Tearing Our Passions to Tatters
By Porter Anderson (@Porter_Anderson) | November 20, 2015 |
Image – iStockphoto: MikeDoc1968
See If I Can Practice What I Preach
Personally I’ve never cared for the word “succinct.” Maybe you’ve noticed. Well, of course you have.
But the terrifying events in Paris last weekend brought home something I’d been trying to clarify for myself for some time. It’s about how we handle issues of craft and industry in publishing. And it’s my provocation for you today.
What if we’re over-thinking, overwriting, overdoing just about everything we touch in publishing? Because we can.
What if we’re not doing it but instead are just doing stuff about it? What if the sparks are flying because we’re grinding, grinding it all into the ground?
Provocations graphic by Liam Walsh
As I watched my former colleagues at CNN International struggling to handle the #ParisAttacks coverage, I knew exactly what they were going through. On the ground, it’s often called “incremental coverage.” And it’s a gruelling, brain-blistering exercise—much harder than it looks and involving hundreds of people you never see. Everyone must try to get the latest, “the very latest!” bit of news. I do mean “bit.” As in scraps. You see one word or a short phrase from a French official churned over and over in fonts. That’s because that’s all there is. Nothing else new. Each death and injury number offered by an official source is chanted over and over. Everyone tries to avoid speculation, everyone fails. Everything carries Breaking News graphics, very little is truly breaking. In a major story, this exhausting bid for new, fast, and anything head-turning can go on not for hours but for days. Days.
Sustaining this is incredibly hard. You’re trying to hold an audience’s attention with small new elements of detail when there are 600 channels above you on the dial and 200 below you. And just about every one of those other channels has something less upsetting to offer than the unforgivable violence perpetrated on those innocent victims in Paris by such unholy assailants. Many network-news employees will define their careers by the high-relief of these stories. They’re the only times the 24-hour news services really blow through the roof on ratings, of course. A nightmare like the one we saw a week ago can wipe the goofy smile off any Candy Crusher’s face and draw even the silliest of society to our glowing screens of horror.
Rightly so. As Miller had it, “Attention must finally be paid” to such inexcusable violence. For all the missteps and vamping of this coverage, these are modern news coverage’s most powerful moments. And so overdone. By the time one of these cycles has been so agonizingly flogged—albeit for all the right reasons—viewers are numb. Our coverage of the Second Coming will make us all yawn before it’s over.
Do Real Writers Need This?
And by pure coincidence, as I looked back at the work on my desk from this coverage, I saw the same thing happening. Feedly looked like a bad day in Breaking News.
- There were overwrought columns about finding the inspiration to write. Those things could kill anybody’s motivation. (The inspi-vational industry has discovered writers, big-time. Beware anyone who yells “six-figure income!” at you.)
- There were blog posts about plotting that were simply too dense to read. (And you’re going to take that blogger’s advice?)
- There was industry commentary that had nothing new to say, and yet it went on and on and on, as if tap-dancing until the next news conference from city hall.
- There were data stories that spent more time disclaiming the fact that we don’t really have the data we need than laying out what little we do have.
- There were instructional articles so excruciatingly basic (here’s the keyboard, here’s the mouse) that they quickly devolved from how-to to who-cares.
- There were efforts to “bring in fresh insights from other industries” that really were studies in comparing pop-psychology’s apples to genre-publishing’s oranges.
When can our writers possibly write? I wondered. And then, what if that’s the real problem?
Nike Is Right
Image – iStockphoto: Byrdyak
Things have, actually changed. Not sort of. Actually. Within a couple of generations’ spans, we are the first humans who can cover-to-smithereens our news events the way we do. (Thank you, digital.) And within that same time period, our creative people have become exposed to a remarkably deep, seductive capability online to talk about, talk about, talk about, talk about the work…instead of doing it. It’s like those people who are always, always, always on their mobile phones, right? What can they have to talk so much about? And what stupefied chump is on the other end listening?
- What if you just wrote your damned book?
- What if you just set up your characters, figured out your story, trusted your instincts, and wrote it?
- What if you stopped discussing it and did it? What if you stopped thinking you had to read more, comment more, engage more, and instead wrote more?
- What if you didn’t tell us how you’d done it? What if you didn’t read 48 other people telling us how they’d done it?
- What if you just did it?
Could Just Do It really be as infuriatingly correct as it seems? Unfortunately, yes. It probably is one of the most important commercially over-played lines of correct guidance of our era.
Do you ever get sick of the sound of all our voices? Is it possible that we really need to just shut up and do it?
Have I already overwritten this? Of course I have. And I could keep going, too. As you know. I won’t. You’re welcome.
I think that the concise way to cue your turn to talk on this one is to just say:
Y’think?
[coffee title=”Wish you could buy Porter a glass of Campari?” icon=”glass”]Now, thanks to tinyCoffee and PayPal, you can![/coffee]
Update: Author Gillian Doyle has written a post in response to this piece—Stop the Carousel, I Want To Get Off. It’s a heartfelt evocation of the dilemma so many face: once you’ve invested in digitally enabled momentum, climbing back down is incredibly hard. Thanks, Gillian!
@Porter_Anderson is a fellow of the National Critics Institute. He is Editor-in-Chief of Publishing Perspectives, the international news medium of Frankfurt Book Fair. He co-founded The Hot Sheet, a newsletter for trade and independent authors, which now is owned and operated by Jane Friedman. Priors: The Bookseller‘s The FutureBook in London, CNN, CNN.com and CNN International–as well as the Village Voice, Dallas Times Herald, and the United Nations’ WFP in Rome. is a recipient of London Book Fair’s International Excellence Award for Trade Press Journalist of the Year. PorterAndersonMedia.com
I don’t know who you are, but what have you done with Porter?
Seriously, here’s my favorite bit: “What if you just wrote your damned book?”
Point. Succinct. As Paris reminds us, live now. Write now. There may not be a tomorrow.
Thanks.
:) Love this, Don, this whole succinct thing really doesn’t look right on me, lol.
Seriously, yourself, thanks — appreciate you being so receptive to this. As you say, what we have now is simply what we have and that chance may not be here tomorrow. Paris has taught us many hard lessons, hasn’t it?
Point. Succinct. Yes, indeed. Starting with my own need for a little concision. :)
Thank you hugely for the Campari, too, which makes even trying to be concise look more pleasant.
Cheers, sir, and thanks as always.
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Good points, Porter. I was going to offer a comment, but I have to get back to my writing.
Oh yeah. Just do it. Thanks.
Thanks, Carol,
Sign of the times that we have to remember that, really.
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Porter, it’s what I grapple with every day. Finding that balance. For the past couple of days, i’ve ignored emails, twitter and Facebook. I’ve been proofreading my next novel, which I hope to publish in February.
But in the background, the vast background, has been CNN, CBC, and BBC. The horror of what happened and how it’s playing out is astounding in itself. How the public is reacting to muslims in general and to the plight of the Syrian refugees is heartbreaking. What I find abhorrent is how the news media is playing to the fears of the public. This is what the terrorists want. This is what we can’t give them.
Anyway, back to writing. Thanks for the insightful article.
Right on every point, Diana, and responsible people can’t walk away from things like this, even to concentrate on our work or our own lives — and yet, how to trim our focus so that its not excessive on one area or another?…not easy to figure out, is it? It’s just tough, but we have to try. I’m hoping to just realize better the times when I’m “tearing it to tatters,” whatever it might be, and get on with it. :)
(On your point about fear, Tom Ridge — first Homeland Security secretary — made an excellent comment that we don’t need to be afraid, we need to be better prepared. Sounds right to me.)
Cheers,
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Exactly… and that’s what I did. I just let it fly… and then tweaked, cut, and edited afterwards. I used stand in reseach then tweaked afterwards as well, so that I didn’t interrupt the flow.
Sounds smart, Luna, you go. :)
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Wow, it’s like you read my mind. And probably the minds of many other writers as well. I get weary too of the all the noise, all the so called advice that is just regurgitated junk – or as you say, so basic that you have to wonder why anyone bothered writing it.
And if I see the phrase author platform one more time, my head will explode.
Just do it, is a good modus operandi and one I try to employ. One I wish a lot of other people would employ.
And it’s true that there are entire industries devoted to preying on writers, claiming to have ‘the’ method that will bring them success.Of course, if they were writing more and avoiding the work less, they probably wouldn’t fall prey.
Personally, I think it boils down to the fact that writing is hard. Discipline is harder. And it’s just easier to talk, write unneeded blog posts, futz around on social media and take bad advice, than to just do it. (Although those who do, seem to succeed, almost ‘magically.’)
Good post. Thanks!
Annie
Great thoughts, Annie, spot on.
In putting together our “Hot Sheet” newsletter for authors, as a matter of fact, my colleague Jane Friedman and I find that one of our very highest priorities is to try to move beyond that flabby, nattering way of creating guidance and analysis for writers and try to create something unencumbered with emotion, for starters. (“No hype, no drama” is one of our promises.)
To a large degree, I think we’re managing. But what’s interesting is how much thought that takes. It’s like the old saying about “I could have made it shorter if I’d had more time.” Concision and purpose-driven communications are hard to get right, they take energy and focus and a lot of awareness.
And, as you say, writing — doing it well, at least — isn’t easy. Many, I agree, are basically in escapist mode much of the time. And I think that’s understandable up to point. In my opinion, though, a “real writer,” meaning someone who’s built to write, someone who has the temperament for it, probably finds it much less hard than do people who are squeezing themselves into the role — maybe in love with literature but not as clearly cut out to create it as we all might wish they were.
These are hard calls to make and even harder things to know about yourself — agree with you there. And yeah, I think that really does contribute to all the time spent fairly wallowing in talking about writing and publishing instead of just doing it. Absolutely right.
Thanks, appreciate your input!
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
LOL. You tweeted my response. :D Thanks, you made my day.
My pleasure, and no extra charge. :)
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Ya think? Here’s the shorthand I use with my crit partners: BBB
And that stands for? Blah, blah, blah.
You, OTH, I stop. I read every word. I consider. And thank you. Again.
Careful with those kinds of lovely compliments, Morgyn, just as I try to get myself into that concise thing, LOL
Seriously, at times I look back at something I’ve published and wonder why I didn’t cut to the chase better. Any of us can get into the BBB state so easily, and not least because our community — I’m afraid, and including myself — is so quickly wooed off-task and into that lovely floaty talking-about-it lagoon.
Must simply keep sitting up, taking notice, and not letting those gentle waves of BBB-yak wash over us for too long.
See you out in the open water. :)
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Thank you, Porter, for reiterating what I have on my mind!
…back to work now…
Run, Ann, run!! :)
Appreciate it,
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Thanks for this, Porter. “Just do it” is infuriatingly accurate. And, as with anything we do to avoid just doing it, there’s a sort of addictive quality that needs defeating.
For instance, the other day I came back to my office from lunch, checked my email, almost responded to compulsion – almost clicked on the click-bait of a writing post. But I stopped myself. I think coming back from lunch had something to do with it. I was satiated. “No,” I said, “I don’t need to know your seven things every fantasy fight scene needs, Mr. Never-Heard-of-You-Fantasy-Writer.” No reader of mine has ever said anything like: “Your fighting scenes are okay, but you’re only using five of the seven elements every scene like this needs.”
I sat back from the writerly internet table and said, “No more jello for me, Mom.” And I got to work. And I’m planning on being a pickier eater henceforth. (The always nutritious WU being a routine exception.)
Again, much appreciated take on the day, Porter! Preach it! Best to you for practicing it.
And Vaughn,
I have to thank you for reminding me of your great piece on the denial of the destination — same thing, really, we actually forget that the destination was getting the danged thing out the door. We get afraid to hit The End and want it to go on and on and on..
Maybe we need to back the car over those “the joy is the journey” people, lol.
Just kidding, but you know? I’m all for joyful journeys (ask Delta) but these days it’s just too freaking hard to remember where you were going. I loved that piece you did on that point, we’re surrounded by denialists, paddling around that writerly-chatty “lagoon” I was mentioning to Morgyn, where all is nice gentle waves and Campari cocktails with umbrellas. :)
Yeah, enough Jell-O, Mom. (Don’t laugh at me for knowing how Jell-O is spelled, it’s a curse, I’ve got this steel-trap mind for logos, lol. In fact, Kraft wants it in all-caps, JELL-O. No wonder our children are idiots.)
OK, Preacher Porter off to confuse some more poor unsuspecting readers, thanks again, Vaughn!
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
This needed to be said. Thank you!
Thanks much, Peggy!
-p.
@On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
And here I am, reading this, instead of writing.
My thoughts exactly, Densie. ;)
I know! Maybe I should have made the headline, “Don’t Read This.” :)
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Ain’ that the truth? I’m just talking my way out of readers right and left, LOL.
Thanks, Densie!
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Good article! What little I read of it because I’m busy writing. ;)
I love Don’s comment. Ha!
Thanks for the perfect post on a Friday.
Exactly. Run away! Don’t look back! :)
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Writing a blog post about some arcane feature of writing or publishing I just accomplished does two things, and the most important one is that it fixes what I just learned into a compact tutorial. I am probably the one who re-reads those blog posts the most.
The second thing is that writing a post seems to loosen something in my mind which wants to put the information at least roughly into a tidy, orderly, organized post.
Beyond that, my blog isn’t visited that much, and it doesn’t bother me – I often label these posts as ‘for your entertainment – to see what I have to do to be able to write at all’ because my methods are so outré.
But writing them has cleaned a lot of material up from the formless notes I might take as I explore something into a reconstructed, tidy version of what I’ve learned – and will find myself needing next time. I have a damaged brain. I need this.
It’s not time-wasting, and it’s not optional – it is part of my process. For me.
Absolutely, Alicia,
Totally right for you to handle your material that way, and more power to you. What you’re describing is a precisely valuable use of meaningful material that makes it available to you later in helpful ways. Entirely good. Do what you’re doing, keep doing it. It’s great, and it’s not what I was referring to in this essay.
Thanks for commenting!
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Yeah, just do it. But go to confession too.
Domine exaudi orationem meam, Vijaya, and I’ll see you there! :)
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
All this, in spades. Stealing. Sharing. And then I’m going to write another honest-to-God chapter, today!
Fabulous, Will, get right at that honest-to-God chapter and keep going. You won’t miss a thing. :)
p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
We can refuse to let human voices wake us from our worlds lest we drown.
(Apologies to T. S. Eliot)
Lovely, lovely quote, Carol, and so apt.
See, where was Eliot when I needed him? :)
Thanks!
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
On target and entertaining!
One small question on a comment regarding the news – “And so overdone. By the time one of these cycles has been so agonizingly flogged—albeit for all the right reasons—”
Do you believe the coverage is motivated by “all the right reasons”?
My take is that the excessive “reporting” you note is fueled by personal ambition, sensationalism and the drive for ratings (money, influence, job and/or industry competition).
Great piece! I enjoy your insightful contributions. Thank you.
Hey, Tom, and good question.
Network news and its motivations are an area I can actually claim a lot of expertise in, having done 13 years with the networks of CNN and reached several senior positions.
Much less personal ambition is involved than you’d think. The business is full of egos, yes. But getting this work right, especially the major breaking kind I’m referring to, is extremely hard, draining, and frightfully exposing — you’re on the frontlines and there are very skinny margins for error.
The industry’s drive for ratings — which is actually the industry’s way of charging advertisers — weighs much more heavily than ego in this. But notice that at highest urgency, the ads disappear. Even online, a major news site will actually “lift” its ads — by contract with the advertisers — if the traffic is so heavy that people needing to get in and see the news can’t get there because the ads are slowing things down. So in a sense, the payoff for the corporate side in this comes after the fact. At the time of the coverage, the coverage is the central concern. How ad-sales can ratchet up the commercial rates based on what those ratings numbers were… that’s later.
Sensationalism is a creature of the ratings drive. In fact, sensationalism is the enemy of good journalism. It causes people to say more than they know and to hype what little they have to report. Learning to keep a cool head and to keep telling a control room back in the States, “No, I can’t say that, we don’t have it confirmed yet,” is an not easy task — nor is easy it for the control room supervisor to get into a correspondent’s ear and say, “Don’t say that when we take you live, we don’t have it yet.” This is a give and take of immense importance that depends on the journalists’ collective understanding that the fever of the moment can cause anyone to overstate. Good journos depend on each other in these moments for checks and balances.
Of much more weight in all this is the need to sustain.
There’s a viable argument to be made that people are tuning in at different times, coming in late, needing to catch up — no such thing as a static on-the-couch audience is really out there anymore, especially in the age of mobile. We can’t all sit down together and start an emergency at 8 p.m. tonight. This means that carrying the same story, often without movement for hours, cutting and recutting interviews, having bookings pull in pertinent experts (who, themselves, may need briefing) is excruciatingly taxing and complex.
What’s very odd about our “instant” world is that we all want that “instant” at a different time. If you turn on the Paris news at 7 p.m. all good. But if I come in at 9 p.m., I want live coverage, too, I expect to see the same snap and energy that you saw at 7p, I don’t expect a correspondent to tell me, “We already reported that, so you’re just too late,” right? That’s the problem.
The 24-hour world requires an impossible thing: *nonstop immediacy* — think about that. It’s about as close to an impossibility as you can get, technically speaking, it’s an oxymoron, or nearly one. But it’s what these outfits have to try to deliver.
I can assure you that in the news-gathering and -reporting dimensions of these massive companies, the intent is good, but it’s searingly tested by a new era’s need to be always on. Yes, the corporate motives are often much more rooted in the ratings and what can be done with them with advertisers. But what you’re actually seeing, fortunately, in these moments isn’t the executive suite. Indeed, most of the time, the hotter things get, the harder it is to spot a suit anywhere in the building. Those folks fade quietly away and start composing the thank-you emails they’re going to send to a wiped-out staff the next day. When things blow up, even the suits know what they don’t know, and they get out of the way so the floor can do its job.
The real problem is what today we know news to be at its toughest and most demanding. The conditions are close to ridiculous. We want journos to be omnipresent, instant, eloquent. But the motives, at least, are usually right, and the experience, resources, and preparation are the real wealth of what you’re seeing.
Just as a coda, this is why the rise of social media (a plural word) as a parallel to legitimate professional coverage is so dicey. Social can be wonderful for its presence and complete immersion in the moment. But it usually is being promulgated by folks without training about accuracy, timing, background on an event, context in news cycles…it’s still a thing of amateur energy, sometimes breathtaking and at other times simply choking off truth right and left, and probably with nothing but the best intentions, too.
Difficult times in news. Good questions, thanks.
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Much appreciate the response. Thank you!
A pleasure. Important question. Many misunderstand this and the industry has been incredibly poor at explaining. (We who are in communications for a living, right? LOL)
Take care,
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Thanks! You just reminded me why I don’t have cable. I am, however, a shameless junkie when it comes to books on craft. Ideas, ideas. Still the writing is the thing. As many others do, I struggle with the voice that tells me I’m no good at this. I have a louder voice that yells, “Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Just write!” So much noise, it’s hard to keep an eye on the ball. Thanks for the reminder!
Hi, Kayleigh,
I do hear you. One thing I might offer is that the critical voice within is, in my experience, made louder, not quieter, by the craft and idea books. They tend to feed the “What was I supposed to remember?” murmur, placing partial barriers in your way with somebody else’s constraints on what’s good and what’s bad.
I’d recommend working less with the how-to material and more with actual editorial guidance on YOUR work (not the general work that craft books approach). Meaning, write it, then hire an editor to work with you on it.
That way, the chatter is at least about your actual work, not about “most people.” AND much of that chatter is delayed during the primary creative phase when you’re writing and revising on the way to the editor.
Thanks!
-p.
@On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Yes!
My favorite line? “Our coverage of the Second Coming will make us all yawn before it’s over.”
I have to remind myself of this every so often and unfollow a bunch of blogs and accounts that seem interesting but are just a complete waste of time when it comes down to it.Though WU always survives the chopping block. ;)
Hey, Erin,
Awfully glad to hear that WU makes the cut. But I have the same problem. I find that Feedly (or any other reader) is very helpful. You can hook up whichever blog or news medium you think is interesting and much more quickly assess what’s available in its aggregated listings than you can do if you actually have to go around from site to site.
If you’re not using a reader, try Feedly — easy and very good.
One way or another, keep weeding things out. Best way to stay on-task.
Thanks!
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
PS Just noticed your Twitter handle isn’t on your site? At least not on your homepage. Might want to look into getting it on there. Twitter handles are so much more useful when someone knows them. :)
Thanks again,
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
What a fabulous post, thank you. You express what I’ve been feeling for a long time. There’s way too much noise on every subject in the world, and trying to pay attention to it all can sap the energy. I just don’t see how the model is sustainable in the long run in terms of sanity, health, fulfillment, and productivity. At times I have found the messages for writers exhausting–and many of these claim that constant “engagement” is necessary for a creative career. I wonder if it is…
Good point —
There’s every reason to think that many of our best writers are NOT following the online roar. One of the things to keep in mind is that this is the first time in history that people have had this amazing 24-hour worldwide conversation. It’s wonderful in many ways, absolutely. It’s also horrible in many ways, just as absolutely. As our great colleague, the editor Carla Douglas, has observed, once writing was the most isolated work you could imagine — now it’s the most social. What does this do to the really sensitive, finely tuned, Porsche-class writer’s mind? Many of us worry that it can’t be good. The best writing, the work we really revere, is inevitably idiosyncratic, distinctive by definition. The homogenizing effect of so much input from so many other minds may be last thing that advanced creativity needs, especially at the “nearness” of virtual intimacy.
And in the final analysis, the “real” writer needs no such wide-angle gabfest to find a reason and a way to write. What we call talent may be, in the final analysis, the ability to access the singularity of one’s own genius and fend off the rabble.
Should you need some practical assistance, I recommend RescueTime’s “FocusTime” function that closes off various parts of the Internet (you choose them) for whatever time period you like. It’s like shutting a door. Merciful and enriching. There’s a free trial on my affiliate link if you’d like to give it a try. https://ow.ly/eljbQ
Thanks!
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Thank you, Porter. I followed the link and downloaded RescueTime.
Yes, I agree with you about the dangers of the homogenizing effect, which is a kind of groupthink. I also experienced this problem in my other career as a teacher (not that different actually in terms of the necessity of having one’s own vision). Best wishes!
Teaching is such a great comparison, I agree, and “groupthink” is the perfect term, exactly. Glad you’ve checked out RescueTime, hope it helps and all the best, thanks again.
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Thank you for posting this. I slashed my online reading a few months ago and whaddya know, I’m writing more and I’m happier. Coincidence? I doubt it.
It seems like there are far too many people who want to be heard and not enough with something to say. I try hard to fall in the second group, not the first, and if that means staying quieter than many people, so be it.
Hey, Grace,
I’d say a “quieter” person is someone we’d all love to meet, lol.
Not surprised that you’ve had a good effect from limiting the reading, and good on you for taking that step (not easy).
Your comment about people wanting to be heard is along the lines of the “Why wasn’t I consulted?” noise that Paul Ford has written about. (I discuss it in this article at Thought Catalog: https://thoughtcatalog.com/porter-anderson/2015/07/online-dragons-in-st-georges-clothing-why-wasnt-i-consulted/ ) It’s a very insightful look at this apparently bottomless need of so many people to get their voices out there and issue their opinion about every single thing. Big problem in publishing and writing, of course, because such verbal folks — primed to put across what’s on their minds — have a special difficulty in trying to be “quieter than many people.”
We need to hear from the ones with something to say. And we need the others to sit down and give it a rest.
Thanks again, love how you’re going at it.
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Porter–
Recently, Therese Walsh noted that I was commenting less. She was right, mostly for reasons having to do with the thrust of your post today. I’ve never read posts having to do with writer’s block. These days, I also skip posts that admonish me to work harder, or that offer consoling words, or inspiration. I also pass over anything that offers me a handle on the latest software that promises to enhance my creativity, productivity, etc. I speak only for myself (obviously), but all such content has come to seem beside the point, a deflection or even an alternative to writing my stories.
In your post, you let your former CNN colleagues (and all news organizations) off pretty easy. They’re “trying to hold an audience’s attention with small news elements….” And for what? To sell toothpaste, incontinence underwear. And how does all this obsessive coverage help average citizens? I fail to see it. Those it DOES help are terrorists whose lifeblood is column inches and airtime.
You say news cycles treating of disaster are “aggressively flogged–albeit for all the right reasons….” I know I’m taking you out of context here, but, really, are you all that sure that the delivery of disaster coverage is for the right reasons? I think the obsessive, relentless coverage of news ultimately serves to degrade and level everything, to coarsen the viewer. It’s been said that in TV, only one value matters: the duration of time spent being on, or watching TV, how long people watch before they hit the remote. How’s that for an incentive to emphasize disaster coverage?
That’s why I stick with print journalism. It’s going the way of the dodo bird, and eventually we’ll be left with nothing but the tube, along with your own new best friend, Twitter. What a disaster.
Thanks for your comment(s), Barry.
I disagree with you on network news, having heard your criticisms many times, of course, and thought about them for a good portion of my career.
Always a pleasure to differ with you, and I appreciate you coming out of your lessened level of comment activity to drop a note.
Cheers,
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Amen.
I’m all for staying informed, and acting when able as a global citizen, but at a certain point, the non-stop coverage becomes a form of self-damage, enlarging the circle of harm; free publicity for people who covet the development of mystique; and makes it less likely I’ll respond in a helpful manner.
Yes on all the points specific to writing, speaking of which…
Thanks, Jan,
Always good to have you along. Being a man of endless mystique, of course, lol, I heartily run in the other direction, but that’s just fine, too, and we each have our own circles of harm to avoid. Happily, we’re both good at our respective choreography. :)
Much appreciated, and al the best,
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Porter, the “Yes!” flag rose out of my right temple as I was reading this, as it does when it encounters reasonable thought. There is artful, careful journalism yet, but it seems bowled over by careening, broken info bits that distract and dishearten. And for me, that seem to reinforce a sense of helplessness in a woeful world.
I try to only dip my toe in and withdraw before the third-degree burns. So, onto some writing. Thanks for sharpening the pencil.
Hey, Tom, thanks (and don’t let that temple flag thing happen under a low ceiling).
I think the only caution I’d make is in letting the sheer practical exigencies of rolling live network coverage come to represent too much about helplessness in the world. It’s really just a bunch of good people doing a very hard job. The story they’re reporting on might have an element of helplessness — many Parisians now are speaking out about realizing they’re sitting ducks with comparatively little understanding of how vulnerable they may be, for example. But the story isn’t the report or the reporting, and I think it’s really easy (you’re hardly alone) to attach the struggle of the coverage to the struggle of the news of the moment.
Nice parallel to the writing element. When are we struggling with the writing, and when are we struggling instead with the commentary, podcasting, blogging, tweeting, Facebooking and whatnot ABOUT the writing? There’s what we need to sort out. Not at all easy.
We have our work cut out for us. :)
Cheers,
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
“Could Just Do It really be as infuriatingly correct as it seems?”
YES!
THANKS!
“Succinct..” Good word. Really.
And… “Just DO it”?
When I started writing way back when, about the only instruction I ever found about writing fiction was this.
Once you begin writing, stop talking. If you talk about it, you will never write it.
Writer’s block? I’m convinced that block is caused to writers who talk about their writing. Once we talk about it, it’s a twice-told tale. Then why bother writing it down?
So that’s what I’ve been doing all my life. Writing. Not talking about it UNTIL it is written.
But then, once it’s written, if I don’t talk about it, who will?
Hey, Lyn,
I couldn’t agree with you more about not talking about your writing. Far beyond questions of whether talking about it might keep you from doing it, there’s also a problem that it simply bores everybody’s life out.
I know authors who continually are saying on various social media and IRL, “Have to run now and work on _______ (insert title of current work in progress).” I can’t tell you how obnoxious that is.
(1) They’re implying that we’re supposed to know and care about their title,
(2) They’re bragging that they’re so busy working on it (which may not be at all true), and
(3) They’re creating expectations of that book-to-come that may not pan out at all.
If an author has to talk all the time about their writing, there’s something wrong.
Usually this is a person trying to talk him- or herself into believing that she or he IS an author. And the reason we hear this so much is that the industry is currently overrun with amateurs who have been lured in by digital capabilities and are, indeed, working hard to convince themselves (and the world) that they’re authors.
The real thing doesn’t talk about it, doesn’t anguish over character issues in public, doesn’t drag plot problems around like tin cans on the back of the honeymoon car…not least because one has a little pride. Tennis champs don’t walk around talking about being tennis champs. Meet someone at a party for the first time and you’ll have to inquire what he or she does for a living to discover that she or he is a doctor. The first clue is always the Twitter handle with “author” or “writer” integrated into it, as in @JohnDoeAuthor . Makes you tired just looking at a handle like that, doesn’t it?
To be very honest, this is one reason I’ve never felt as good about the Writer Unboxed Facebook community as so many do. I’m happy to be outnumbered, and I have no need to dissuade someone who something good from it. But that’s a whole lot of talking about it. A whole lot. And what’s very interesting (as many of us close to Writer Unboxed have noted many times) is that many writers read the column here but don’t engage in the Facebook group, and vice-versa. If we’re defining a major difference in writers — those who talk about it and those who don’t — that’s fine. And neither position is “good” or “bad.” Being different and needing different approaches is just fine. What’s important is consciously choosing. Did one really mean to talk so much? Or did one just fall into it? Did one intend to be so close-mouthed about it? Or does that represent some inadvertent problem?
Consciousness is the key, even to “Just Doing It.”
Cheers,
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
I’ve watched the tv show “Newsroom” and seen a fictional depiction of the scenes you describe. Thanks, but no thanks! I’d rather be the consumer of news.
The Paris bombings hurt a lot. Paris is a treasure, a work of art. It’s precious. The terrorists know that, which is why the bombs went off there and not Rimes (a lovely city, but where the hell is it?). It hurts, which is why I’m only reading bits and pieces. A lot of people are dead. The French police are relentlessly rounding up the perpetrators and their allies. The mastermind is dead (good!).
That’s enough. I’m glad there will be a detailed record for anyone who wants to read it, but for me? I’m just going to keep working on my next novel.
Hi, Susan,
Appreciate your comments and understand what you’re saying. I’d just suggest that you follow enough of those bits and pieces to be sure you get a big picture (inasmuch as we can get one at this point) on what may be a rising, widespread, ground-level attack strategy on many secular and contemporary values. There is a correct analysis, I think, that we’re looking at a threat evolving in a deeply concerning way, a new way. I keep going back to what the first Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, said after the #ParisAttacks — let’s not be afraid, let’s be better prepared. That takes consciousness.
Oh, and I notice that your Twitter handle isn’t on every page of your site. I’d recommend you think about adding it. You don’t want a reader not to be able to find you easily. Not picking on you, I’m seeing this on several folks sites this week as I answer comments here.
Thanks!
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Porter, “Just do it,” like all Madison Avenue phrases, should come with a caveat. Indeed, we don’t want to see this:
What if you just performed your damned brain surgeyr?
What if you just set up your patient, figured out where his head is, trusted your instincts, and cut?
A writer writes, yes, but a pro also learns how to make his writing better. If he wants to stay a pro, that is.
Thus, he might find good sites with reliable content to watch each day, which is why (have you detected the irony?) WU is on my list.
Hey, Jim,
Depends on whose brain we’re talking about.
JUST kidding.
I don’t think that I’ve argued against training, have I?
No. I’m arguing against the endless jawing, the chewing of the literary cud, the trailer-park Facebooking, the whine-stewards, the repetition, the repetition, the repetition, the “morning prompt” the “afternoon prompt,” the singing of the Lena Horne Anthem, the Nobody Knows the Trouble We Writers Have Seen chorale, and the mistaking of “Kumbaya, my Lord” for getting a lick of work done.
You’re someone who makes part of his living teaching writers, and you know that I respect that and respect you. As our beloved Henny would have said, “Now, you teach that author. PLEASE!” (Teach the surgeon, too, if it’s my brain, will you?)
But you know as well as I do that much of the bloggery out there is not of the caliber you bring to the table. And you also know that at some point you did put down one of those many instructive books you love and you actually wrote. If you hadn’t, you’d still be there educating yourself for something you were putting off doing. Of course you come back to good teachings at times, we all do. But you did put down Larry or Raymond or whomever one day and picked up the Pen of Jim. And that is the moment I’d like to see more of our writers experience.
Getting stuck in the edu-go-round of prepping-instead-of-doing really is something we see a lot. It really is something that some salespeople — not you — entrap writers in. And it and really is not good for those writers nor for the business. (In fact, it’s ironic that you’re a bigger proponent of NaNo than I am. I like people who do a scrap of editing along the way because I appreciate mind over word count. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t understand and respect the Just Do It-ness of a big NaNo run, provided the writer understands that the hard work comes after Draft 1 and that I don’t want to see her Draft 1 on Amazon.com.)
If you were a certain monarch whose name started with a G, I might say that while you may not protest too much, you certainly do protest a lot. :) No shot has been fired across your bow. Sail on. And as it happens, I think that you have the chance to be an outspoken supporter of NOT over-training. I think NOT over-training and NOT over-talking is how you’ve produced your 50 or so books.
That, and our shared Balzacian love of the bean, of course.
I’ll say it for you this way: Training is good, Jim, until it’s not.
And I know you know that. :)
This isn’t going to spawn another three-week retort, is it?
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
How about three comments instead? Will save a lot of time!
If the take away is: writer, don’t just write (“talk”) about writing…write your *damned* books! (Why do I hear Bernie Sanders’ voice here? Or is it Larry Davids’?)…then certainly it is wise counsel IF the former is harming the latter.
But as for writers who read this stuff, let them sort it out themselves. I’m a big proponent of both the quota and personal freedom. So meet your quota, then you’re free to read what you like! It’s a pretty good system.
And yes, your NaNoWarinessO seems oddly disconsonant with the Nike thrust of your post. I, of course, have always said this is at best a first draft, and more often a brainstorming draft that serves as a tentative outline. Now all they have to do is read some good writing advice and they’ll be fine!
Great, Jim, thanks.
Three comments (now four), much better. :)
And sure, I’m happy for writers to sort it out for themselves.
I’m also happy to promulgate my opinion and will continue to enjoy doing so, as I hope you do. The response of many writers here makes me think that my comments have not gone entirely amiss for them although, perhaps, they have for you.
Mssrs. Sanders and Davids are busy elsewhere, meanwhile, no one here but me and Balzac’s chickens.
Cheers, sir,
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Hi Porter, WHAT DONALD MAASS SAID.
I do enjoy your posts, but they are never succinct! I’ve been writing for a long time and boy have things changed. BRIEFLY, yes, you used to be able to write your damn book and try to publish it. NOW??? Everyone knows how to write. Everyone tells you how to write. Everyone talks about telling you how to write. So, I’m saying thank you, for your succinct post. I agree 100% and I’m off to–write!
You see, Beth? We have both learned lessons here (and somehow I’ll bet we owe the ever-perceptive Don 15% for them, too, LOL).
Thanks for the great comment, enjoy the writing!
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Regarding all the writing advice, I admit I’ve gotten to the point where I pretty much skip over the blogs that look like just another person shilling their latest “how to” book by offering pieces of advice that seem largely common sense. Is it valuable to some? Absolutely. And much of it was to me, as well. But I’m at the point where I feel like I’ve seen it all before with a slightly different wrapper. “Just write it” is generally my motto. Of course, the fact that I’m still searching for a publisher may mean I need to pay a little more attention still….
Right, Jeffo, and thanks for this.
I think that Jim Bell’s comment can point up something confusing that you mention right at the end of your note. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t write with deep attention, all the research you need, all the training you need, whatever it takes. I’m not a fan of NaNoWriMo for this reason and am not happy to write “blind” first drafts of anything. I believe in prudent, careful, thoughtful, aware writing. What I’m not in favor of is talking about it all the time, churning around on how-to-make-your-protagonist-change posts and the endless litany of complaints about how “hard” it all is. (If it’s that hard, a writer needs to do something else. Writing well for a good writer is challenging, not back-breaking.)
So there’s a line here somewhere and I haven’t meant to suggest that good preparation and process isn’t important. What I’m saying is that those things need protection from the faux “benefits” of endless blogs and motivationists who claim they have “secrets” to offer.
The secret, as I know you know, is in doing a good job, being a good writer, producing a good piece, and not fooling yourself. If searching for a publisher goes on, then it’s time to get some good editing help on the work. The other day an editor wrote a line I wish we heard more frequently: 99% of the time, if agents are rejecting a book it’s because it’s a bad book. Funny how hard it is for so many authors to consider that option: “What if it’s bad?”
Bad can be fixed, better can be achieved, but the conversational swirl is not where those things will happen. So I like your approach, keep at it.
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Porter.
“Funny how hard it is for so many authors to consider that option: ‘What if it’s bad?'”
I think this is primarily a form of self-protection. We need to believe that it’s good because if *it’s* bad, doesn’t that mean *I’m* bad? And can I ever be good? And how long will it take until I AM good? All those doubts and fears that crowd our minds are exactly why we see so many blogs and articles talking about it. Some are people who are honestly trying to encourage fellow writers who are struggling, while others are trying to take advantage of them and earn a few bucks. Either way, Blogland is becoming something I skim through more often than not at this point. But, hey! That leaves more time for writing!
Porter’s unsolicited advice, Jeffo:
(1) Keep skimming. The blogs are not where you get good.
(2) Get a professional opinion, just as you would if your car wasn’t working right. Get to an editor — not a friend, not a family member — and pay them to give you a reaction. Explain that you’re not getting the uptake you’d like.
(3) Choose somebody as close to the industry as possible, meaning someone who thinks like an agent, knows what’s selling, understands the industry’s viewpoint.
Then you can assess what’s going on. Might not be a question of “bad” as in shitty, but “bad” as in not what publishers are looking for this year or not what the audience you’re aiming at will pick up. Many, many factors, most of them quite arcane to the author-mind, which is a different mind from the agent- and editor-mind. You need the appraisal of the gatekeepers to avoid spending, potentially, years trying to guess your way into something salable, right?
-p.
I can’t tell you when I got tired of all the writer-noise, but it’s been a while. At first I kind of had withdrawal, and then a mistrust of my decision to kind of check out, but I wasn’t really into hearing more “do this for success” blog posts, tweets, or other digital offerings, so the decision stuck.
I do peruse WU still, and faithfully find your posts here, of course. Did you know I referenced you in one of my own posts, btw, for your realistic, down to earth posts? Even if they are wordy sometimes, the content is awesome. I can’t say that withdrawing made me write more (I still have my own issues around procrastination), but it did make me a little happier, I think. I quit feeling overwhelmed, and like I’m competing with everyone else on the web.
Thanks for another great post. :)
Gosh, Lara,
How nice of you for referencing me in your writing so kindly, especially as down-to-Earth (this might surprise a few folks close to me, lol).
In a way, I wish we weren’t in a situation in which you’d need to consider pulling away as you’ve done — I wish what’s out there wasn’t “writer-noise.” But that, too, we have to realize is telling. The reason it’s noise is that it’s not often being made by real writers, or at least by people who are secure in themselves as writers. It’s wannabe noise. Reminds me of when we hear presidential candidates in debates refer to “when I’m in the White House.” Uh-huh. Which positive-thinking inspi-vational guru have they been listening to?
Wonderful line from Miller’s “Death of a Salesman” when Willy Loman’s neighbor tells him that his son is about to argue a case before the Supreme Court. Willy is so impressed, and he asks why the son didn’t tell him this. The neighbor responds, “He doesn’t have to talk about it. He’s doing it.”
There’s a peculiar but bright line, between actually doing something and talking about it. And in almost everything, I think there are more people on the talking side than the doing side. The Internet has exacerbated this because now you can scale up your conversation so well that it starts to feel like you’re doing it. But really, you’re just talking about doing it, to more and more people.
I continue to find it interesting that the biggest names, the authors we know best either for their commercial or artistic excellence, are not out there in the kasbah amid all that noise you’ve withdrawn from. Ever notice that? They’re off somewhere writing, not gassing around on social media and rolling from blog post to blog post talking *about* writing. If they’re on social media, they’re talking to readers, not to other writers.
“Isn’t that a remarkable thing?” as Willy Loman likes to say.
Stick to your plan, and thanks again — for another great comment. :)
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Loved this–and that Donald Maas was the first person to comment. I just heard him speak at a conference and he encouraged the writers there to pay attention to our art, first. This was timely–I’ve grown tired of the “here’s the keyboard” articles on writing. Toast yourself with that Campari!
And thank you for that Campari, Nancy, toasting you with it, too, and agree that Don’s right on the money with this (and as usual ahead of many). There may be a kind of “graduation moment” we need to help allow more experienced writers to credit themselves with — a stage at which they can say, “I’ve now read enough of those “here’s the keyboard” articles that I can let go of this level of engagement in the talking-about-writing world and devote my energies to the writing.” I’m sure many might feel relieved to think they don’t have to be quite as busy in the blogs, which gets almost addictive. The odd things about addictions, of course, is that once broken, there’s always relief.
Thanks again for your generosity!
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
I tend to tweet posts I find useful or interesting, on the assumption they might be useful or interesting to others. Over time the number of posts I reference is getting smaller and smaller, because–like many others on this thread–I’ve heard it all.
But I do believe in this thing called (by some) literary citizenship, and wish more writers who truly know the business and can give real, solid advice would just give it. Unfortunately, they’re usually too busy writing. I will, for example, read Kris Rusch’s long, long posts right to the end. I won’t stop following WU–the quality of the posts is matched by that of its community.
In short (!) there are people out there who really have something to say, and I want them to keep saying it. It’s up to me to set my filters and restrict my own reading and commenting time so it doesn’t interfere with my writing time. I too use feedly and read maybe three percent of the articles that come up on my reader every day.
Hey, Jane, thanks for these good thoughts — agree completely.
For a while I thought that the repetition represented on Feedly (reflecting what’s out there) was simply a product of my having covered things for so long. But then it became obvious that in the realm of craft, not only have we heard it all (if we’ve been at it a while as you and I have) but that there really isn’t much new to say.
Any writer who can’t find the instruction he or she needs among the thousands of books and posts we have today simply needs to try another vocation. New people are being drawn into writing by digital and they might need instruction, and I’d really like them to get it. But I think we have it for them in spades now.
This doesn’t preclude literary citizenship at all — I agree that the concept of “masters” helping others is absolutely right and essential. And it’s in the area of current events, industry development (what Kris Rusch and others often cover) that I think we still need movement and guidance and discussion, of course. And — I’m including myself in this — I think we’d all benefit from taking a sharper, faster, leaner approach there. No one’s fault. Gifted with a bottomless medium like the Internet, we don’t have the kind of constraints we once had.
Lord, could it all be coming down again to (ack!) self- discipline?? LOL :)
Thanks much, looking forward to seeing you at #AuthorDay! (We’re closing bookings Monday, do rush up anyone you know who might want to grab a last seat.)
-p.
On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson
Great post, Porter—and one that’s going into Evernote so I can refer back to it when I need to remind myself to shut up and do the work.
I heartily second the Feedly recommendation, too. Nothing beats it for a quick and efficient way to grab what you need to see and ignore what you don’t.