had fun romps, character development, learned The Power of Three and, finally, a farewell we didn't want to see but had to come and be seen.

We love Amy and Rory, but their story has played out. Their characters have gotten a little thin. Amy only shows the characteristics that make her a good character when Rory isn't around. Rory shows his best characteristics when Amy becomes the maiden in distress.

The first part of Series 7 does a great job of mending those shortcomings. It also crowns off with their independent, consistent final decisions mostly made together.

Amy and Rory could have kept on with the Doctor. Nonetheless, the show has had difficulties making them significant characters in Series 6. They come off more as plot devices. I can see their characters getting even thinner without adding much to overall plot arcs. I would rather they exit at their height instead wearing out their welcome as characters.

Then comes The Snowmen. It feels like the premiere of a Series 8: new companion, new title sequence and even a whole new console room.

Albeit, the title sequence and console room both feel like homages to Classic Who. I'm not too surprised, considering the 50th anniversary is coming up. I think the BBC wants to make a big deal out of it. But the Doctor even has a new outfit (keep in mind that bow ties are still cool).

We have a new mystery: Who exactly is Clara Oswin Oswald? Turns out that they didn't just use Jenna Louise-Coleman as a cameo character in Asylum of the Daleks.

That wouldn't have been anything new. Freema Agyeman played Martha Jones's cousin at Canary Wharf in Army of Ghosts. Karen Gillan played some kind of cultist in The Fires of Pompeii.

Sure, the character in Asylum of the Daleks has a similar name to that of the expected new companion. This is Doctor Whoo and Steve Moffat, though. No point in investing any further thought or energy into trying to figure out a non-sequitur detail.

As it turns out, though, the Oswin Oswald from The Asylum of the Daleks has something to do with Clara Oswin Oswald of The Snowmen and Clara (presumably Oswin Oswald) that appears at the end of The Snowmen.

The Doctor has suspicions she is the "same" character throughout the episode, but he doesn't confirm it until the end of the episode. Clara pulls him out of his shell throughout, but the end clinched it. He has proof she is the same, but how can it be? Doesn't she die twice in two different places, two different times? She also doesn't recognize him when she is a Dalek or as a barmaid/governess.

There's a lot of mystery here. The Doctor feels as excited as we do about it. I bet it will also tie in with the Silence, probably similarly how Amy Pond and her family does, but it doesn't have to. A charm of Clara's mystery and arc is that, as of now, it stands on its own.

Even if Steven Moffat writes woman in a not so praiseworthy way, he has shown he can intertwine characters into the story. They're not just tagging along for the journey and representing thee audience need for explanation. They're integral to the story, and not in a way that's incidental like Rose (anyone could have yanked open a panel in the TARDIS), Martha (anyone could've believed in the Doctor that much) or Donna (anyone could have absorbed regeneration energy and gain the consciousness of a Time Lord).

The great part of the mystery of Clara is, right now, she stands on her own (also helps that she is capable and has a strong personality). Doctor Who isn't so focused on the Silence fighting the Doctor at the moment with the occasional filler episode.

Right now, we have a great question that the Silence and Amy Pond had helped lay out: Who is Clara and what role does she have to play in the grand scheme of things? The Silence cause the need for Amy Pond by blowing up the TARDIS. The Doctor explains to her that he took her in the TARDIS because she is an enigma that he needed to figure out.

We have a framework for reacting to Clara Oswin Oswald. She's a mystery that has a part to play in solving some challenge in the future. What is that challenge? How will she resolve that challenge? Those questions will plague us, but they're kind of formulaic right now.

Where does Clara come from? Why are there multiple versions of her in the multiverse? Obviously she's smart, has plenty of personality and spunk and fun. In ways, she's a challenge to the Doctor and can resolve matters much like Amy Pond at the beginning of Series 5. Such potential for a companion, and even just a woman standing on her own showing up the Doctor, feels good and provides promise.

I hope that Moffat and other writers don't let her fall from this grace. Yes, complex characters need shortcomings, but Series 6 Amy Pond felt lazily written and too much of a stereotype most times. Karen Gillan and Amy Pond had chances to shine, but overall, her character went downhill until Series 7, Episode 2.

I look forward anxiously to discovering the enigma of Clara Oswin Oswald and getting to know her, in a way I haven't for a TV show in a long while. I love seeing the Doctor coming out of his funk to pursue this mystery. After nearly 50 years since creation of the show, the Doctor is almost part of the family, especially with his modernization and showing more humanity, positive and negative.

We'll get our answers, eventually. Nonetheless, I hope the execution of the show and Clara's continues as good as they have in Asylum of the Daleks and The Snowmen. I expect to keep watching, either which way, but I have missed this mix of suspense. I want it to continue, as much I hate it.

LINKS OF NOTE:


Saturday, July 07, 2012

Tips for Developing Story from Nothing


I gave the following tips to a friend for starting development on a story from nothing:

  1. Try to relax for idea generation and let the ideas bubble up
  2. Put yourself in a different environment for idea generation, make yourself uncomfortable and accept the anxiety. Make the anxiety part of you as natural part of the process (getting up in the morning and working first thing helps me – have to push past drowsiness, but I think my mind also comes up with connections and ideas I wouldn’t come up with when fully awake)
  3. All ideas are valid for this part of the process. It’s not time for critical thinking. You can get critical later
  4. Look at it like a school assignment or a job:
    1. give yourself a deadline
    2. give yourself a quota of how many ideas you need to come up with
    3. Allot a certain amount of time that you need to work on it and WORK ON IT
  5. Don’t censor yourself: think it, write it down on your brainstorming sheet or word processor
Right now, it’s about quantity, not quality. Just get any idea down on paper or the computer screen. You can make it better later. What’s the saying out there? 10%-20% is the writing, 80%-90% is revising. And to become professional, there’s probably some amount that goes into networking and marketing.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Review of a Guide to Writing History


Thrashing about to find a workable thesis for my current paper on Brook Farm and utopianism, I found Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students by Patrick Rael, Bowdoin College. Looks like they put it in the writing guide section of their Website.

Rael has targeted this guide to students, most likely undergrads. People looking to teach themselves history writing skills or others looking for a refresher, however, will find this Webpage useful.

The guide has provided my autodidactic self a lot of good tips, most especially how to come up with questions and use them to drill down to a workable thesis and a structure for my paper. I haven't experiemented with the tips yet, but I feel more confident just reading them. I plan on developing questions after finishing my praise of the guide.

Coming up with questions and theses plays an important part in history paper writing. History essay writing has plenty of other aspects, too, that need attention. Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students introduces and covers them. They include.

  • Reading secondary and primary sources like a fierce, effective predator
  • Developing and analyzing arguments (including generating questions & theses)
  • Research techniques
  • Structuring the paper, from the thesis to conclusion to facts to rhetoric
  • Presenting and citing sources in the paper
  • Editing and revising the essay after first draft
  • Even a model to provide inspiration
The layout comes across simple and easy to use. On top find the title and author. To the left, a table of contents with links to different chapters. The main body awaits your reading eyes to the right. Each chapter only takes up a few screens; nothing to worry about.

The Guide has PDF versions available for each chapter and one for the entire work. Just save it to your hard drive or print it out. No need for Internet access!

Rael adopts a great tone. Acknowledging that students often find the discipline of history intimidating, he goes out of his way to make the reader feel comfortable.

The academy talks down to the student. Rael wants to speak with the student as a person. History becomes cold, useless and meaningless to the general student because they can't connect to it. It takes the rare student who already has the history bug to make it through a course and do something with their knowledge. Rael admits this fault with the academy.

He made this guide as a remedy. He writes in everyday language, provides examples and encourages students of history to ask questions of others and of history.

My schooling didn't discourage asking questions. It just didn't teach how to ask questions. From what I remember about writing essays, I remember learning structure for the 5-paragraph essay:
  1. Introduce thesis in first paragaph
  2. First argument supporting thesis in second paragraph with 3-4 sentences supporting argument
  3. Second argument supporting thesis in third paragraph with 3-4 sentences supporting argument
  4. Third argument supporting thesis in forth paragraph with 3-4 sentences supporting argument
  5. Tie things up in fifth paragraph with conclusion and a couple wrapping up comments
I don't remember spending much time on developing that thesis and argument. We were supposed to just come up with a thesis, arguments and all the support.

Suffice to say, I did fine with this structure on high school tests and even on short essays in college. I can't really say how I did fine, though. It just all worked out.

How much fault can students take if facts just get passively poured into them then receive skeleton instructions to use all that random information to make some kind of argument? Where does their motivation come from if they don't learn the significance of those facts and how to feel that significance? How can we expect them to just throw down historical arguments when they don't learn how to develop historical ideas, questions and arguments?

Teaching them to develop ideas can help to teach them passion for the topic.

Just from the introduction page of Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Rael shows his hope of transferring his love of history to his students and readers. Readers willing to take the journey will find an inspiring guide for developing questions that will make history more significant, meaningful and, dare I say it, exciting.

Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students makes for a great read. It could easily become a go to resource for any student from high school level to the decline of your mental facilities.

In fact, curriculum's should make this guide a must read. It would probably have one drawback, though: too many students will want to become historians, taking away workers from other industries. Oh well, I think our future selves will know how to handle that problem better than we do now. Let's deal with it then.


Links of interest: Brook Farm, utopianism, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Inception & Movie Audience: Not a Disappointment, but Could've Been so Much More


My catch phrase when starting to talk about Inception: It was good, but it could've reached for more and been better.

As an amateur writer, story crafter and science fiction fanboy, I appreciate the narrative technique, creation of continuity and sticking to the rules of continuity. To sum it up: THAT SHIT WAS TIGHT!

Coming from the "artist" and "literary critic" in me, though, Inception could have been so much more. It was about dreams. Dreams are loose and free flowing. When it comes to dreams as a central narrative, strict adherence to continuity can make story and depth dry and shallow. It can take the HEART out of story.

Dreams provide insight into our individual psyches and cultural archetypes. A tight psyche and orderly culture without HEART is boring, uninteresting and oppressing.

Plato and The Republic provides good source material from our common heritage to show how taking the HEART out can make something shallow, a failure at reflecting the truth behind reality and unattractive once the facade is taken off. Plato, in The Republic attempts to demonstrate that the fully ordered life is the good and just way to live life by providing the example of an ordered, good and just society. In sum, The Republic.

Plato makes his argument using cognitive biases that come from holonymy and meronymy. Plato bases his argument on the assumption that individuals and society follow the same rules of logic. Common mistake and one that often gets made by decision makers and academics, but we all should know about a rule of crowd psychology that can tear these types of argument apart: An individual alone is smart, that individual in a crowd is a dumb ass.

Suffice to say, Plato makes a good final conclusion for individuals in The Republic if they desire a good, ordered life with as much control over possible emotional turmoil as possible. A couple good tips to extrapolate: If you have some bad habits that you want to stop, use tricks of cognitive therapy to change your habits and develop all the aspects of your body, intellect and psychology.

As a society, however, The Republic repulses modern individuals. For example: The Republic oppresses individuals and has no problem using ideology, in the Marxist sense, to create false consciousness for the maintenance of order in society.

Plato's idea of utopia and individual psychology, itself, would also repulse a lot of people. It's all utility and function, for the great cause of justice, without HEART. This lack of HEART comes from a big issue I have with Plato's ideals of psychology. Lewis Mumford criticized this aspect of Plato best in The Story of Utopias [full text available]:

Plato has his limitations; and here is the principal one: Plato distrusted the emotional life, and whilst he was prepared to do full homage to man's obvious sensualities, he feared the emotions as a tight-rope walker fears the wind; for they threatened his balance. In one significant passage he classifies "love" with disease and drunkenness, as a vulgar misfortune; and though he was ready to permit the active expression of the emotions, as in the dance or the sexual act, he treated the mere play upon the feelings, without active participation, as a form of intemperance. Hence a great deal of music and romantic mimicry was taboo. Foreign as this doctrine sounds to the modern reader, there is perhaps more than a grain of sense in it: William James used to teach that no one should passively experience an emotion at a concert or a play without trying to express that emotion actively as soon as he could make the opportunity. (p. 54-55)
[Off topic non-sequitur: basis for argument against violent and sexually oriented cultural products in the US today?]

I digressed through Plato to make the following point: Something can be crafted where the parts that make the whole are molded to make the whole technically valid and consistent. If the molding of those parts doesn't respect the part's teleological virtues, though, the integrity of those parts becomes compromised.

For inanimate non-sentient objects, they simply wear down faster, hold back the efficiency of the whole and have a high utility cost. Compromising the integrity of animate sentient beings and the culture they create, however, harms the integrity of other individuals around them and that of the whole.

I do not believe in an objective, ultimate, universal teleological goal. Neither do I believe in in an objective teleological goal for each individual. Rather, I believe that individual sentient beings, especially humans, have a psychological need for meaning, teleology and teleological virtue. It is part of what makes us human. Fighting the existence of the need only provides a self-fulfilling prophecy while fulfilling the need for it.

Following this argument, I also believe that have true meaning and teleological virtue for ourselves, we need to assign teleological virtue to other things and social constructs, even just to label them as irrelevant. Without assigning teleological virtue to things around us, we fail to have a sense of continuity with time and space.

Even labeling something as irrelevant or assigning an erroneous label to something can cause failure to truly understand how our own teleological virtue interacts with other sentient creations of teleological virtue. Conflict arises which can cause a disruption in our sense of continuity, never a fun experience. The more we understand the consensual concepts of teleological virtue around us, the more we can understand ourselves and better reach for our own teleological virtue.

So, artistically, I think Inception was simply "not a disappointment" instead of something more positive because it failed to push itself and have HEART. Dreams are the central concept of Inception. The characteristics of dreams are loose, free flowing, free association, ambiguity, subjective and plenty of other adjectives you, the reader, can think up better than me. Taking away these characteristics in Inception violates the teleological virtues of dreams as we have all experienced them.

The majority of dreams in Inception no longer have the characteristics of an act of the subconscious. Dreams simply become an objectively ordered literary device to provide an environment that poses an obstacle for the protagonists. Characters could choose to break away from certain rules of conduct, but doing so would attract attention from the dream defense systems.

Dreams effectively become The Matrix in the sense of acting as a literary tool. The biggest differences being: protagonists in Inception can exert more control over the dream environment but choose not to do so, while protagonists in The Matrix often need to exert reality bending powers to survive in their protagonist roles.

Respecting the teleological virtues of dreams could have produced a movie with more depth, insight into existence, the human condition and the psychology of all characters involved. Inception comes closest to depth with the relationship between Dom Cobb and Mal and the uncertainty of events that transpire with and between them. This whole set up gets kind of annoying if you saw Shutter Island, though. Practically same relationship with significant other, just different circumstances.

I could have gotten beyond the similar character relationships if the teleological virtues if dreams were respected more. Lack of control and lucid dreams fascinate me and a lot of people out there. Unless these behaviors of the dream world and the codes of conduct were created and integrated into wider society by Dom Cobb as reaction against his own negative experiences with dreams before turning to a life of crime. This argument doesn't really hold, though, since public perception of consensual lucid dreaming in relation to this imaginary world was never explored.

In some sense, Inception made the easy choice: have the subconscious try to gain control of the dream again by using conventional real world tactics, have dream constructs or a dream security team try to kill the perpetrators. Goons work for an action movie, but so much more could have been done to freak with the viewers mind. Why not have the subconscious manipulate the dream environment, destroy the physics of the environment, destroy the sense of continuity from moment to moment and test the limits of imagination? Reality bending as a defense mechanism strikes me as much more effective than sending goons after perpetrators.

Again, in terms of craft, I can appreciate the choices made within the lack of ambition (despite the pretensions of ambition released to the media). Christopher Nolan made a tight movie that met the rigors of continuity. For that, he has my admiration. I just think a lot more could have been done to make a more fascinating movie that provides a novel experience.

Nolan has gone record saying that he started writing the movie 10 years ago, but he didn't try to produce it until recently. He wanted the experience and credibility to have it released in the wider, more mainstream market. His two Batman movies did that well enough.

On the same token, I've heard the argument that if Nolan made Inception with the ambition that I would have liked to see, the movie would have been a box office failure. Per Box Office Mojo, the movie pulled in about $290 million domestically, cost approximately $160, so profiting about $130 million. Foreign revenues come to approximately $530 million. I'm not familiar enough with the industry to know whether that's considered a flop, average or really good.

The argument being made is essentially that by making Inception more out there and crazy, box office receipts would have been a lot less. From my perspective, though, the movie didn't even come close to "out there" from what I saw in the previews for the movie. Previews made me think Inception would have been a lot more crazy, freaky and reality bending. I feel like the product itself didn't meet the hype of the marketing.

The argument being made is that movie audiences don't want anything novel, groundbreaking and that will really question our sense of reality. The movie audience doesn't want to be pushed outside their boundaries of comfort. They want to go to action movies that don't have emotional depth, new ideas or question the current status quo, whether it be political, psychological or reality. The audience apparently just wants big explosions, fart jokes and sexy bodies.

I beg to disagree. I've made my argument. People want the movie with better depth and they want to respect the teleological virtues of dreams for entertainment and to better understand their world and themselves. This is just my perspective, though.

More perspective would be useful and interesting. Discuss.


Links of Interest: Inception,
Plato, The Republic, cognitive biases, holonymy, meronymy, crowd psychology, false consciousness, Lewis Mumford, The Story of Utopias [full text available], teleological virtues, self-fulfilling prophecy, The Matrix, Dom Cobb, Mal, Shutter Island, Christopher Nolan, Nolan has gone record saying that he started writing the movie 10 years ago, but he didn't try to produce it until recently., Box Office Mojo

Sunday, September 05, 2010

Complaint About Stream of Consciousness Writing: Don't Always Know When I'm Done


Previous entry in this series is Start of a Series -- Two Experiments in One: Beat Structure and Shorter Blog Entries.

Stream of consciousness writing doesn't provide obvious clues of completion. For instance, I started drafting the last paragraph [of the last blog entry] using stream of consciousness process. I could have spent hours writing, ending up with a page or two of unneeded text. Thankfully, during some downtime, I realized that I had gone on a useless tangent.

In that case, I tried justifying that wasted time caused by stream of consciousness writing, as a topic, deserved a whole section of its own. Things I don't like about stream of consciousness writing all end up wasting time. Instead of being a topic, in itself, wasting time provides a transition and introduction to my complaints.

Sometimes a subject or topic seems good to put into a piece or seems vital to give receive attention, for whatever reason. Maybe the subject or topic incidentally popped into my head and it has nothing to do with the project. A conclusion or direction taken may end up moving away from the original intention. I often reach a point where I want a topic or angle in the piece, but the topic or angle doesn't fit gracefully.

I want to have these things in the piece, but it doesn't feel right. I just need to keep exploring the facts, the ideas and the logic. I need to justify having it there or discover a conclusion that feels right. Whatever happens, though, the task just keeps going on and on and on.

Only overwhelming frustration and exhaustion stop me. All that work, all that investment, for hours and hours, and I get nowhere. I just wanted

  • Things to work according to my vision
  • To follow the stream of consciousness that came pouring out to its logical end or
  • + To experience the eureka effect
Instead, the stream of consciousness whips me all about and tires me out. Maybe I can do something with some of the raw material later, but I can't predict the utility. None of it could have any worth, for all I know.

I figure I'll stop right when it feels right. The problem: it never feels right until I have a solid sense of the end goal.


Link of Interest: eureka effect

Thursday, September 02, 2010

Start of a Series -- Two Experiments in One: Beat Structure and Shorter Blog Entries


This entry starts a series of entries. I started writing a larger essay then got the compulsion to publish sections of it as I finish. This way feels more amenable to the blog form compared to my usual long essay form.

I need a better writing process. An afternoon and evening wasted a couple weeks ago writing a blog entry that I never published made this point clear. Take into further consideration that

  • I've been working on my bachelor's project for 10+ years
  • Regular frustration of too much time spent writing without enough returns
  • That I want to have a career in writing some day
I need a more efficient writing process and experimenting with a beat process feels like a good place to start.

Up to now for blog entries, I've mostly used a stream of consciousness approach. Only about five years ago did I start using an outline process for my expository writing to any extent. My outlining process still follows a linear stream of consciousness approach, however. Linear and stream of consciousness have their places; probably not with the early stages of purposeful dramatic and expository writing. I run into too many disadvantages.

Linear stream of consciousness writing with a clear end goal becomes time and effort consuming. Numerous distractions steer writers away from efficiency and productivity. To me, these pitfalls don't offer returns worth the investment.

The next entry in this series is Complaint About Stream of Consciousness Writing: Don't Always Know When I'm Done.

Thursday, March 05, 2009

The Indeterminacy of Serial World Building

As I mentioned in the last entry, I weaseled my way into copyediting a friend's entries on his Wiki, The Lands of Shadow. I don't believe I'll get credited anywhere, but that's cool. I've already received some benefit from working on it: brushing up on my writing skills and getting exposed to a couple interesting themes.

Working with a "living document" certainly fascinates me while irritating me somewhat (this is not, in any way, a criticism or bitch session). The wiki acts as a source document for my friend's Dungerons & Dragons campaign world. As a living document, it could change depending on how he wants the direction of his campaign storyline to go, how different parties relate to each other (player characters, non-player characters, institutions, social groups, kingdoms, nations), the storyline, landscape of the world and whatever else may change.

Allowing the wiki to have this kind of indeterminacy complicates matters for me, as a writer and as something of a Type A personality. My friend has passed over to me for editing an entry about one of his kingdoms. A part of the entry pertained to the process in which the kingdom's government appoints people to a particular post.

I found the explanation of the process vague and asked him to provide more details about it. He reiterated that he intends the wiki to act as a living document and that he's not sure entirely where he wants to go with the appointment process and how it will relate to the campaign plot. My personality flaws don’t like this feature, but my rational side says it’s cool.

The fact that I get a little worked up about this matter amuses me. Allowing indeterminacy into something that has drama as a main characteristic has at least one positive aspect to it. It allows for freedom.

In a blog entry I read about TV writing one time, the author encouraged telling only as much as needed about a character for that part in the story. As an example, they used a situation where a show introduced two brothers for a character but never mentioned any other siblings nor did they mention that the two siblings were the only siblings the character had. Not limiting the number of siblings allowed the writers to throw in another sibling when it helped the story.

In the case of my friend's campaign setting, not limiting the political appointment process allows for numerous possibilities. Maybe if it gets limited early, a player couldn't get appointed to that position but getting appointed to it would lead to a more interesting story.

Tension regarding the process for appointment could make an interesting plot point, especially if it gets shrouded in mystery. Revealing the process could take away the mystery and, thus, take away the tension.

Simply put, the creation of a story in a role playing game doesn't lie solely with the person running the game, the dungeon master or game master, whichever you prefer. Everyone plays it for fun and everyone comes to the game with different expectations of fun.

Setting up the appointment process to this one position in one way could appeal to one type of player but turn off another player. Having the appointment some other way could appeal more to another player. Leaving this detail open allows for adaptability, to mold the game into a form that allows maximum enjoyment for all.

This kind of freedom works to the advantage of serial storytelling or role playing. Explain just enough to allow things to progress in a fun and satisfying way, but don't explain so much that the options for more fun and satisfaction close off in the future.

When writing, I generally stick to a closed form with a limited run. I have a novel in progress along with a short story that has will require a lot of revisions. I also five papers written and another one to write for my bachelors project, all of them rough draft.

The novel and short story plan on having a good, tight story but won't reveal absolutely everything. I leave out mostly what happens after the story ends. Even though I leave both of them open to possible sequels, I plan on writing pretty tight stories. I won't tell the smallest details or anything like that, but I plan on establishing most of the setting and the events in the stories timeline.

Then again, telling the whole story and providing full details of a timeline allows freedom for change in future writings. After all, if the author wants to have fun and "experiment" with a different system or setting, they just start a new piece or even set a new story in the same setting, just in a different time period than the original story.

The important aspect probably comes down to continuity. Science fiction and fantasy culture focuses a lot on continuity in the fiction they follow. Breaking continuity in these genres can often frustrate fan culture to no end, so much to the point that some writers need to create a disconnect with their fan base to continue writing without compromising the story. I can be guilty of the over analysis vice, at times, even when I try to use it to try defending loose interpretations created by a show or piece of writing.

Fans can sometimes forgive the break from continuity or they can tolerate enough breaks until too many of them occur. Often the show or piece of writing has enough other virtues to make a wait-and-see attitude easy to follow and possibly worthwhile to slog through the irritating parts.

A lone movie or a solitary story without any continuity outside of the celluloid or the two covers proves easier to have consistent continuity. With no set intention to continue within that continuity for longer than a certain period of story, the plot, character, setting, culture, norms, practices and so forth can all be balanced for the good of the story told. As long as the story doesn’t have a sequel or prequel, the single story doesn't set a precedent for a continuity canon that future stories risk breaking or expose itself to over interpretation by a fan community.

Stories told by serial, however, which obviously can include ongoing Dungeons & Dragons campaigns, expose themselves to breaking continuity the longer the story continues. I have major respect for storytellers and TV writers that stay within continuity or break continuity well. Writers of serials that break continuity in a non-major way don't lose my respect if the story continues well enough.

I willfully concede that staying within continuity provides a big challenge. It grows even more difficult when multiple story lines exist and as the story progresses. Add to that all the different characters, nations, personalities, locales and the multitude of factors that exist. Increase the details and increase the interrelations of those details, keeping the continuity increases in difficulty.

I can't blame someone who wants to create a source document (or bible, as they call it Canada TV circles) for not filling in all the details. It allows for more freedom and adaptability in case interesting and fun storylines would require different details than had been originally conceived.

It would especially suck if a minor detail like how many siblings a character has only just bit you in ass because of the over determinacy. That situation might just possibly motivate a writer to break continuity in a very frustrating way rather than just not provide one small detail in the beginning. Wouldn't that just suck, having the writer “cheat” after the fact rather than not create a fact until it was needed?

Monday, May 26, 2008

Asking for and Accepting Constructive Criticism

I find it re-affirming to ask people critiquing or giving back notes on your unreleased work to focus on an aspect or two and for them to return with responses similar to your own suspicions. Hearing their different articulations of their responses also helps address a problem or see something good in your work.

This past Wednesday, I attended the Chicago-SF Writer's Workshop. About a month beforehand, I submitted my 10 double-spaced pages. A couple weeks after that, I sent out an inarticulate questions inspired by Alex Epstein's blog entry, "PLAYWRIGHTS". After having made a link to Alex's entry, it's kind of odd since he compares TV writing and theatre writing, whereas I write fiction. Right after reading his opinion on the different styles behind TV and theatre writing, though, I had the question, "Well, how do novelists treat their writing style and characters?"

I still haven't gotten an answer to that question, and other than to fulfill my own curiosity, I didn't see much of a point in asking Alex's to compare novel writing with those two other forms of writing characters. Instead, I asked the Chicago-SF Writer's Workshop the following:

I want to know if it feels like there's too much meaningless squabbling amongst the characters and if that gets in the way of the story moving forward. If so, does anyone have any thoughts how these types of dynamics work? When do characters work too well together, making a story somewhat boring because there's no tension? When do characters argue and squabble too much, thus distracting story with too much frivolous tension? That's all the questions I can think up at the moment, but any thoughts on this topic (at the workshop), would most certainly be appreciated.

More succinctly (especially after the workshop on Wednesday), is the novel more character or plot oriented, do the characters get in the way of the plot, does the story dwell too much on some things so the plot doesn't progress, does so much focus on the characters get repetitive and boring?

In the entries, "Finding My Beat and Chugging Along" and "Keep the Story Linear and Interesting, Stupid, and Other Writers Facing the Problem," I explored this topic somewhat; just mostly in the form of avoid repetition from showing the same event from different perspectives.

I think the issue here may actually arise from trying to write similarly to a TV or movie writer. With a visual medium that allows for splitting the screen for different perspectives and other tricks, the whole different perspective trick can be accomplished easily without too much annoying the audience. The split screen trick allows for showing the story from different perspectives at the same time. Further, the visual medium itself doesn't take so much time or demand too much cognitive processing by the audience to see the scene at hand.

With prose, the visual can get difficult because the author needs to write from different character's viewpoints, which also includes their sense of things that are significant. Two people in the same room with a specific design aesthetic, different objects in it, different actions occurring in it, etc. etc., have different perspectives and assign alternate interpretations of significance to each other, themselves, the design of the room, the objects of the room, the location of the room in the building, the building, itself, the location of the building and the whole matter of significance can go on and on into infinity.

So unless an author wants to go in the direction of James Joyce's Ulysses or various novels of William Faulkner, both of which have infuriated many readers and load readers with much cognitive work, an alternative approach needs to be taken.

I didn't expect the discussion would pretty much go in this direction along with a couple comments that my characters were becoming stereotypes/caricatures (I want to know that this is occurring, and I'm not necessarily sure it's a bad thing; if it serves the novel, it should happen) because of certain degrees of repetition. The direction of discussion shouldn't have surprised me, though, seeing as how I have the same complaints and already have figured out some structural ways to address the matter.

One option for me would be to complain that the workshop doesn't fit my needs because of the page limit for submissions every month (10 double-spaced pages or 5 single-spaced pages) and that the limit doesn't allow the group to critique my current writing (I've submitted work I've done from 5 or 6 years ago and am now submitting work I've done 3 to 5 years ago) and how the writing style has changed. Submitting current work from the novel could get confusing because the group hasn't read everything previously (even though the repetition in the writing could negate that issue since it would provide a tool similar to the "previously on. . ." montages at the beginning of some TV shows, which I think might have been the intention with the repetition originally, after hearing people complain about some shows being too complicated and requiring a person to have watched since the first episode to understand what's going on).

Neither do I have the intention to edit anything I've written first draft yet to provide a satisfying storytelling from the beginning for the workshop because I could get frustrated with the process and not actually reach the end of the novel. I followed the technique of writing and editing a section at a time until I got a satisfactory response from a workshop, and after awhile, I just had to scrap that version of the novel and start over from the beginning. In the process of trying to get that satisfactory response, I ended up getting influenced by other things I read, which ended up changing the whole story, anyway. I figure that I might as well just write, write and write until reaching a conclusion, absorb influences through the process then go back and address points of fact and reader satisfaction at the same time. To me, a lot more efficient than trying to get section by section perfect.

I guess it just gets dissatisfying when, to a certain degree, I've already answered questions that I raise and have addressed, to my satisfaction, discussion points that arise during workshops. . .but to adequately address current work, these conversations have to start by virtue of submitting short clips of the story in relation to what has already been written. It feels kind of like wasted time because some amount of my time during the workshop involves me saying, "Yeah, I know, I've already raised that question, I'm going to address that when I rewrite it" to a lot of critiques.

Every once in awhile, though, it's nice to hear something new that I haven't thought up, from praise to frustration/dissatisfaction. It also helps to hear my dissatisfactions get articulated differently or even receive some suggestions on how to address an issue (especially when I haven't put too much thought into correcting it).

Hopefully I've come up with a good tactic for cutting down on the inefficient discussions that I've already had with myself. For future submissions, I will do a minimum of editing, taking the form of excising repetitious parts of the text and asking the workshop if they feel like they've missed anything, tightening up the language and welcome any other critiques that come up, which hopefully don't address matters that I've already thought a lot about.

In the meantime, I've got a fair amount of research and writing to do for the academic side of things. The fact that I could do a fair amount of writing for the novel without distracting myself from writing the academic side has just occurred to me. Will have to put some thought into that. . .but not addressing that matter probably won't affect my working with the workshop. Ahh well. . ..

Monday, January 28, 2008

Rough Drafting It

I'm doing things a little in reverse again tonight. Doing so somehow ends up being a lot more productive, which certainly goes against some financial advice I once read: "Focus on your long term goals then work with what's left over [which includes bills and leisure]." I think the rationale behind is that people make do with what they have and adjust to their situation, so that's what they'll do with their finances.

Time management, though, I think works a little different. Depending on the situation, addressing the small things first then moving onto the bigger projects can work better. Then there's situations like at my work, where flipping back and forth between big and small projects can provide a nice balance. The small projects provide a sense of accomplishment while the big ones break up the repetition (at least, I like to think so).

But now that I've got a bunch of chores done and have, ideally, two hours until I hit the sack, I plan on writing pretty badly. Yes, I mean it, I'll write some crapping and be BSing my novel as bad as a college student writing a term paper the night before it's done. As much as I hate to do it, it has to be done.

Oddly enough, the situation kind of excites me. It makes me feel kind of like a professional writer, even if I haven't published anything in a long long time. . .and not in any publication worth its weight in copper.

In the end, simply put, what separates the successful, professional writer from the amateur who doesn't get anywhere is that successful one will force themselves to sit down and slug out a certain volume of work or work for a certain amount of time because it needs to get done.

The amateur on the other hand, will generally just work whenever they feel inspired or not force themselves to work it. Sure, there's always exceptions, but that's someone with more talent than any one person should have. Most people, even most successful writers don't have that kind of talent. They, like me, will write crap then make it nice, pretty, worthwhile and good to read through numerous rewrites that feel like they take forever to do.

Writing isn't so much so much in the writing, it's in the rewriting and revising. I don't know who said that, but it's a wise saying.

At least, I like to tell myself all the above. Maybe when I become successful, I'll say something else.



Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com