Writing is a slow and a difficult process mentally. How you physically render the words onto a screen or a page doesn’t help you. I’ll give you this example. When words had to be carved into stone, with a chisel, you got the Ten Commandments. When the quill pen had been invented and you had to chase a goose around the yard and sharpen the pen and boil some ink and so on, you got Shakespeare. When the fountain pen came along, you got Henry James. When the typewriter came along, you got Jack Kerouac. And now that we have the computer, we have Facebook. Are you seeing a trend here?
P.J. O’Rourke, “P.J. O’Rourke: ‘Very Little That Gets Blogged Is Of Very Much Worth'”, John Brown’s Notes and Essays, 2010-07-23
July 25, 2010
QotD: Writing
Comments Off on QotD: Writing
May 25, 2010
The dangers of writing near-future SF
Charles Stross gets sandbagged by the unforeseen:
Back in mid-2008 I mentioned that what I thought was a futuristic-circa-2023 technology for the next novel was too damn close. Slightly more recently, in Living through interesting times, I mentioned that it was becoming near-as-dammit impossible to write near-future SF; I was sore because Bernie Madoff had stolen the plot of my next novel.
Well, I picked myself up, dusted myself down, re-framed the novel in question, and I’m currently about 80% of the way through writing it when it all happened again. First of all, Lothian and Borders Police actually established a recognizable-as-the-embryonic-form version of the unit that one of my protagonists, circa 2023, manages. (Only I got the staffing level and departmental mission statement slightly off-whack …) Next, there’s just been another revolution in Kyrgyzstan (a country which, for reasons I’m not going to discuss here, plays a significant role in “Rule 34”).
But the worst thing? I’ve been sandbagged by an unanticipated event.
Of course, it’s quite understandable — after all these years, who knew there even was a “libertarian arm of the Conservative party” to mess up Charlie’s plot of the near-future?
Comments Off on The dangers of writing near-future SF
April 29, 2010
Parents, don’t let your kids grow up to be fiction authors
Charles Stross lays out the miserable truth about the practical issues when you try to write fiction for a living:
Most people have a very romanticized view of what it is that authors do. Firstly, there’s a widespread perception that the workload involved is relatively easy — in modern western nations, the level of functional literacy is high enough that a majority of the population can read a book, and write (at least to the extent of thumbing a 160-character text message on their phone). Because there is no obvious barrier to entry as with music (where proficiency with musical instruments clearly takes practice), most people assume that writing a novel is like writing a text message — you put one word in front of another until you’re done. The skills of fiction composition are largely invisible, until you try to actually do it. Secondly, many people harbour peculiar ideas about how much money there is in commercial publishing — and when disabused of the idea that selling a first novel is a road to riches, they assume it’s because the evil publishers are conspiring to keep all the money to themselves (rather than the unpalatable truth — publishing commercial fiction is hard work for little reward). Finally, there’s the Lifestyle chimera.
In short: it’s actually work to write for a living. The pay sucks for the vast majority of fiction writers. You face all the risks of a start-up business, but the potential pay-off is lottery-odds unlikely to come your way. Unlike other work, creative writing can’t be done (for most authors) in a predictable regular way:
Putting words in a row is wearying work. When they’re flowing fast, I can sometimes reach a dizzying peak output of 2000 words per hour for a couple of hours — not in fiction, but in a blog entry or a non-fiction essay. I’ve occasionally had death march sessions in which I pumped out as much as 10,000 words in a day. But such Stakhanovite output isn’t sustainable; a 10,000 word day is usually followed by a three-day-weekend to recover from it. A more realistic target for a full-time professional writer is 500-1000 words of finished prose per workday, corresponding to about 1-2 hours of writing, 2-4 hours of polishing, and another couple of hours of thinking about what they want to say, and how to say it. Like anyone else, they need weekends and vacation weeks and time to do the housekeeping. 1000 words per day for a 250-day working year (50 weeks of 5 days a week) works out at 250,000 words per year — or two 320 page novels.
There’s one SF/Fantasy author who seems to publish a new book every month, but he’s extremely unusual. For most authors, one or two books per year is pretty good output.
Comments Off on Parents, don’t let your kids grow up to be fiction authors
April 12, 2010
QotD: A new award
Nothing punctures a swollen ego so neatly as public mockery. Anti- awards like the Rotten Tomatoes and Golden Raspberry Awards for awful films, for example, perform a useful service. They keep celebrities humble and they give ordinary folks vicarious power to punish the inferior efforts of vain and stupid people who have come to believe they are special.
There should be just such an award for journalists who mangle the rules of composition. I am thinking in particular of opinion writers who are so determined to chivvy the reader into accepting a conclusion for which no evidence is available that they attempt to disguise their lack of acumen with really rotten imagery, similes, metaphors and symbolism.
I would call this anti-award the “Dowdy” in “honour” of Maureen Dowd, who would be named its inaugural recipient for creating the Worst Simile of the Year, a simile that binds together her April 11 New York Times column about the Catholic Church pedophile scandals, “Worlds Without Women.”
Barbara Kay, “Saudi Arabia is not a men’s club”, National Post, 2010-04-12
Comments Off on QotD: A new award
August 2, 2009
QotD: Technical Writing
Technical writing is perhaps the worst training ground for creative writers. Instead of polishing the descriptive abilities, technical writing is the process of whittling down the prose and sanding off the decoration. A good technical writer writes instructions or descriptions that (ideally) barely even register as you read the words — because the words are merely the carriers of the information you need. If you notice the words as words, you’re being distracted from the primary goal of the reader: getting the information as quickly and as clearly as possible.
Nicholas Russon, 2004-09-09
Comments Off on QotD: Technical Writing
