F. P. Dorchak

Speculative Fiction Author

fpdorchak

Intestinal Fortitude

by

To outline or not to outline, that is the question.  Whether tis nobler in the mind to forge ahead organically, or take up arms against unfertilized plots, and by opposing them, end them…

Ahhh, who am I kidding. I ain’t no Shock-es-Spear.

But here’re my slings and arrows:  I don’t outline my fiction.

I’ve tried.

Really tried.

But can’t.

I’ve stared at blank computer screens for days.

Weeks, even.

Can’t do it.

Nonfiction, yes, but fiction–negative.  Sure, one can do anything one puts one mind to, but I also just don’t want to. I’m sure there’re deep psychological issues there, most of which I’m quite aware of, and with one in particular I’m even going to talk about: discovery.

Surprise!

I like to be surprised! Love to discover the story along the way. I do not like to have everything intricately or even partially outlined. To me, for one thing, it’s too much like work. My day-job, work. But mostly, I firmly believe, because I want to be surprised in the journey of discovery of the story itself.

Now, of course “outliners” can do the same….

But I’m not wired like that. Not for fiction. Whether or not my slings and arrows are any good, I’ve written eleven novel-length manuscripts since 1987 (about 100K words each, of part time writing), not one of them outlined. It’s most vexing to me to outline and I never get anywhere doing it, and I’ve tried for coming up on thirty years. It just isn’t how I work. I’ve heard this is how publishers like to see newcomers’ work, and if forced into such a position I would obviously giver ‘er a go, but I’m pretty sure that they (the publishers) would be pretty disappointed, yeah. A lot of cool stuff comes out when I “free hand” my efforts, stuff that even amazes me. Stuff that makes me say things like “Maaan, where did that come from?!” and “Whoa, now that was cool!”

Many can even say that outlining makes a better book. I don’t believe it. I think either method can create a great or even good/passable book, and think there’s more to a great book than mere mechanics (apologies, stalwarts). One thing I do do, however, is reverse outline. When I have a completed draft, I then go through and highlight all the events, and work and rework the hell out of them to get the story right. I ain’t married to any of my words…only the story. What makes it better. I also write up a synopsis to help keep me on target. So, though I don’t do it all up front, I do partake in the outlining endeavor in a round-about way. To me, I love doing it this way. It’s just how I’m wired.

And, don’t get me wrong–I don’t think one is better nor easier than the other. Both require perseverance and discipline. Gutting it out. There is never just one right way in doing most things, because if there were, there wouldn’t be all these other ways.

Duh.

So, find out what works for you, and do it. Don’t get all vapor locked in the details; don’t allow mere mechanics to kill your enthusiasm. If you find yourself stalled, blocked, or otherwise hindered, well then, siddown and just…

Write.

What Would You Die For?

by

Why must it always be a question about what we would die for? Or give up our soul for? Or any other extreme form of self-punishment?

I was reading a fellow writer’s blog and it got me to thinking, got my wife and I to talking.

Why must Humanity constantly frame its outlook in such a fashion?

How about, what would Humanity live for?

How about what is your soul’s desire?

Just because there exists desire, does not mean there must always and automatically exist a corresponding denial. Or punishment. If you want something (and here I’m only talking about good things, nothing nefarious), simply want it. Don’t automatically factor in some guilt factor just because you want something.

There seems, within the Human Condition, an inbred Guilt System. Now, in the past I used to think that religions have had a lot to do with said, and stopped there. But if we take that further, religions were constructed by Humans, so if we follow to the logical conclusion, then within the Human Condition is an inherent guilt that found its way into religion (and no, I do not subscribe to any such notion of inherent evil, which could weave its way into the argument in the way of the need for self-sacrifice).

Why?

Perhaps it must be some form of Human Teachable Moment. That we are supposed to learn to deal with and banish. Get past.

Really, why must we automatically give something up just  because we want something?

I propose that if we want something, something good and decent and beneficial to ourselves, then does this not also make the desire also good and decent for Humanity, because it makes an individual better, and Humanity is composed of massive amounts of individuals?

What is good for the one becomes good for the whole.

It creates and fosters a different kind of mindset.

A more positive outlook on the world.

Don’t create conflict where none exists.

Create harmony.

Nice Guys Finish Last?!

by

You kiddin me?

Still, this article kinda bugged me. As much as I’ve used the line in jest, that mindset annoys the heck outta me. How can a “nice” guy (or gal) finish last? Because they treat people with decency? Is it because they aren’t driven by financial considerations and actually try to do what is right? Try to work with people, rather than screw them and climb the corporate ladder over their battered and bruised bodies?

So, from what perspective do nice guys (or gals) finish last?

Earnings.

And by “nice,” the article means by being “agreeable.”

I find that interesting. Is it so wrong to be “agreeable”? Part of “the herd”? In life, we need all kinds of people, leaders and followers. We need agreeable people, and those who go against the crowd (and, no, this doesn’t have to mean belligerently). Yet the article is focused on the earning power of those who are and aren’t agreeable.  The article states that if you are Mr. Nice Guy, you won’t earn as much because you will then be taken advantage of by those who are ruthless, and one person said, you have to be ruthless in the business world. If you’re not, you will be “taken advantage of.” And somehow this statement was immediately folded into the next statement that one doesn’t succeed because you know more, but that you can adapt.

Sooo: RUTHLESS = ADAPTABILITY.

Interesting.

I always thought (at least in the business world) that RUTHLESS = PRICK, but, hey, I was never all that great in math. In my mind, I find adaptability and ruthless in two different universes. If you look “ruthless” up, you find words like “merciless,” “cruel,” and “tyrant”; you don’t find any words remotely  akin to “adaptable.”

I guess with New Math comes New English.

By the way, being ruthless as a woman didn’t similarly correlate on the earnings scale, the article said. That’s a whole nother topic, so I’m not going into it here; I am trying to attack the rest of the article in a gender-neutral manner, though.

The article went on to say that those who were ruthless (which, in the business world or at least this article, also seems to imply “adaptable”) made more money. Okay, I can definitely see that, and have seen it at work. I have to say that over my lifetime I have seen plenty of “interesting” people make more money because of similar attitudes–not all of them were pricks–but it seemed many of them indeed had an “edge” to them I would not associate with “nice.” But let’s look at this, too. So you get more money; well, what is usually associated with additional income is increased responsibility. Rarely do you just get more dough and it’s left at that. What usually happens is more “stuff” gets piled on you with the salary increase. More responsibility. So, if you felt busy before, you just got busier. That increases stress levels. Maybe the “Nice Guys/Gals” are onto something, here. Seems they might have the better lifestyle, huh? A good job, they do good work, get decent pay, and are less stressed? Being a prick and stressed out doesn’t usually improve one’s prickness, let alone one’s outlook on life, so thus is created the vicious cycle, and do I really have to elaborate on that?

I know the article was focused on earning potential versus workplace behavior, but the way this article was written seems to me to give to the impressionable–or those looking for a reason to justify their ruthlessness–a hook on which to proudly display their hats (which probably contain two little holes on either side of the crown of said hats…).

To me there is a difference between a “hard charger” and one who is ruthless.

Hard chargers are actively moving forward and getting things done–usually the implication being that get things done “right,” and they don’t step on people to get things done. While the term “taking advantage” can be applied to the scalar view of merely using someone’s abilities to their best usage, that was not the implication in this article. The implication (at least to me) was taking people’s perceived weaknesses [in this corporate scenario] and using it against them to gain personal and professional  advantage over them.

The more I reread that rather short article, the more I feel that the proper topic was given short shrift. There were just too many terms used in that piece that (again, to me) contradicted each other, because, also as the article pointed out, just being disagreeable shouldn’t necessarily be termed “mean,” either. But how can you resolve all in that article when you keep throwing in terms like “ruthless” and “taking advantage” of people?

I also disagree that by being so agreeable you cannot maintain or establish any kind of a hierarchy. Why not? I my experience, within most groups of any workforce, you will usually-to-always (I will say) find someone who wants to be a leader, so if everyone’s so agreeable on the whole, why wouldn’t they agree to having someone lead them? In many groups I’ve been in over the years, there have always been those who want to lead. Maybe I was in a markedly different demographic, perhaps, but even if it was just me, there was always someone in my “group experience” that wanted to lead, with all the others having no problems whatsoever being followers.

Look, in the corporate world, as in any other world, there are going to be pricks and Nice Guys and Gals. Squeaky wheels and not-so squeaky wheels. Noise (however defined) gets attention. That’s just the way it is. If someone stands out of the crowd they either put up or shut up–or get shut down, if they can’t perform–and it’s gonna be those people who are gonna get looked at for increased responsibility or earning potential. Some are pricks and some aren’t. But, if this article really is true, and the ruthless are the ones getting to the top at the expense of more compassionate and kinder personalities, than that explains so much about where the global corporate world is. Leaders can be firm and kind, compassionate and hard charging, and to muddy the waters with an article stating that you have to ruthless to advance is counterproductive to creating better leaders and better corporate environments. Nice Guys and Gals can make great leaders (I’ve worked and work for many of them), that doesn’t mean you step all over people getting your job done or agreeing with everybody; it means having to occasionally making hard decisions that can involve the nasties, like firing or disciplining people.

Simply stated, you can never please everybody–but that doesn’t make you ruthless.

But, please, don’t confuse “ruthless” with “hard charging.”

Amazon Publishing

by

Reading All Eyes on Amazon Publishing in this week’s (August 8th) PW really got me to wondering:  is the industry really worried about whether or not Amazon can pull this off—or just flat-out scared of what they can do?

I mean, has Amazon failed at anything?

Really (I just can’t think of anything…can anyone else; okay, so they had some computer problems—who doesn’t)? They’re the “standard” by which many compare (or rail!) against. It seems to me that if Amazon really is into publishing (and I think they’ve already shown they are…) they will succeed—and do so mightily. I mean, the concern I read in this article was akin (in my little mind) to asking if Random House would be able to start up a new distribution center.

So I ask this: so what if Amazon decides to publish? There’s apparently no law against it, and isn’t it really just about getting your words out to an audience? Assuming the quality’s there, what’s the problem? Heck, look at the inroads self-publishing is making, even with Famous Folk. Yes, the argument is that Amazon breaks down existing traditional structures and pricing, yadda x 3, but everyone has been complaining about how books have been created and distributed and simply handled for years. All those wasted returns, the late payments from publishers, and whatever else what ails ya.

It looks like someone has, indeed, found a way around some of that, no?

And if it’s not perfect, what is?

Also understandable, some are just plain pissed off at Amazon “stealing” business from established brick-and-mortar stores. I understand that, too. As one seller said, gee, let’s stock their books to further drive our stores out of business.

Many in and out of the industry (including the brick-and-mortar bookstores) have been lamenting for years that things need to be changed, but that change has never come, has it? I found irony in one indie store saying that, sure, they’d carry Amazon books…if they’re (among other things) returnable; I thought, wow, wasn’t this one of the huge sticking points for pushing for book distribution reform?!
In the traditional world, it’s still (from what I see) basically the same. Sure, there’s  worry about digital this and that, but from my limited vantage point of not yet being traditionally [book] published, there are still large numbers of books made the old way, sent out the old way, returned the old way, accounts-payable the old way. Again—to my limited POV—where’s all this massive industry wide reform everyone’s always harping about?

And don’t get me wrong—I have nothing against traditional publishing in the least; I’m one of those who loves hardcopy books (actually prefer reading mass market paperbacks). If others love e-books, more power to them, I’m just not a personal fan of em; I love the tactile feel of books in my calloused hands. If dropped in water they dry out, if kicked around, still readable. And any issues with lining walls at home with them?!

<Unintelligible sound>

Surely, you jest!

Now, I would jump at the opportunity of any publisher interested in taking me on. I’m just questioning what seems obvious to me.

So, if the whole point is to be published, what difference does it really make if Amazon.com publishes our books, or Random House? Even AuthorHouse (ooooh, self-publishing…a whole nother argument, I know!)? Advances, maybe, but how about author income on the back end? Quality—I don’t know, don’t know how the books look, short of what I see on their site, but I’m betting that probably isn’t going to be an issue, especially e-books. I’m sure their print books will look every bit as professional as anything else Amazon.com has ever done. And they are hiring freelance editors. If it’s about distribution—really is that the all-consuming, soul-searing concern? I supposed it could become a problem, sure, anything’s possible, but somehow I think a multibillion-dollar corporation like Amazon.com will work that one out.

But if it’s fear…well, Amazon can’t control everything….

Very Few Eureka Moments Left….

by

A Wired article recently announced the demise of one of my favorite shows: Eureka. Now, sure, Eureka’s just a show, and there are far more important issues to deal with, like keeping a job, having enough money to live on, and spending billions of dollars on investigative space probes in the face of trillions of dollars of governmental debt, and all…but, dang it, I’m gonna miss Sheriff Carter, Fargo, Taggart, and the rest of the crew.

In the article we are told that it was a purely numbers game (and I have heard that the ratings were “so-so”), something the characters on the show could well identify with, given their fake-life’s fake-work, but I sure wish those in charge would re-examine their decision. I’m no exec, nor a scheduler of shows, so I don’t know all the ins and outs related to all this, so I don’t know that I can really take issue with how things are gonna go down. If the numbers are low or aren’t great, then to the chopping block it goes…but maybe if those who run the show take a look at some of the items in the article to save the show, its ratings could go up. True, the stories aren’t exactly great in-depth knockouts (but they are entertaining, and there’s little things like it’s always about the demise of Global Dynamics or the world, and something usually ends up involving Carter’s vehicle in a destructive way…), but, man, the characters, they truly are some of the best on television! Colin Ferguson’s comedic timing is incredible.

The numbers.

Costs too much to produce, ratings are low. Economy sucks.

Not much you can say about that.

But I truly wish someone in-the-know would come up with one of their own bonafide Eureka! moments and figure out a way to “Imagine Greater” and out of the box to save it.

Come on, Eureka, invent your way out of this one….