If you can't articulate a problem, does it exist?

What do you call it when you have educated intuition? I'm actually not even sure if that is a term, but it should be, or at least there should be a term for it. What I'm talking about is not the sixth-sense sort of intuition, but more the sort of intuition you have about something you're familiar with.

For instance, I know a woman who bakes a lot of bread, and she can look at the dough and say "Not enough yeast" or "It's too sticky" or even "I can't make bread today--it won't rise in this weather."

So far, she's never been wrong with these assessments, but I can't see what she's talking about. Bread-making is not my skill-set. (I am very good at baking, but bread-making is a whole other branch of culinary chemistry.)

In general, this educated intuition is good--it's why I can do a high-level review of files and find the error. It's how cooks know to add a little more of one seasoning and not another. It's how we make a lot of day-to-day decisions that we may not even realize we're making.

But this educated intuition can be frustrating, too, when either you don't have it, or you can't access it fast enough.

I was recently at a writing conference where possible titles were being suggested for an as-yet unpublished work, and I knew that the facilitator was listening for a certain rhythm, or cadence, or structure as he rejected titles or put them on the mental "maybe" list. But I am not a professional writer (yet) and I don't have years of experience (or any at all) in the publishing industry. I couldn't hear the difference between suggestions like "The Stone of God" and "God's Stone." (Which one would you be more likely to buy based on title alone?) (Also, if you google image these two phrases you get some similar, but mostly different results. Crazy, right?)

This is frustrating because as a would-be author, I want to market my writing in the best possible way. I want a title that works for the book, catches publishers' and readers' eyes, and is easy to promote. But I have no idea what this sounds like.

Similarly, I work with a woman who is very familiar with her field (we call her a SME--subject matter expert. Oh corporate America and your acronyms!), but when we're in meetings lead by strong personalities, she sometimes pauses before she speaks and by the time she decides what to say, the meeting has moved on to a new discussion point. When I asked her about this, she told me that sometimes she hears an idea, and it clicks around in her brain for a moment or two as she processes it. So she's nearly always a beat behind.

This is unfortunate in two ways: when her educational intuition says "that's won't work" but she can't pinpoint why, people move ahead with plans that have already been tried, or don't have enough data to be useful, or have some other limitation, when a more useful solution could be found if the matter were discussed a little longer. Secondly, when she hears something that sounds workable she doesn't speak up, so the rest of the room doesn't know that they're on the right path.

So obviously, in the first example, experience is a huge help, but it's also fairly easy to google book titles in your genre, or *even crazier* go to a book store and look at what sells (fantasy, for example, has a lot of titles where the structure is The [object] of [some location, person, etc.] as in The Sword in the Stone, while historical fiction uses a [Main character's name]:[His/her unique identifier] model, such as Elizabeth of York: A Tudor Queen and her World.

But what do you do when you can't access the data quickly? Should you interrupt the meeting and say, "I think you're going to find some problems with that suggestion, but I'll have to get back to you on them"? That sounds pretty lame. And you don't want to schedule another meeting to resolve something you thought was already resolved but turned out it wasn't, although this sort of thing happens all the time.

The problem, it turns out, is in the ability to articulate the problem.

The Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr.
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This book was both enormously entertaining and enormously useful in terms of improving the craft of writing. Strunk has a dry, crisp sense of humor. One of my very favorite parts of the book is the list of misused words and expressions. I loved his comments on -wise...There is not a noun in the language to which -wise cannot be added if the spirit moves one to add it. The sober writer will abstain from the use of this wild additive. And his examples of wild additives? Taxwise, pricewise, marriagewise, prosewise, and wait for it...saltwater taffywise. I love it!

View all my reviews

How I Write: Secrets of a Bestselling Author by Janet Evanovich
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This was an incredibly easy-to-read book. I think that because I read it on the heels of the screenwriting book, I found it to mirror a lot of the same sentiments.

I think an important thing to note is the subtitle: Secrets of a Bestselling Author. In reading this book, I realized that a number of things that I find to be petty or sophomoric about Evanovich's writing are actually intentional: the shortish stories, the simple, linear plots, the formulaic-ness of those plots.

It completely makes sense to me that once you find a formula that works, you should keep doing it, especially if you want to be a bestseller.

I don't know that this is the most useful guide to writing (although to be fair, it isn't advertised as such), but it is fairly entertaining, and Evanovich provides some resources and references, and reinforces that writers write.

View all my reviews

Writing Movies: The Practical Guide to Creating Stellar Screenplays by Gotham Writers' Workshop
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This book is written by several different authors. I would have liked some information on the authors so I'd know how to value what they were saying.

The tone of the book was very literary. For example, on p. 25, in discussing Orson Welles and his dedication to the craft of storytelling, as well as his daring choices in Citizen Cane, Alexander Steele says: Orson Welles wasn't a know-it-all. He was a student, a human sponge who absorbed everything around him then let it rain down in a fresh way. That's how you innovate.

Except that doesn't really tell you anything.

However, I did find the book useful in providing information on how to organize a story, how to keep it interesting, and how to plot key developments.

I bought the book because, when I envision writing, I see everything very clearly, which I thought would lend itself more towards writing screenplays than novels. However, after reading this book, I don't think writing screenplays sounds like very much fun, but I do think the information in the book will be helpful in writing novels.

View all my reviews

I'm confused

Because I had so much fun with NaNoWriMo last November, I was totally planning on signing up for Script Frenzy in April. And then I read this Important News About Script Frenzy and just to confirm it, I checked out the ever-reliable Wikipedia. And it appears that script frenzy is no longer a thing, although the website is still up.

This leaves me feeling a little ambivalent. I'm very sad that this event is no longer happening, even though I understand the business justification. But I was looking forward to trying my hand at script writing. On the other hand, I have no lack for to-do lists, so I'm a little relieved that this isn't something I can do anymore. Sure, I could still try to write a script in a month, but it won't be nearly as much fun without all of the silly suggestions from The Office of Letters and Light team, without the discussion forums, and without the awesome graphics charting my progress.

*Sigh* I guess this give me more time to clean up the first novel I wrote, and prepare for more writing in November.

The sad tale of cleaning out my email

Periodically, the threat level from an overflowing email inbox reaches impending doom level and I have to force myself to go through and clean it out. This, for me, is anytime there's more than, say, 78 emails in my inbox. I'm pretty sure I have a low threshold for impending doom, but I also try really hard to practice the "touch it once" rule with my emails. Anyway, inevitably, there's a whole bunch of stuff that can be deleted because I've already done it (like library reminders), a whole bunch of stuff than can be filed (like stuff I bought at Amazon that's arrived and so everything's fine), and a whole bunch of other stuff that I should either delete or file away for when I have copious amounts of free time (does that every happen to anyone? because if so, c'mon over to my house--I've got a whole bunch of blogs to read, cats-doing-strange-things videos to watch, and double-chocolate-brownie recipes to try).

So here's something I'm trying to come to terms with: I had a ton of fun with NaNoWriMo and I'd really like to write on a regular basis. But I have bills to pay, so I go to work. (And I have a pretty awesome job...too awesome to give up and embark on being-a-writer-for-a-year type projects.) I also exercise a lot because it keeps me from going postal on the freeways in Southern California, helps me sleep through the night (you're welcome, Captain America), and because I really want to fit back into my old pants. Finally, I read a ton. And, push come to shove, I like reading more than I like writing (full disclosure: I like reading more than I like doing ANYTHING else).

I read a parenting article a while ago that said that kids can basically handle three things, and you have to count school as a thing. So if your kid is enrolled in scouts and little league, that's a manageable amount of stuff in their life, but if you throw in choir  they've now got four things (because, remember, you have to count school), you can expect a lot of meltdowns. I don't think adults are so different. If I go to work, and then make exercising and reading my two other things, pretty much everything is fine. But when I add in writing, like I did last November, it was at the expense of the other two (remember, you have to count going to work as a thing, and since it's what pays the bills, I didn't think it was prudent to allow that to be the thing that suffered).

So what does this have to do with cleaning out my email? As sad as it is, currently, the prudent thing for me to do is to sort of put writing aspirations on hold, which means that all of the emails that are links to tips or agents or whatever that would be helpful need to get filed away. This isn't a crisis, but it's still sad to acknowledge that I really don't have the time to try out this particular hobby right now.

But don't despair! I fully intend to participate in Script Frenzy in April and NaNoWriMo again in November!

On Obsessing

I have an obsessive personality. I'm not actually sure if that's a medical condition or not, but if it is, I've just self-diagnosed. No doctor has ever told me this. It's not always a bad thing. For example, when baking, I always wash my hands after cracking the eggs, before moving on to the next ingredient. And it enables me to stick to the point in arguments (Captain America, long before he married me, learned that the "sleep on it"   philosophy of dispute resolution didn't work for us--he'd wake up just fine and I'd wake up exactly where we left off).

Okay, technically, hes's not beating anyone up with his shirt
here, and it really makes no sense that he'd be fighting
someone without his shirt on, but look at all those muscles!

On the other hand, it's not so good when, for example, I really like one Jason Statham movie, and then go ahead and get every B movie he's ever been in from the library. For the record, I've always LOVED action movies. Don't judge me. The Transporter ones are awesome, if only because he beats people up with his dress shirt (and, consequently, you get to see him sans shirt), but the Crank ones where his heart is removed and replaced by some sort of battery thing that runs off adrenaline or something and so he has to have sex in public to keep it charged...yup, they're just as terrible as my synopsis made it sound.

My latest obsession is post-apocalypse/zombie/vampire survival, which is just really silly. But I am wondering if I can turn my nerd-ocalypse novel into an apoca-romance. Is that a genre, or did I just invent one?

Yeah, I'm that cool!

Excerpt from my Nerd-ocalypse book

So I finally published an excerpt from my book on NaNoWriMo, and I thought I'd do the same here. Bear in mind that I haven't done a single bit of editing whatsoever, and that Christine's name may or may not be changed to Daphne. And she may or may not turn into a zombie. So. Make of it what you will:

In movies, the apocalypse is always caused by something fast and tragic: a giant meteor colliding with the earth, a nuclear blast, a massive earthquake that destroys New York and triggers tsunamis around the world. Christine never believed that this was how life as she knew it would end. She always thought world war three would be fought over the last barrel of oil. People would become desperate, hungry, with no fuel to run tractors, to move produce to markets. History showed that starving people were desperate people. Violence would break out. Machinery would break down and stop running. It would be worse in the cities than the country. People who lived in cities relied on the system. Without fuel, and food, the system would break down. As the machinery of society broke down, people would stop going to work. Paychecks wouldn't fill an empty belly. Necessities that people had become accustomed to would fail. Basic sanitation would stop. The sewage plants would back up and the water would be undrinkable. Christine knew that survivors would have access to guns, water, and would know how to hunt and farm. 

Fan Fiction

I have been creating fan fiction in my imagination my entire life, but it's only been in the past year or so that I've learned that that's what it's called. It was refreshing to learn that there were other people out there who created fan fiction. I mean, I never assumed I was the only one, but it's not like my friends and I sit around discussing the next imaginary adventures we've thought up for Harry Potter or anything. As opposed to the not imaginary adventures J.K. Rowling thought up for him. Because Harry Potter is real. And I'm Dobby-esque in that I can never just say Harry. It's always Harry Potter.

Although I would like to point out that Robert Pattinson
was Cedric Diggory  before he was Edward Cullen, in case you've forgotten.

(And as a side note, I really don't recommend reading fan fiction. I don't have issue with people taking legitimate characters and doing what they want with them, because once you put art out there, it's out there, and most people don't make any money off it anyway--it's really more like a silly hobby. But the real reason you shouldn't read fan fiction is because, in general, it sucks. Authors like George R.R. Martin (who HATES fan fiction, by the way) get paid to do what they do because they're really, really good at it. There's no way you've thought up something better for Jon Snow to do than he has. Jon Snow couldn't think up something better for himself to do. You, for sure, can't.)

Anyway, I digress. Although this entire post is probably a digression. Anyway, I've been thinking about fan fiction a lot lately, partially because I've been watching this ridiculous new show in which I feel like the characters could be doing a lot more. If only I were in charge. Which, of course, doesn't mean I'll stop watching the show.

The other reason I've been thinking about fan fiction lately is because I've signed up for NaNoWriMo (and I'm way behind. That's what I *should* be doing rather than writing this post), and it's really, really hard to create characters.

I know that's a no shit! kind of statement. But it really is. I have lots of good ideas for what my characters should be doing, but it's really, really hard to make the characters real. They all feel so one-dimensional. Which is why it's so much easier, at least to me, to imagine someone else's character doing stuff.

On the other hand, lots of writers sell books with one-dimensional characters. I'm just not sure that's the sort of thing I'd tell my friends about.

Upping the ante

I had this whole post planned out about  how busy and harried my life has been lately. And then Sandy hit and I felt like an ass because, really, I've got no problems.

But that doesn't make me less busy or my life less hectic.

And it's going to be a bit more hectic this month because I've signed up for NaNoWriMo. So, in a month, I should have a completed novel. A poorly researched, and completely un-edited, but nonetheless written novel.

So if you don't hear from me for 30 days or so, that's what I'm up to.

Starters by Lissa Price
My rating: 1 of 5 stars

This was a terrible book. I read it for my bookclub, and when I got to the meeting everyone said how much they loved it. I thought, really, did we even read the same book?

This was a poorly written, contrived version of The Hunger Games. The premise of the book, that in a dystopian future, old people rent young bodies, had promise, but never lived up to it.

November is National Novel Writing Month, and I thought that Price must have participated in NaNoWriMo last year, someone read her submission, and published it as is. Except, thankfully it's not 50,000 words.

Do not waste your time on this.


View all my reviews

Writing is hard, and this is why

I read Nathan Bransford's blog on fairly regular basis. I think I stumbled upon it while reading The Writer magazine, and an author said one of the things that helped her get published was reading his blog (presumably, she meant, reading his blog and using his suggestions, and possibly even striking up a friendship with him, but whatever). So this one stuck out to me, in particular.


And I also liked the article it was based on, http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/08/everything-is-fiction.html

I especially liked this observation. The emphasis is mine (and sorry that it's such a long quote. I just couldn't figure out where to cut it and keep the meaning):

Something, obviously, is going on. I manage, every few years, to generate a book. And of course, there are things that I know. I know how to wait until the last minute before putting anything on paper. I mean the last minute before the thought leaves me forever. I know how to leave out anything that looks to me—after a while—forced, deliberate, or fake. I know that I need to put myself in the story. I don’t mean literally. I mean emotionally. I need to care about what I’m writing—whether about the characters, or about what they’re getting up to, or about the way they feel or experience their world. I know that my job is to create a perspective. And to impose it on the reader. And I know that in order to do that with any success at all I must in some mysterious way risk everything. If I don’t break my own heart in the writing of a book then I know I've done it wrong. I’m not entirely sure what that means. But I know what it feels like.

I also like this, because I hate to do research. When I do research, I want to find one answer to my question. Not "about 128,000 in .32 seconds":

Research is its own slow fiction, a process of reassurance for the author. I don’t want reassurance. I like writing out of confusion, panic, a sense of everything being perilously close to collapse. So I try to embrace the fiction of all things.

I think that might be all I wanted to say about this. I read the blog and article a while ago, and I'm no longer feeling very ranty about it.

Bridge of Sighs by Richard Russo
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This book is really long. I don't find long books intimidating, nor do I generally get bored by them. However, this story is told mostly, although not entirely, from the perspective of Lucy Lynch, and his style is akin to that of Garrison Keillor's. It's slow moving, detailed, and not un-entertaining. However, there were times when I put the book down for days.

However, the last quarter of the book really made up for it. By the time I finished the book, I felt like crying, although I'm not sure why. I guess I felt a little bit like I was saying goodbye to some really good people.

There are a number of character juxtapositions in this book, from Lucy's own parents, to his father and Uncle Dec, to Lucy's father and Bobby's father, to Lucy and Bobby themselves.

It would be easy to paint (pun intended) Bobby as the antagonist, but he's not. He's a very complex character, and that makes him interesting. He's a very real character. You are drawn to him, even though you know he's more volatile, and less deserving of your friendship than Lucy. What's also interesting is that Bobby's not really the focal point of the book: Lucy is telling the story of his town and his life. But Bobby had such an effect on Lucy that you can't help but feel that the narrative is being pulled toward him, or by him, like the tide by the moon.

As a student of the craft of writing, I can't help but feel like I'll never be able to write a character as good as Bobby, and especially in way that makes him not quite the focal point, but somehow the crucial element in the story.

The only reason I didn't give this book five stars is because I was able to walk away from it at times. With a little bit more editing and some tightening up, it would have been a page-turner from start to finish.

View all my reviews

Twenty-five words: take two

So my last attempt at telling a story in 25 words didn't really work out (I'm not even going to attach a link). No one understood what I was talking about. Not everything can be told clearly in 25 words. So I'm going to make a second attempt. Here it is:

The first thing Sean noticed about the new girl was that despite her scowl and terrible haircut, she was pretty. Then he saw the scars.

Because I was trying to limit this to 25 words, I've changed what I wanted to say if I was allotting myself more words. In trying to keep things simple and short, I've changed them. I wanted the second sentence to say, she was really, really pretty. But that doesn't really leave you hanging (not that writing should always leave you hanging). But you should have a reason to keep reading.

Let me now what you think...at least this time it's nice and simple, right?

A new very short story

She placed her foot, jumped, and pivoted, performing a muddled revolate. She connected with the ball. He ran home, delighted by her timing and physicality.

This is a story in 25 words. It's actually a different scene in the same larger story as my 10-word story.

This is what I end up doing every time I try to read my magazine, The Writer. I start reading an article, am inspired to write something, spend a bunch of time youtubing videos of dance moves (I knew what the move looked like, but not what it was called), and then write a blog post. I still haven't finished reading about Paper Lantern Lit.

This doesn't say exactly what I want it to say. I've been debating the placement of the and in the first sentence. I thought about: She placed her foot, jumped, pivoted, and performed a muddled, revolate. But I wanted to make it seem like two separate actions were occurring in a very short time frame. And I'm not sure if three sentences are too choppy for such a short amount of writing. I also wanted to include a second adjective, sloppy, to describe the revolate, but I couldn't figure out any other word that could be removed besides home, and just he ran seems like a silly thing to say. And I wanted to express that the "he" in the story is giddy with excitement about this girl, but he wouldn't be giddy by her timing and physicality. He could be made giddy by her response (like if he asked her on a date and she said yes), but it doesn't really work in this format. And his being giddy, while important, is secondary to her athleticism. (You're going to have to trust me on this one.)


Please let me know if you have any suggestions on this one.

Ernest Hemingway and the art of the short story

Urban legend has it that Ernest Hemingway once won a bet that he couldn't write a short story in under 10 words. His rebuttal: For sale: baby shoes, never worn.

I don't love Hemingway (his brevity is a little too brief for my taste and his characters all seem stiff and unfeeling to me). I'm not even a particularly avid reader of the short story. But I do believe that if you can't tell a story in a few words, hundreds more isn't going to make it better.

I've been saying for a million years that I want to write, and I spend a lot of time thinking about writing, reading about writing, and reading in general. I'm sure these are all good preparatory things to do, but writers WRITE.

There are all sorts of exercises that writers can do, like finishing sentences, writing stories around specific topics and the like. I've never read an author say in an interview that any of those exercises were useful (or that they even used them). But I thought it would be interesting to try to write a short story and then methodically make it longer.

So here is my 10 word short story: She lay in darkness waiting. And then she saw him.

Let me know what you think! And be on the lookout for it's transformation into a slightly longer story!

Revision #1: She lay in darkness waiting. And then she heard him.


As one thoughtful reader pointed out, she wouldn't be able to see him in the dark. Since I had debated that a lot already, and then it was further reiterated (can something be further reiterated?) I decided the adjustment was appropriate.