Quantum Storytelling

Update Your Feed

redchurch@redchurch.com (Eric von Rothkirch) — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 07:15:00 +0000

Please update your feeds to http://www.redchurch.com/quantum/feed/

DEVONthink & EverNote: Tools for Taking Notes

redchurch@redchurch.com (Eric von Rothkirch) — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:44:00 +0000

I've heard a lot about DEVONthink for the Mac. It's being used by notable authors such as Steven Johnson.

Since people can't seem to stop talking about it, I went to investigate what all the hoopla is about, and it appears to have a really nice keyword smart grouping function for notes.

Being a PC/Windows guy, I went in search of something similar. I found EverNote. It allows 'smart grouping' - also known as keyword categorization, and a host of other neat features. The best part? The basic version is free. The retail version supports handwriting features--but if you're like me, you don't really care about that stuff and the free version functions perfectly without the extra features.

Some people might ask, "Why not use Mind Manager or FreeMind?" That's a great question, and I love those apps, but they are better for hierarchical organization and visual mapping. I don't necessarily need all that for making clip files of odd news, or organizing snippets and tidbits of inspiration.

In other words, EverNote makes a good InfoBucket or InfoScoop, for lack of a better term. My notes don't have to be super organized, in fact I prefer them not to be. Notation for me is a very quick and dirty process. All I really need is a way to sort my notes effectively by topic, and EverNote handles all that nicely without much trouble.

It's free. Give it a try if you're looking for some note-taking software, or simply if you like to try new tools.

Anyone using DEVONthink or EverNote?

Doing The Unstuck

redchurch@redchurch.com (Eric von Rothkirch) — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 01:25:00 +0000

"It's a perfect day for doing the Unstuck, for dancing like you can't hear the beat, and you don't give a further thought to things like ~~feet~~ block."

For those in the U.S. or with access to a Barnes & Noble, it's on clearance right now for $4.98 - an awfully cheap price to end your writer's block.

This one has a lot of juicy advice. I don't so much have a problem writing as I do coming up with the right ideas for the right scenes. It doesn't matter, as the book so far is solving both for me.

At the very least, do yourself a favor and flip through it at the bookstore to see if it might help you. My guess is it can.

"It's a perfect day for getting wild, forgetting all your worries, life and everything that makes you cry."

Ok, now that we know one of Eric's favorite bands in high school... get out and get yourself Unstuck.

Novelist Biz Plans

redchurch@redchurch.com (Eric von Rothkirch) — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 16:04:00 +0000

"If you're stuck thinking of authors as 'writers,' you're never going to understand branding."

An apt quote from this Forbes article on successful authors. Which begs the question; What is your business plan for novel-writing? Do you have one?

Thanks to Grumpy Old Bookman for that link.

What's Wrong With Sci-Fi?

redchurch@redchurch.com (Eric von Rothkirch) — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:10:00 +0000

Over on The Antick Musings of G.B.H. Hornswoggler there is a decent piece on how the 'fans' themselves are killing science-fiction.

If we're just talking about readers, I agree that the negativity and trolling should be held responsible for some of the 'destruction.'

If we're talking about critical dissection among writers, that's another thing. Getting all nitpicky about a piece of work is one way that writers learn. Until I read Heinlein I had no idea he wrote such bad prose. Not that it matters in the face of the ideas--the ideas are what resonate with people, and why they love the works so much.

Similar can be said for Isaac "The Rambler" Asimov. I found his work to go off too much into the characters' headspace, which in general is a poor storytelling technique--at the very least overused in his case.

But this is relatively 'old' sci-fi, or well-entrenched to say the least. If sci-fi fans are holding back new sci-fi because they simply won't give it a chance, then yes... that is sad.

But as others may have suggested, don't read web forums then. Only misery seems to come from online negativity.

Just to be a thorn, the devil's advocate in me just has to ask... "What if they're right?"

Is there something wrong with sci-fi these days? If so, what is it?

Discussing Intellectual Properties

redchurch@redchurch.com (Eric von Rothkirch) — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 16:13:00 +0000

I should have linked this a while ago. Scott is the co-owner of 3D Realms, where I work.

The interview is all about games, but don't be fooled by that. Many of the topics discussed affect novelists and writers as well. After all, it is the job of fiction writers to create new intellectual property.

Can You Identify Good Ideas?

redchurch@redchurch.com (Eric von Rothkirch) — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 19:26:00 +0000

"I'll know it when I see it."

Maybe you won't? Seth Godin has one of the best blog posts I've read in a long time, for the simple lie it exposes.

We've all said it at one time or another.

You won't know it when you see it, because even people who are exceptionally gifted at picking out good ideas sometimes pass up goldmine opportunities.

Nobody can identify all the good ideas, all the time. Nobody. Like wisdom and the humility of Socrates, the best thing you can do is to admit that you know nothing, and work to constantly improve your knowledge. The same is true for picking out good ideas. We all have to admit that we aren't as great as we think, and our only recourse is to work at becoming better about picking good ideas.

It's the only way to move forward.

And picking ideas is one area where it pays to second-guess yourself. Is your idea really that good? Why? Maybe you've come up with a stinker. But then again, maybe that idea that woke you up in the middle of the night, but seemed stupid the next morning--maybe it's the best idea you've ever had?

What measurements do you use in judging an idea? Are you good at picking them?

Do you know it when you see it?

Content is King

redchurch@redchurch.com (Eric von Rothkirch) — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 15:24:00 +0000

I've been giving a lot of thought to the debate over art vs. entertainment, and the debate appears to be framed in the wrong way.

On one hand you have this idea of integrity--that as a writer you should just follow your own heart, mind, wants, dreams, whatever and then just hope and pray that other people like it. On the other hand there is the idea that maybe you can identify the things that make up a bestseller, and maybe strive to nail some of those things in the hopes they will work.

The problem here whether we're talking about 'following your heart' or 'writing for the market' - we're talking in the abstract, being as vague as anyone can possibly be. As a result, we're not getting to the bottom of the issue and truly cracking these values that seem to conflict for so many writers.

So this morning I was reading Ian Hocking's post, which was prompted by an essay. The essay came pretty close, albeit accidentally, to identifying the problem with this art-entertainment conflict of values.

"At some point you find that 90% of the stuff you're writing is motivated and informed by an overwhelming need to be liked. This results in shitty fiction. And the shitty work must get fed to the wastebasket, less because of any sort of artistic integrity than simply because shitty work will cause you to be disliked."

First, I like that he eventually throws the notion of artistic integrity out the window. We're talking about fiction here. The writer's job is to make things up. The writer's job is to tell a lie, and to make that lie as believable as possible. I'm not sure how integrity can be valued in a portion of books that are entirely mythical. When you boil it down, fiction is nothing other than well-crafted bullshit. We're not publishing groundbreaking science nor medical knowledge that will save millions of lives and earn us the Nobel. We make widgets that people bury their nose in when they're bored. Some may not like that image because it erodes the grandiose idea of what a writer is, but it's true. How can you say one B.S. artist has more integrity than another? You can't. At the end of the day we're all pulling stuff out of our butts. I can't pretend mine stinks any less than yours, and you can't pretend that yours stinks any less than the next person.

Second, the line about "the stuff you're writing is motivated and informed by an overwhelming need to be liked" comes very close to identifying the heart of the matter.

The unfortunate mistake that both art-minded and pop-minded writers make is they both often write for the approval of others.

If you're aiming for art, your most cherished goal is to create something that the critics will applaud, that intellectuals will dissect, and that everyone will find 'deep' and meaningful.

If you're aiming for pop fiction, your most cherished goal is to create a story that everyone likes, talks about, and that everyone finds highly entertaining.

Here's the problem; Both of these ignore why stories catch on, become liked, or sell.

The answer is content. Ideas. Everyone in the lit world is talking about how horrible Dan Brown's prose is. Clue Phone for Lit World--Dan Brown stories don't sell for their beautiful prose.

Neither does Stranger in a Strange Land, any Philip K. Dick story, or just about any fiction I can think of...

Nor do they sell because they had twelve stages within three acts. They don't sell because you did or didn't use flashbacks. They don't sell because you used lots of metaphors, similes, or other literary constructs. When it comes down to an individual buying a book, they never buy books for this generic range of tools that writers use. Admit it right now--nobody cares.

Hit stories spread like wildfire for the controversy and conflict of their ideas. The ideas are the only thing that matter. If the content is strong enough, you can completely choke on the prose. I would even go so far as to say the ideas can sometimes carry a botched storytelling. The structure, pacing, arrangement, and the way the story plays out can even be flawed. If the ideas are strong enough, it will spread. If it's still a story that people want to hear in spite of all flaws, it will spread.

The goal of both the art-minded and the pop-minded writer are the same; To have the book appreciated. Quality prose is great. A good structure is great. But ultimately, the work will be judged on its ideas--its content.

People don't care about you as the writer. They only care about your ideas... your content. If the subject of your story is strong enough, only then will people care.

If you want your story to be successful then choose ideas that people care about. Choose ideas that many people would find interesting. This doesn't mean they have to be existing popular ideas. But they need to be something that the audience would care about. Storytelling is about relevance. It's about the question, "Why does anyone care?"

Only well-chosen content can answer that question.

Content is king. If you believe anything else, you might be lying to yourself.

Penultimate Truths About Fiction

redchurch@redchurch.com (Eric von Rothkirch) — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 01:27:00 +0000

How do you react to a lie? Angered? Outraged? Do you seek out justice or the truth? Penultimate Truth by Philip K. Dick examines such a question, much like many of Dick's other stories.

The basic premise of the story (no spoilers) is that the majority of the world's population lives in underground bunkers after a nuclear war. The war is conducted on the surface by high level beaureacrats while the average Joe hunkers down in cramped quarters and lives a meek and meager lifestyle underground.

Except here comes the usual Dick twist; The war ended after two years, yet the population has been kept underground for fifteen years. This is of course, a carefully managed conspiracy by faking war-related broadcasts and news. But why would anyone want to pull such a conspiracy on the public living in bunkers? For power of course. To control the resources of land and manufacturing, while keeping the rest of the population in poverty below.

Most of the story revolves around two characters. One character lives below, and must travel to the surface to find a medical supply for his community. The other character lives above, and works in the agency responsible for creating false war news and propaganda.

I've told you virtually nothing about the story's actual plot, in case you want to read it. The reason I bring all this up, is because I found it interesting how a convoluted conspiracy affects the characters--or more importantly, how it doesn't.

My issue with the storytelling is purely a character problem. Several of the characters who exist on the surface and help to perpetuate the conspiracy do not actually believe in the motives or goals of the conspiracy itself. They have no 'buy-in' to the conspiracy. Yet, these very same characters act day-in, day-out, without giving their role in the conspiracy much thought. To me this doesn't seem very realistic.

The question for me which shatters the illusion, or shatters my suspension of disbelief is this; "Why wouldn't they just walk away? Or worse, work to undermine the conspiracy?"

Indeed, one of the central characters helps to do this, but he seems to do it in complete paranoia, and without much scruples as to why and how he should care to begin with. In other words, he defies the conspiracy in a less-than intentional way. This makes him less of a hero, and more of a bystander who simply tries not to hurt the tankers as much as his peers do.

The same is true for the character who must travel to the surface. Once he discovers that the war is over, and has been over for a while, he does not seem greatly distressed by this news. Dick's explanation seems to be, this 'tanker,' as the bunker-dwellers are called, has become so accustomed to life in squalor underground, that he doesn't know what to think when he finds out about the reality of life on the surface.

I don't buy it. Because Dick later explains that the conspiracy could not be exposed to all the tankers at once, as it would 'shock' them and cause a revolution. Of course it would! And I believe it would with the main characters as well.

Keep in mind, the characters did not grow up from childhood in these surroundings. The entire framework of the premise takes place over 15 years. Unless the characters are all fifteen years old, there is no way they would go about their routine so mindlessly when it comes to something as important as freedom, and a conspiracy to infringe upon it.

None of the characters seem to take a hard emotional stand, or fight for anything they believe in. This not only makes the story less believable, it denies the reader an identification with a hero. It hurts both the logic of the conspiracy, and the characterizations.

It is an excellent example where the author could have asked himself, "What would I do in this situation?" Unfortunately, it doesn't seem Dick asked such a question. If you read it, you might agree that a character affected by conspiracy is a penultimate truth.

Criticizing the Critic

redchurch@redchurch.com (Eric von Rothkirch) — Wed, 31 May 2006 17:31:00 +0000

On the heels of yesterday's post, we're in for a bit of fun today. I thought I'd pick apart a nasty review of The DaVinci Code. People have been way, WAY too happy to rag on Dan Brown lately. I'm not sure why people are so insecure, or feel he needs to be taken down 25 notches. My guess is it has something to do with jealousy, or bitterness over the attention that novel has received. It's like watching a bunch of catty bitches comment on the unpopular girl's sudden popularity.

Without further ado, I present you a stinky mound of bitterness by Anthony Lane.

"I must say that, though I have recited the Nicene Creed throughout my adult life, I never realized that it was originally formulated in the middle of a Beastie Boys concert."

How witty! A popular culture reference in regards to a scene which bears no resemblance to the reference.

"He works for Opus Dei, the Catholic organization so intensely secretive that its American headquarters are tucked away in a seventeen-story building on Lexington Avenue."

Would he prefer Area 51? What exactly constitutes an intensely secretive location? And what might be a better organization given the theme of the novel? Oh, but providing solutions is not the role of the critic. How dare I suggest such a constructive role for any kind of critic, much less this one.

"The task of the Bishop and his hit man is to thwart the unveiling of what Teabing modestly calls “the greatest secret in modern history,” so powerful that, “if revealed, it would devastate the very foundations of Christianity.” Later, realizing that this sounds a little meek and mild, he stretches it to “the greatest coverup in human history.” As a rule, you should beware of any movie in which characters utter lines of dialogue whose proper place is on the advertising poster."

It's called good marketing. Try it sometime! Is the critic saying that the idea itself lacks controversy? It should be obvious that a story like The DaVinci code makes use of overstatement. Leave understatement for art-house. And I thought the general complaint about marketing in the big evil world is that it's too often cheap and tacked-on. So here The DaVinci Code actually uses content FROM the novel/movie for its marketing and advertising. I think that shows a bit of integrity, don't you? Instead of what we're used to--a cheap and inauthentic message tacked on after the fact. That sir, is exactly the problem with most marketing and why marketing in general gets a bad name. What The DaVinci Code has done in the marketing department should be applauded, and if anything the bitterness evident through the review and lit world only proves that.

"Should we mind that forty million readers—or, to use the technical term, “lemmings”—have followed one another over the cliff of this long and laughable text? I am aware of the argument that, if a tale has enough grip, one can for a while forget, if not forgive, the crumbling coarseness of the style; otherwise, why would I still read “The Day of the Jackal” once a year? With “The Da Vinci Code,” there can be no such excuse. Even as you clear away the rubble of the prose, what shows through is the folly of the central conceit, and, worse still, the pride that the author seems to take in his theological presumption."

Ah, so now any mass fans of a novel are 'lemmings' and The DaVinci Code, a pop novel, is being evaluated as a theological work. I think a certain writer for the New Yorker woke up one day and got confused about which genre he was reviewing. But let him continue...

"How timid—how undefended in their powers of reason—must people be in order to yield to such preening?"

First, does constructing your sentences like Shakespearean English make you sound smart? Second, somebody please pick up the Clue Phone and hand it to Mr. Lane. THE DAVINCI CODE IS FICTION.

And here we get to the most telling part of his review;

Despite repeated attempts, I have never managed to crawl past page 100. As I sat down to watch “The Da Vinci Code,” therefore, I was in the lonely, if enviable, position of not actually knowing what happens.

So, the critic couldn't hack 100 pages of a fluffy popcorn novel. That tells me two things:

He doesn't have the patience to read or sit through very much fiction. If he can't make it through The DaVinci Code, I have my doubts he could make it through anything meatier. Why is he a critic, then?
If he couldn't hack 100 pages of the novel, how far do you think he's going to get into the movie before Mr. Cranky Pants turns on? He clearly went into it with a cynical attitude. I don't know about you, but I've never enjoyed a film when I approach it with that kind of pretense. And that is exactly what Mr. Lane is being--pretentious.

"Howard’s film is that it is far too dense and talkative to function efficiently as a thriller, while also being too credulous and childish to bear more than a second’s scrutiny as an exploration of religious history or spiritual strife."

Well, at least we finally got our money's worth from the critic. Yes, perhaps The DaVinci Code is too dense and talkative to function efficiently as a thriller. However, isn't this the problem in adapting any novel to the screen?

As for an exploration of religious history or spiritual strife... again, it's a work of fiction--NOT a theological thesis. I wish critics like Anthony Lane could get that one correct. You don't see anyone raising the theological inaccuracies towards Raiders of the Lost Ark, do you?

The critic is making claims here that DaVinci Code functions poorly as an exploration of religious history and spiritual strife. Like Mr. Lane's review on the whole, that kind of nitpick is irrelevant.

What we end up with at the end of his 'critique' is a smoldering stew of bitter cynicism, and not many fine points of contention over The DaVinci Code as a work of storytelling. I thought the point of a review was to find out whether a book or film was worth enduring? What I got instead, was a sense that Lane is a cynical person who can't sit through 100 pages of a pop novel or twenty minutes of a pop film.

Not exactly an enlightened 'critique' -- do you think?

I thought reviews were meant to provide indication of weakness or strength of the work, rather than a soapbox of hatred towards blockbuster successes!

As A Writer, Do You Care About The Reader?

redchurch@redchurch.com (Eric von Rothkirch) — Tue, 30 May 2006 16:06:00 +0000

The art vs. entertainment debate has fired up again over at Melly's place. I've clearly got both feet in the entertainment camp, and I'll tell you why.

As a storyteller, I only care about the reader's experience. And this is the fundamental difference between art and entertainment. Art is not necessarily concerned with the audience's experience. Art is art. It need not justify itself to anyone or anything. It is something that sits on a pedestal, behind a glass case, or a painted line on the exhibit floor that says "Do not cross."

My problem with the label of art is that it protects the artist. If millions of people hate your work, you can easily write off their opinions with, "But it's art!" You needn't change a thing or improve yourself, except to whatever degree suits your fancy or tickles your ego.

I'm more than happy to send my work out into the world without the bulletproof vest label of 'art.' I will be happy to let readers shoot my work to pieces. Nothing is sacred, my story least of all. If it is a good story, it will be able to protect itself by its own inherent virtues. It needn't hide behind a label which calls it sacred.

Entertainment cares about the reader--because the reader ultimately decides whether entertainment is 'entertaining.' But who defines art?

The artists.

Art only cares that the artist gets to express themselves. Entertainment only cares whether the reader has a satisfying experience.

The job of an entertainer is to entertain. The job of an artist is to... what? Create something.

There is no prescription for the thing that is created. The end result doesn't have to meet any particular standard, except those prescribed by the form. And those are not rules, merely guidelines. So really, anything goes.

Entertainment ultimately has to be entertaining. It's a simple metric. If it's entertaining, then it succeeds. If it's not, then it fails.

But how can you judge whether art succeeds or fails? You can't. It's entirely subjective. I choose not to hide behind subjectives.

Either my novel will be entertaining, or it won't. If it's not, then I failed.

Ultimately what determines whether or not my work is entertaining is how much thought I've given to the reader's experience.

Can the same always be said for art?

In other words, entertainment has the customer or reader at the center of importance. Art has the artist at the center of importance.

Why does the creator have to be the center of importance? Shouldn't the audience be the center of importance?

Art doesn't necessarily care for the reader. Entertainment does--because the entire foundation of entertainment is dependent on whether or not the customer had a good time.

I care about the reader and I want them to have a good time. This is more important than all the art or artistry in the universe.

Writers, Kill Your Darlings and Achieve Artistic Integrity

redchurch@redchurch.com (Eric von Rothkirch) — Fri, 26 May 2006 00:07:00 +0000

Oh the love of pet ideas... is the source of pain for so many frustrated 'artists.' I find it amazing that you can argue with other creative people about ideas that simply don't fit within the themes of their project, or that you can argue about just plain bad or nonsensical ideas, period.

Why do creative people embrace silly things? It's the love of pet ideas. It's a hardcore obsession with darlings.

We'd all be better off as writers, readers, media-consumers, etc... if you just please, please, please KILL YOUR DARLINGS.

Just do it. You either have to make it work within the context of your project, or you have to throw it away or save it for later. But you have to make a decision. Your work will be worse off if you don't, and your work will be better off if you do.

Cast subjectivity aside for a moment. That idea that's just languishing in your novel, not really going anywhere? Get tough. Get selective. Get mean with yourself.

And then I won't have to argue with you about why your project isn't primed for success. If you don't skewer your own ideas, your audience will. Or I will. Maybe I should an editor?

One thing I don't understand is why being self-critical, editing yourself, adopting structure, or killing your darlings, are considered compromises of artistic integrity.

You want your work to improve, right? Adaptation is good. A lack of adaptation is... literally, maladaptive. For some reason creative people associate unchanging, die-hard attitudes about their work with artistic integrity. I'm not sure why.

To me that's the stodgy way of the dinosaurs. It's also inviting mediocrity. I don't see how artistic integrity can be keeping everything the same, forever. I don't see how artistic integrity is defined in that kind of conservative, protective way.

The willingness to hold your work up to the flame is artistic integrity.

The willingness to understand the difference between the wants of your ego and the need of your story is artistic integrity.

We all love to color outside the lines of the coloring book. We allow those kinds of indulgences for children. As adults and professionals, there is nobody waiting to congratulate us for the horrible screw-ups and mediocrity. Nobody will shower us with praise and kisses for creating a blob and calling it art. The real world is willing to love you, but it's a conditional love. Nobody cares that you had fun coloring outside the lines. The world demands a thesis, a point--they want something that provides meaning or interpretation to their lives.

There is no unconditional love. The world only knows a shrewd, tough love. The way a lionness bites her cubs, or carries them rough by the scruff of the neck. There is very little gentleness out there in the jungle or the savannah. So why do the people of our advanced cultures expect it when unleashing their 'art' upon the world? There is no free pass. There is no hiding behind the label of art. There is no hiding behind subjectivity, or relativity. People will judge your work, at some point. If you've written a draft, it might as well be you. Be the first, not the last.

You have to earn it. Your novel has to earn it. There is no artistic integrity in refusing to change.

Kill your darlings. Kill your darlings now.

Different Modes of Thought for Solving Story Problems

redchurch@redchurch.com (Eric von Rothkirch) — Thu, 25 May 2006 01:31:00 +0000

Are you stuck? Try these:

build up

eliminate

work forward

work backward

associate

generalize

compare

focus

purge

verbalize

visualize

hypothesize

define

dissect

symbolize

simulate

manipulate

transform

adapt

substitute

combine

separate

vary

repeat

multiply

invert

transpose

unify

distort

rotate

flatten

squeeze

stretch

abstract

translate

expand

reduce

understate

exaggerate

That's a long list of solutions to try when your story is stuck! Courtesy of Hey Whipple, Squeeze This by Luke Sullivan, who got that list courtesy of Conceptual Blockbusting by James Adams.

Do You Clip News?

redchurch@redchurch.com (Eric von Rothkirch) — Fri, 19 May 2006 20:49:00 +0000

Do you have a news clip file? I do. It's actually the basis for a lot of my fictional world. Some of the storys are, anyway. I save stuff about science or tech happenings, as well as some political mumbo jumbo.

As far as politics, I love to save the stuff that gets my blood broiling. Why? It's great for working out awful logical extensions. You know, a politican proposes something awful and the sheepish masses blindly go along with it. And then I ask, "What if everyone feels or thinks this is the right thing to do?" It's an extension of "What if everybody acted that way?" Well, you'd have a pretty messed up world. Worse, a world where nobody even realizes it's messed up.

It's also fun to project that stuff into the future. You know, dumb ideas get proposed. Then they fail... and the first reaction is, "Well, maybe we didn't spend enough money on it?" So they go back and do Version 2.0 of Crap, and well... everybody is shocked and surprised because lo and behold it's Crap 2.0.

I love that kind of stuff. It's like a big banner floating over planet Earth that says "Everyone here is crazy. Stay away."

Thoughtful observations on the ordinary maketh the writer. Because really that's our job. Take the ordinary things that happen in our world all the time, and spice them up. Murder is ordinary. Politics are ordinary. Stupidity is ordinary. Announcements of amazing new 'discoveries' are, sadly, ordinary too.

It's our job to pull those things out of the info-glut, the noise, and make sense out of them. To make them interesting, or funny. Or to simply turn things upside-down.

A writer is part satirist, part scientist. Part philosopher too, no?

The other kind of news I like to clip is just Odd News. News of the Weird. Why? Because it reminds you to turn off your internal editor. The author's Judge & Jury. I have one news story I saved, about a pig crashing through a family's patio into their house, and attacking the family members who lived there. They people involved were actually injured. But it's the kind of story nobody would ever believe if you made it up as fiction. Or at least, that's what every writer's internal voice says.

"So then the pig crashed through the sliding glass door, shattering it. And it attacked Jane and Bob while they were taking a nap in the bedroom. They were wounded by the pig. The pig kept them trapped in their bedroom for several hours before they could get out and call the police."

If you put that in a story, nobody would believe it. It would in many ways defy credibility. Or people would simply think your story was a comedy, a farce. But these things happen in real life all the time. Odd things. The world is strange. Putting a hint of the strange in your work is one way to make it that much more memorable, or in a convoluted sort of way, seem realistic.

Same is true for the political or sci-fi type news. People often find that kind of stuff too fantastical. It's fantasy. Unreal. Made up. Truth is stranger than fiction, much of the time--so if you want to avoid creating a dull story just look for the odd news.

Do you save news stories for inspiration?

A little less talk...

redchurch@redchurch.com (Eric von Rothkirch) — Tue, 16 May 2006 18:04:00 +0000

...and a lot more action.

I've got a lot of stuff to get off my chest here, and not sure where to begin. I guess I'll start with the worst bit.

Right on the heels of my post about my wife and I expecting... we went to the first sonogram where it was discovered there was no heartbeat. So um, yeah. I'm not going to be a Dad afterall. In addition to the emotional sucker punch, the 'kicking while I'm down' is that I feel like even more of a dork for getting so amped and telling everyone about it. I'm going to cringe when people ask me about the progress, so you could say this is a bit of therapy for me to just come out and lay the situation straight.

Tell 100 people about something great happening in your life. Now go back and tell that same 100 people that the great thing isn't going to happen afterall. I think we've followed up with maybe 10 of the most important people, and, well... I'm already emotionally exhausted. Which leads to...

The blog has been quiet lately. I've made a post every day for the better part of a year, which is something. But I'm not sure how much longer that will last. I'm exhausted. Intellectually and emotionally. Especially after the lost pregnancy and all the excitement I had built over that.

I'm tired of talking about my novel. I just want to finish it. I've been reading a decent advertising book called Hey Whipple, Squeeze This. Books about the art of advertising are great because they have so much in common with any other kind of creativity. One thing the author mentioned is... when you first start creating ads, your impulse is to 'roam the halls' so to speak, and talk up your ideas with everyone you know.

I have that syndrome pretty bad. I talk a really good game but one of my hard lessons in life is that I talk more than I walk. I don't like that. In general, it's a bad quality to have. Maybe it's a quality all writers have--we like to talk. But a little more action would be nice.

Without going too deep into my family history... I had a grandfather who was a big storyteller. He had a gift for gab, and was a bit of an eccentric. His big failing in life was that he never accomplished much of anything, and left a broken family in the wake of his 'adventures' - most of which consisted in doing a lot of talking to people all over the world, but not a lot of acting or doing.

There is such a thing as a negative role model to learn from. I admire his passion and eccentricity to a degree, but I wouldn't ever want to become him. I don't want to be the Boy Cried Wolf or the big talker. I value action more than words, as a principle, and I feel it violates my own principles to talk more than act. Actions speak louder than words. These things become the epitomy of wisdom in our culture for good reason.

So with my tail between my legs, I'm crawling into my dark little cave to get some writing done. But as much as I'd like to keep my mouth shut in many ways I just can't--this post is proof. So don't worry, I'll be here. Just less than before, and with a little more honest novel-writing work to talk about. Or that's the plan anyway.

Less talk. More action.

While I'm at it, I should thank you all for reading this, and being regular readers. I don't know if I've said it, and it's a bit touchy-feely, but thanks you guys. It's great to have a community of writers and bloggers like we do. Community is a great thing, and I love reading posts of my fellow text-slingers. Here's to many more years of text-slinging, both online and off!