Writing

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.

Reading All Eyes on Amazon Publishing in this week’s (August 8^th) 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….

Okay, I guess this might be at the heart of much of the E-Anything question:  c’mon on, do you REALLY need it?

The arguable statement could be made, that, hey, the decision’s already been made—but has it?

Look at Borders.

As Humans we all exhibit moments of rather interesting behavior.  Eh, it’s what we do…who we are. New stuff helps keep life interesting. Distracts us from the everyday minutiae of our ofttimes droll existences. Sure, some of it can actually improve life, but with all this “improvement” also comes a loss of relaxation, hard-won moolah (especially in these challenging economic times), and something else to have to worry about, carry, and sell our souls to. And the continual spending in our current economic climate, this really baffles me—how people will continue to spend and spend, buying all these new toys when they’re losing jobs. Another argument can be made that people have to pump their hard-earned money back into the economy to have it survive…but where does that “end,” so to speak?

And there are so many arguments.

Here’s another way to look at all this gadgetry. I’m not a Luddite in any sense of the word, but am always planning for the future—and I’d really rather plan to have some dough left at the back-end of my life, rather than having to try to keep up with the latest technogadget and keep spending more and more money on something else I have to continue paying for long after the initial point-of-purchase….

Do we really need all this extra stuff?  Or is someone else is just telling us we “need” it. Or are we just looking for some way to fill in all the spaces of our lives where we used to be left with our own thoughts, because we’re too scared or lonely or (yes!) lazy to do something else…and gadgets are easy? We can hold them in our little hands and look oh-so-danged important. Feel important, so tied in with the rest of the world with CNN and Fox News.

Okay, feeling important is no-so-small a thing, true. We all need a sense of self worth, true.

But, look, Borders supposedly sold stuff in the public interest—then why did it die?

Because public interest waned.

Everyone out there (me included) decided not to spend our hard-earned income in their corporation, that’s why. Whether or not Borders screwed over their employees (as a recent August 1^st Publishers Weekly editorial suggested), is moot, because the end result is that people simply stopped spending money in there. That means that each and every one of us made a powerful statement and brought down a corporation (again, internal struggles notwithstanding—there are a lot of businesses out there not well run, yet they still survive…).

So, it seems to me, that it’s not just a matter of “them” (other people) trying to figure out what makes E-Anything work, it’s the individual. Do any of us really need any or all of these gadgets to survive?

No, we don’t. Not really.

If there’s no “need” there’s no issue.

For whatever reason, everyone’s funneling money into hand-held computers instead of books and magazines, etc. It’s an individual choice, not a corporation’s. My parents didn’t need to know where I was every second, nor did I need to know what the stock prices, breaking news, local weather, or whatever when I was a kid. I found stuff out in other ways after I was done playing or working outside. Done reading a book, or riding a bike. Chopping wood. Yes, life changes, progression should be made as a species, and so many other arguments, but, come on, do you really need all these gadgets at the expense of sanity, relaxation, income, or (in our neck of the woods) books?

It’s a choice.

If you don’t want books, buy gadgets. It’s that easy, and that seems to be the case. Though I believe it’s a big enough world for both. Choices can be redirected to other modes of improvement, and if everyone continues to focus on gadgets, that’s exactly what everyone will get.

Okay, I’m a little behind in my reading and all, but caught up on a great PW Q&A (July 11^th issue, page 44, for those who still read hardcopy…) with linguist and author John McWhorter (Ph.D.). And he said something that really got my attention, something’s that’s bugged the heck outta me from day one of first seeing it:

Yea old (well, actually not all that old..) “he/she” placement.

Yeah, the absofrigginglutely patent  absurdity of alternately using “he” and “she” in articles with no obvious gender references.

WTF?!

Mr. McWhorter’s position, and I wholeheartedly agree with it, is that the rigid use of “they” as always being plural is false. That, in fact (and he’s a linguist, mind you) “they” has actually been employed singularly in earlier stages of the English language. Now, I’m not a mechanics-and-structure guy when it comes to writing, I’m more the gray area stuff, like write till you’re bleeding, then if you’re not dead, what the heck are you stopping for? kinda guy. Do your passion, do what works for you, all that pseudo-fluffy-made-gritty-by-my-take-on-things kinda guy. But some things just bug the Be-HEY-zuess out me. Any time I’d see a “she” in an article followed (for no Godly reason) by a “he,” followed by a “she,” followed by a…I just wanna frigging rip those pages out of whatever I’m reading and burn the damned text.

Really? Are we just trying to be PC with gender use, here?  I honestly don’t care if you use all of one OR the other, but–ugh!–make a frigging decision, fer chrissakes, and stick to it!

I, I freely admit, have always been a “they” kinda guy.

I use it freely, and to many a critique by others who know far more (and far less) than I. Whether or not it was correct to use in my time or place, it (you’re gonna love this, you Grammarian purists out there!) felt right.

Yeah, I said it:  FELT RIGHT.

Oh, that was so freeing!

Like I’m streaking across the Internet (oops, clothing check: nope, still attired)!

Another Mr. McWhorter position that also merits note is that language changes; in his beautifully chosen words (and think about the choice of words he actually used),  it is “…a chaotic, growing garden.”

So, let’s put all that misplaced criticism where it’ll actually do some good, and fertilize that garden….

A recent post of mine inspired some rather stimulating discussion. Good idea, I thought, just what is “professionalism”?

How should professionals behave (in this case, publishing professionals)?

Years ago, in a university ROTC military studies classes, we discussed the concept. What exactly is “professionalism”? It seemed, as I remember it, that we found the concept was applied differently across the boards. Today is not much different, I think, in terms of the “average person’s” concept. Sure there are definitions out there employing versions of “following an occupation as a means of livelihood, or for gain,” or just being really, really good at what you do, but a couple terms  I feel should be more included into all these definitions are ethics, discipline, and respect. This definition seemed to do a pretty good job of it.

Which brings me back to that earlier post about one reviewer’s action that spawned a bit broader discussion of behavior that touched on the topic of professionalism. Is it proper for industry professionals (and here we’re talking mainly about the publishing world, but it could definitely apply to any industry) to rip into other (granted the military or law enforcement professions are a bit different, here…)? And it’s not just about reviewers, it’s editors, agents, executives, you name it. But, okay, sure, reviewers are supposed to be honest in their review of books by authors, to be “hard hitting” and all that CNN/Fox News-speak in their efforts, but do all these efforts exist to nail authors to a wall? To publically intimidate and humiliate?

What IS the purpose of a book reviewer?

What IS the purpose of an editor or publisher? An agent?

In this link, take a hard look at the “Features” paragraph. Read it a couple times. Stare at it. Internalize it.

Never treat others as if they’re insignificant.

Always maintain the highest levels of integrity.

And here’s a really good one:

Consider how your actions affect the journey, not just the object at hand.

So, when you’re sitting across from an editor or agent, or reading a review of a book, what do you expect from industry professionals? Besides some truth, how about a little human decency?

In some of my previous discussions, many said they wanted to be told the truth, no sugar-coating. That it’s a tough world out there. And I told them I agree. But what I did not agree with was ripping a person a new one in the process–being rude, condescending, or overbearing. Sure, it certainly can be a tough world out there, but it’s only that way because WE make it that way. We’re the ones making this world one way or the other. Even in learning situations, I maintain (and I have been at both ends–I once did some editing/reading for a defunct publication) this can be done. It can be done graciously and with great consideration for the individual. Sure, we’re human, most of us, as far as you know, and there will be slips, but even with slips, we need to own-up and apologize if we go overboard for our own behavior.

In short, criticism doesn’t have to be wielded like a 2 x 4 from out of the blue.

Industry professionals of any kind need to have a deep understanding of the environment within which they wield their superpowers, and the capacity to restrain and properly throttle back said superpowers when needed.

To whom much is given, much is expected.

What is the point of tearing an individual apart in delivering critical analysis?

Because you can?

Because they deserve it?

Think about that for a second:  WHAT IS THE POINT?

If the importance of life is in the journey (or anything else, but the argument still fits the bill), shouldn’t we take greater heed in the method and delivery of our criticisms? Anyone can be rude. Anyone can be “hard hitting.” Anyone can just spit out whatever’s on their mind without regard to another, or in answer to their own egotism, arrogance, or inferiority complexes.

NOT everyone has a presence of mind and discipline.

NOT everyone can reign it in at the expense of their own gain.

NOT everyone can understand to whom their words are about and to whom will be affected longer-term, intended or unintended consequences.

NOT everyone can keep ego, arrogance, or any other emotion in check at “the critical hour.”

As the link describes, professionalism is not about you. It’s about the value you place on others and how you apply your superpowers.

Professionalism is about…rising head and shoulders above the rest in all areas of the performance of one’s duties…about going the extra mile…about giving and doing more than is required to get the job done…about respecting others…about consideration of your actions upon others and the outcomes themselves…about doing what’s right…about applying an ethic to all your efforts.

Sure, sometimes a hammer is needed…but if so, take the individual aside and wield that hammer deliberately and away from public view.

Being “professional” is many things to many people (as evidenced by all the books, papers, and courses devoted to it), but I think this article does a great job in boiling down the concept to a quick read. Tailor your superpowers to the situation in a respectful, value-added, and humane way. Make our world a better place to live in.

Peace.