Writers Who Don’t Publish Must Be Crazy, They Say

On Authors Who Don’t Publish

They’re making a movie about J.D. Salinger – a man known for publishing The Catcher in the Rye, and then nothing else. Or, more excitingly, a man known for writing The Catcher In the Rye, a few short stories, and then reportedly a treasure-trove of unpublished works that could possibly be just as good as The Catcher in the Rye. Imagine if we could read them! Why didn’t he ever publish anything of it?

That is what the movie is about. Apparently the idea that anyone could write something, and then never publish it, is mind-boggling to a lot of people.

Publication is the lofty goal of aspiring writers, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Having a goal gives you something to work for, and a reason to improve. But if publication isn’t what drives you, and you write just because you like writing, that shouldn’t be mind-boggling.

Apparently J.D. Salinger once said, “There is a marvelous peace in not publishing … I like to write. I love to write. But I write just for myself and my own pleasure.”

I don’t find that at all crazy. The joy of writing is enough in itself to keep you writing. And I’m sure there are millions of unpublished authors out there who’d agree – they do write out of the sheer joy of it.

Well, I do publish, and I know there is a unique thrill in reaching one more reader than you did before. But I also write things that I hope won’t be published (like my diary, or ridiculous unbelievable story ideas). I write them because it’s fun.

There are other reasons J.D. Salinger might’ve not published. It might’ve been too personal. It might’ve been too controversial, or too bleak, or too different from The Catcher in the Rye. He might’ve felt he could never live up to The Catcher in the Rye’s success. Or he might never have managed to arrange the words in a way that he felt actually got across the message he wanted to get across.

I would never presume to say I know what he was thinking. I would only say that – I can think of a million reasons myself for why an author wouldn’t want to publish. None of these reasons are enough to base a mystery-thriller style movie around (do see the trailer, it is rather strange).

But, oh well. They need to sell tickets to the thing, right?

Leave a Comment

Filed under -- ON WRITING (well?)

No post this Friday…

I’m out of town this weekend, so no blog post today! Have a great weekend, everyone!

Leave a Comment

Filed under -- RANDOMS that don't fit into other categories.

Is Rebellion Necessary for True Art?

{{PD-old-70}}

{{PD-old-70}}

“Generally speaking, art is an expression of man’s need for an harmonious and complete life, that is to say, his need for those major benefits of which a society of classes has deprived him. That is why a protest against reality, either conscious or unconscious, active or passive, optimistic or pessimistic, always forms part of a really creative piece of work. Every new tendency in art has begun with rebellion”

- Leon Trotsky

Whoa, here I go quoting Leon Trotsky, of all people! Don’t worry, I haven’t turned into a Marxist/Trotskyist/whatever-type-of-communism-is-currently-fashionable. I’ve always resisted the idea that art is always about rebellion, while at the same time always maintaining that an escape from everyday reality is an important part of enjoying good art or good writing.

But what Trotsky is saying is that this act of escape is, in itself, a rebellion against current realities. I don’t like the idea that all art is rebellion because not everything needs to be rebelled against, or is worth rebelling against. Sometimes the good can be celebrated too. But most art does point to something lacking in the human reality, even if it’s just in a tragic way (like The Great Gatsby – I just watched the new movie version, by the way!)

So can art be an expression of what reality is lacking? Definitely. Does that mean art is rebellious, since it is pointing out the flaws in reality? Well then, maybe there is an aspect of rebellion to all art after all.

Here’s what I believe, in the end. Humanity is looking for a harmonious and complete life. But the barrier to gaining that kind of life is not class divisions, as Trotsky says above, but ourselves. All of our individual stupid shortcomings and flaws, repeated on a grand scale throughout the whole human race, resulting in everything we know is wrong with the world – war, hatred, evil.

Sometimes we need an escape from this kind of petty reality. Sometimes we need to use art to point it the bad stuff. Either way, creativity and artistic production is important for humanity.

 

 

What do you think – does art have to have an aspect of rebellion to it? What should art rebel against?

 
On a related note – ‘Something Like Friendship,’ Chapter 5 of my Why Polly? serialized novel comes out today! Click here to check it out. Or you can read Chapter 1 free here.

 

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under -- RANDOMS that don't fit into other categories.

Creativity is the Residue of Time Wasted

quotables buttonCreativity is the residue of time wasted.

- Albert Einstein*

Sometimes time wasted is just time wasted. And sometimes time wasted ends up being creativity.

Why is this? Well, creativity is a funny thing. You don’t always know where you’re going to end up when you start. You might find yourself in a lot of dead ends before you get somewhere interesting. And so your endless scribbling at your desk, or your doodling, or your songwriting might look a lot like time wasted to everyone else.

This is the difficult thing about creativity, and it’s part of the reason the arts are called both a ‘waste of time and money’ AND essential to humanity. The process for creating art is not standard in the way the scientific method is standard. A lot of what’s produced might looked like garbage, or time wasted. And throwing money at the arts does not necessarily equal creativity (in a neat, positively correlated way, I mean), which frustrates a lot of goal-driven people.

But then, every once in a while, you do get mind-blowing stuff. Which reminds everyone, once again, to give creative people the space they need to create.

For creators, this means learning the balance between wasting time and being productive… gaining an instinct for knowing when to stop doodling and start painting, or stop researching and start writing, or whatever. Sometimes a dead-end is fun and endless entertaining (like writing the missing scenes to Jane Austen’s novels). Which sometimes means you should stick that in your ‘leisure’ time slot instead of your ‘working’ slot.

I, by no means, have figured this out yet. Have you?

 

*The internet attributes this quote to Albert Einstein. We all know how accurate the internet is :)

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under --QUOTABLES

Peck Out Her Eyes, She Deserves It!

Vindictiveness in Fiction

'Just Desserts,' by Paulina Smit. Creative Commons.

‘Just Desserts,’ by Paulina Smit. Creative Commons.

Some versions of Cinderella end with her ordering her bird-friends to peck out her stepsisters’ eyes. Yes, the sweet, lovely Cinderella whom we all heard about as a kid – though clearly not the Disney version. Apparently she decided to take revenge and punish her sisters by blinding them in the most gruesome way she could think of. Or, in other versions of the story, exiling them to the wilderness, or forcing them to be slaves.

 I always preferred the endings where she invites her stepsisters and stepmother to live in the castle instead, and teaches them how to be gracious. After all, Cinderella is supposed to be better than them, and if she resorts to petty vindictiveness to punish them, how is she better than her stepsisters, who mistreated her because she was prettier than them?

 I always wanted to think if anyone could be outstandingly forgiving, it was Cinderella. And I always wanted to think the stepsisters learned to be better people after what happened. Maybe I’m just an optimist about humanity.

 But, strangely enough, vindictiveness is a strong theme in many works of fiction. I mean, take The Count of Monte Cristo. This is a book completely centred around a man taking revenge, it is regarded as a true classic, and its plot keeps getting used by many other works (the movie, The Mask of Zorro, for instance, and Charade, an actual Christian inspirational fiction book that uses the same plot).

 In the book, the Count of Monte Cristo takes great pleasure in revenge. He manipulates a man’s wife to commit suicide and take her son with her as well, driving the man insane. Then he destitutes another man, and causes a third to commit suicide. Of course, the point of the book is that they all deserved it, but still…

 Clearly, punishing people who were mean to you is attractive to most readers, and I’m not really surprised this natural human reaction is so popular. Everyone likes to see someone get their comeuppance. I am surprised that I don’t enjoy it. Like I said before, I like the versions of Cinderella where she doesn’t punish her stepsisters, and the parts of The Count of Monte Cristo where he relents instead of taking revenge. But this quirk of mine ends up interfering with my enjoyment of other classics as well.

 Take Roald Dahl. Everyone loves Roald Dahl! Everyone’s read at least a dozen of his books in their childhood – Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, James and the Giant Peach, Matilda, etc. So I read them too, and they confused me like crazy. As a kid, I couldn’t figure out if I was supposed to laugh or feel bad (I actually felt bad) when James’ aunts get flattened by the giant peach, or Veruca Salt gets carried away by squirrels.

 So while I knew these books were wonderfully creative and inventive – no one’s written about being inside a chocolate factory before! And definitely not a chocolate factory that was so fun – I couldn’t get past feeling uncomfortable with them. In this case, I never particularly felt that the characters in the book were the vindictive ones – Charlie, or James, for example. It was just this undercurrent of vindictiveness that ran through most of the books – as if the author himself was exorcizing his demons.

 So here’s the thing – bad characters should learn something, or be punished, or whatever makes a satisfactory ending to a story. But what I find uncomfortable is when other characters take this into their own hands. Because I don’t believe we ever see things quite clearly when we’ve been hurt. And I’m always afraid that taking this kind of revenge just tangles things up and makes them worse.

But that’s just me. What do you think about vindictiveness in fiction?

Leave a Comment

Filed under -- BOOKISH THOUGHTS

Haven’t You Heard of Lincoln’s Doctor’s Dog?

Haven’t you heard of Lincoln’s Doctor’s Dog? It is the world’s biggest bestseller, or it should be, if this old saying from the publishing industry was true. Apparently book about Lincoln, books about doctors, and books about dogs all sell extremely well (at least before the internet came along, and fell in love with cats instead…) So clearly a book about all three of those things should be amazing.

Everyone knows this is a kind of silly way to look at manufacturing a bestseller. I agree, and so does the Amrah Publishing House – their latest post, Manufacturing a Bestseller, pokes several holes in this theory. Clearly I, along with several thousand other authors, would’ve written a highschool vampire love story if we’d known beforehand what a big hit Twilight was going to be. But that’s the way of these things, they’re somewhat unpredictable.

PollyChapter4All the same, I know many of you reading this blog did enjoy Why Polly? when I posted it chapter-by-chapter here. Well, I’ve been busy editing and polishing it some more, and ‘Chapter 4- An Explanation of Long Noses’ will be available on Kindle on Friday. It doesn’t contain a doctor, a dog, or anything about Lincoln, but I think it’s a pretty entertaining story all the same.

.

Still not sure what Why Polly? is all about? Check out this promotional video:

Leave a Comment

Filed under -- RANDOMS that don't fit into other categories.

The Pleasures of Not Writing

by Paul Fischer. {PD}

by Paul Fischer. {PD}

“The pleasures of not writing are so great that if you ever start indulging them you will never write again”

—John Updike.

This quote grabbed me because it is something I’ve been struggling with a lot lately – I’ve managed to keep writing a fair amount, but each step is a momentous struggle of motivation.

This isn’t uncommon for writers, I don’t think. Every once in a while it just seems far easier to quit trying to pour out your soul on paper. And everything else starts to look more attractive than staring at a blank page – going out with friends who called you up at the last moment, reading someone else’s blog, or going outside to lie in the sunshine (now that winter is over). And I firmly resist always giving in to these temptations, because if I let all these attractive things have their way every time they pop up, my time for writing will slowly evaporate.

But what John Updike writes is both true and not true. Not writing is terribly attractive, and entirely possible if you let the demands of life take over your attempts at writing. But so far in my life, I keep coming back to writing, over and over, despite having giving it up in despair many times.

That is why I call myself a writer (or, one of the many reason I do, anyway). Why would I keep coming back to it if there wasn’t something inside me that drove me to writing? Giving it up could be so simple, and yet I have never done it.

Still, this quote drives home the point that writing takes discipline. Many people call themselves ‘writers’ because they have a book in their head, but they’ve never actually put a pen to paper. I could continue to call myself a writer, and let my inner writing drive drive me to throw a paragraph down once in a while.

But to produce actual writing that other people want to read, and find useful or interesting or thought-provoking, takes discipline. The discipline to keep going, word after word, until you have just thewriting quote right amount of words to convey the idea you want to get across. Then the discipline, to re-write, edit, re-think, and struggle until that idea comes through crystal-clear. And then the discipline to keep throwing that chunk of writing to places where other people will see it, and to hunt down publishers and promoters until you reach the audience you wrote it for. And this discipline is what many writers struggle with. Writing is a journey in self-motivation, after all.

So keep up that struggle, writers! There are enough non-writers out there already. And for those of you out there who are readers, I’m sure you’re glad, in the same way I am, that so many great writers didn’t give in to the pleasure of not writing.

Writers – have you ever been tempted towards not writing? Readers – which book are you really glad an author managed to motivate his or herself to churn out?

Leave a Comment

Filed under -- ON WRITING (well?), --QUOTABLES

How a Non-Existent Word Got in the Dictionary

Last Friday, we have some fun looking at potential new English words, and how the English language is changing. Since then, I ran across the delightful story of the non-word ‘dord,’ a word you’ve probably never heard of – because it isn’t actually a word. But for eight whole years it was included in Webster’s New International Dictionary.

Dord,’ the entry read, ‘n, Physics and Chem. Density.’ But it wasn’t until eight years later that editors at the dictionary realized that neither physicists nor chemists used any such word for density. What actually happened was that someone suggested ‘D or d, cont./density’ be added to the dictionary to show that the letter ‘d’ could also be an abbreviation for density. Somehow, ‘D or d’ was misprinted as ‘Dord’ – and so you see, children, spaces are important!

The adventures of the non-word ‘dord’ illustrates two things:

1.) Making up a new word involves a lot more than coming up with the string of letters itself. (If it were that easy, ‘prevening‘ would probably be a word.) You actually have the much harder task of somehow getting a large number of people to use the new string of letters for a long period of time. This is probably why a lot of ‘new words’ people dream up crash and fail, rather than enriching our English language.

2.) Just putting a word in a dictionary does not magically make it a word (except maybe in Scrabble). Words need more than just a definition, they need a backstory, and a lot of people who know the word and use it, to actually be a word.

I suppose I could add one more thing, a number 3.) Isn’t it great that we have people whose job it is to check over the dictionary? Think how many more non-words people would claim to be words if dictionaries were not systematized and well-edited.

I like the sound of ‘Dord,’ though, and I share the lament of the one of the dictionary editors who said, taking out ‘dord’ was ”probably too bad, for why shouldn’t dord mean ‘density’?”Are there any other interesting non-words that you’re aware of?

Just to update you on my story ‘One House, Six Decades – Three Generations‘ over at cbc.ca/hyperlocal – it was recently selected as a ‘Editor’s Pick.’ Thank you to all who read and ‘liked’ it so far!

Leave a Comment

Filed under -- RANDOMS that don't fit into other categories.

What, the English Language Changes? Literally?

Dare you use 'literally' when you mean 'figuratively'?

Dare you use ‘literally’ when you mean ‘figuratively’?

First, a somewhat related note – check out my story ‘One House, Six Decades – Three Generations’ on the new CBC Hyperlocal site. The CBC, our venerable old Canadian broadcaster (for those of you who aren’t Canadian and didn’t know), wanted stories of change from Canadians across the country – change in people and places, not the English language, but still interesting. Since I have the rare and fortunate position of living a house that’s seen three generations of my family, I wrote about the changes its seen throughout the years. Please check it out, like it, or share it! 

Okay, grammar matters. As a device for making our writing clear and readable, and our communication in general easier to understand, it is a necessary (though irritating) set of rules and regulations. Considering how Jane Austen’s writing throws me off every time she writes ‘surprize’ instead of ‘surprise,’ and how Shakespeare confuses me by using ‘nothing’ to mean gossip and rumours, I suppose it is good someone set out to systematize our language and standardize everything. While I reserve the right of writers to break those standards when necessary, I will admit a basic knowledge of grammar for most people does matter.

The problem comes in, however, when fans of English grammar try to impose useless rules on the rest of us. As linguists have long pointed out, knowledge of a language and its grammar has not merely been used throughout history as a way of improving communication between people, but also – more sinisterly – as a way to classify people. People who use ‘ain’t’ clearly must be less educated than people who don’t. People who split infinitives must be stupid and clueless. And so on. This results in some grammar rules that are just used as a stick to beat other people with – even when whatever people are writing is perfectly clear as it is. Worst of all, this mindset clings to the idea that there are some hard and fast rules of English out there, and when the changing language of English leaves this idea behind in the dust, its supporters merely howl, “But that’s wrong! You’re ruining English!”

I care because I love how English changes. I love how I can twist words and sentences to mean exactly what I want them to mean, ignoring whatever grammar rules might water this meaning down if I have to. So today, let’s look at two of the ways English is changing right before our eyes! First up, we have that wonderfully maligned word… ‘literally.’

Literally:

Everyone knows people use ‘literally’ when they really mean ‘figuratively.’ ‘His head literally exploded!’ is a common example given to writers to drive home the point that using ‘literally’ in this way is wrong, wrong, wrong. Except… maybe it isn’t. As Jesse Sheidlower from Slate points out, ‘literally’ has been used in sentences like this since at least the 18th century. James Fenimore Cooper, Thackeray, Dickens, and Thoreau all used it, and no one noticed until the twentieth century or so, when someone had to add another example of ‘bad writing’ to their style book. Also, in the interests of clear communication – I think everyone except possibly the very newest speakers of English would understand ‘literally’ in this context doesn’t actually mean the guy’s head actually exploded. Maybe this rule just exists so thousands of internet commenters the world over can spend their days writing “the author used ‘literally’ wrong, she obviously can’t know what she is talking about…”
But as this use becomes more and more common, do you think we’ll see the day where it is grudgingly accepted by grammarists?

Using ‘They’ to mean ‘He or She’:

I’m a huge fan of this one, and I hope it gains acceptance soon! Even the most stringent grammarist will note there is no genderless pronoun to use in sentences like, “When I tell someone a joke they laugh.” You could say, “When I tell someone a joke, he or she laughs,” but that just ruins the flow of most sentences. And since everyone uses ‘they’ like this in casual conversation, it makes sense to use it this way in all writing except the most formal, academic manuscripts. In novels, you don’t want to jerk the reader out of the story, even if the combination of words you use is ‘right.’
On the positive side, many analyzers of the English language are giving into this as a natural evolution of English, as it fills an obvious void our language has.

Bonus English Language Change!

Lastly, I want to point out a new word the English language has generated in the last couple decades – not an accepted, official word by any means, but a useful, slangy word that will either rise to prominence or die the ignoble death of other slang terms such as ‘the bees’ knees.’ This word, of course, is lol. Lol, you ask? How can I bring up such a horrible example of textspeak?
Well, as Farhad Manjoo pointed out recently, it’s a wonderfully flexible piece of slang. It doesn’t actually, strictly, mean ‘laughing out loud,’ though everyone knows that’s what it stands for (and we use similar phrases such as, ‘it cost me an arm and a leg,’ without literally meaning it cost you that). Actually, apparently it signifies something more like ‘basic empathy’ between two people. It can mean That made me smile a bit. It can mean I hear you. It can mean I’m not ignoring you, I’m just not sure what to say to your comment. If it ever gets accepted into dictionaries as something other than colloquial speech, it’ll be a wonderful example of how humans invent useful words to put into conversations and get a new kind of meaning across.
That said, am I going to be the brave writer who uses lol in a new, literary way? At the moment, I have no plans to. Unless one of my characters is actually online or texting something, lol will remain at the sidelines of my stories. As it stands today, lol has not crossed the boundaries of the virtual world. A few people have used it in casual, everyday conversation, but they have been met with strong resistance. And until this word becomes a conversational word, I’m not sure it will ever be a literary one.
But who knows, the wonderfully chameleon language known as English may prove me wrong yet.

What’s your favourite change in the English language?

3 Comments

Filed under -- ON WRITING (well?)

The World Is Better On Coffee (But It Won’t Make You Write Better)

Cup o'coffee, wikimedia commons. (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Cup o’coffee, wikimedia commons. (CC BY-SA 2.0)

“Many people claim coffee inspires them, but, as everybody knows, coffee only makes boring people even more boring.”

- Honore de Balzac, On Modern Stimulants

Coffee won’t make you write better, but it might make you feel better. A large cup of coffee every morning, laced with cream and sugar and carried with me in a leak-proof travel mug, gives me just that extra perk to cross over from sleep to waking. It is the ever-so slow, ever-so steady infusing of euphoria into my veins. At its very peak, everything seems possible, every achievement looks within reach – and so I start my daily work. Yes, it is a drug, but not one I will ever feel bad about taking.

I have weaned myself off coffee for months at a time before, and I function just fine after an initial few days of blurriness. But it is not worth it. There is a spark missing in the world, a spark so close to imperceptible that should not make that much of a difference, but it does. The warm smell of coffee would drift across my nostrils, and I would know what I was missing. The first gulp would reinforce this knowledge even more.

Do I write better on coffee? Aside from performing a double-blind, randomly controlled study, I’m not sure how I could tell. But I know several tens of thousands of words looks like a lot smaller of a mountain to climb, after a cup of coffee. Stringing the perfect set of words into sentences that connect with throngs of people appears to be achievable, someday, if I just keep at it. Coffee brings confidence, and confidence brings out writing. So maybe it affects quantity more than quality, though confidence has been known to improve quality before as well.

Not all writers are coffee-drinkers, though many writers throughout history have been. All the same, coffee obviously does not work the same way on everyone, and not everyone should treat it like a wonder-drug. If you cannot write, coffee won’t make you better at it. If you wire yourself up into a hyper-caffeinated state, you might produce pages and pages of gibberish, but you might not be any better at writing. Balzac, in the midst of his own ode to coffee, realized this, and so do I – being interesting takes more than mere caffeine!

So take up that mug of coffee, especially if it pushes you a little farther outside yourself than you would normally go. Drink it if it makes the world glow in ways it never does uncaffeinated. Let it drive you actually sit down at that table and write. But beware, if you have nothing interesting to write about.

What does coffee do to you?

Leave a Comment

Filed under -- ON WRITING (well?), --QUOTABLES