1931-2007: Charles Nelson Reilly

I'm so sad to hear that Charles Nelson Reilly has passed away. I was a big fan of his as a kid, which is kind of funny. My only exposure to him was through his appearances on the 70s game shows, Match Game and Hollywood Squares, where he became famous for his bawdy one-liners and gay theatrics, two things completely lost on me at the time, for I was barely a tween at the height of both programs.

If I were to pay any fair tribute to him at all, it would be to say that he was a terrific ambassador for gay men in showbiz. Who couldn't adore those big dimples, goofy glasses and obvious joie de vivre? I watched Match Game, not for Richard Dawson, and not only for the word puzzles and the comedy, but for combined antics of Charles Nelson Reilly and Brett Somers, two peas in a pod who definitely outshone Sonny & Cher on prime time any day of the week.

After adoring Charles Nelson Reilly all those years as a little girl, I feel the need to credit him now with making it easy for people to admire openly gay men at a critical time in American cultural history. After all, Charles Nelson Reilly's popular decade was the 70s, wherein we experienced the beginnings of "outings" and other public liberations that are now noticeably pre-AIDS and post-Stonewall. In that flash of decade, and fueled by the growing movement over equal rights for not only gay people, but women as a group and people of color as well, it was the magnetic likeability of gay men like Charles Nelson Reilly that helped build necessary bridges toward today's improved (if still imperfect and incomplete) tolerance toward the gay community.

Heroes come in all sorts of packages, and Charles Nelson Reilly was a big one to this little girl of the 70s. I'm sad knowing he'll never even know it.

Godspeed, funny man.

Writer's Toolbox: Visual Thesaurus

A short and sweet entry today, because I think that once you visit this website and play around with it, you'll want to sign up and play around some more. Have a great holiday weekend; don't spend too much time on the computer!

ThinkMap Visual Thesaurus

Writer's Toolbox: Templates

Yuwanda Black of Inkwell Editorial recently pitched the idea of using templates to increase writing productivity. Her examples might be most appropriately applied to the skill sets of freelance journalists, but I think there's something there to be learned by fiction writers as well, especially those who have more than one book or story in them.

There's this funny notion that, somewhere out there, a formula exists for penning—for lack of a better term—The Great American Novel. But what a mistake, believing that! Folks, there ain't no grail out there. Every great book binds itself to a hierarchy of rules created through the uniquely individual efforts of its author (and perhaps, to a lesser extent, its editor). What works for one person doesn't necessarily guarantee that another writer, following that formula, will meet with the same success.

Anyway, isn't formula writing what most writers shy away from? I know I don't want to write cookie cutter books. I don't know anyone who does. And perhaps I'm misunderstanding the industry itself; maybe there really aren't any cookie cutter books out there at all. Maybe they only exist as a construct in my mind driving me to be as original a writer as I can be. Fear of mediocrity is, after all, a great motivator.

But let's take away the idea of a formula, and its pejorative implications, and replace it with the idea of a template. Hmm, that's interesting. Here's a tool that might allow you to do the dreamwork suggested by the use of a formula, while still allowing you to be wholly original.

Think about it. It's your template.

If you've written a lot of short stories or taken a couple of book-length manuscripts to "The End," you've got to have a pretty good idea how you did it. (If you don't, it's time to reflect, because whatever it is that works for you should be part of the toolkit you take with you when you launch new projects.) Why not arrange that information into a template? It could be one useful way to map out your next work.

I suppose there's the fear that you'll become one of those writers who ends up parodying themselves, but let's not get that far ahead. That's a problem a lot of writers wish they had, anyway. What we're aiming for right now is taking the opportunity to put into format the path that successfully gets you from Chapter One to fin so that you can keep doing it again and again.

I don't imagine you will arrive at one template, actually. I think you will find your work falls into certain kinds of styles or categories that demand their own roadmaps. So be it. Lay them all out; the more you have to choose from, the better you'll be at ramping up your narrative output.

It's not so much that we all need to be so highly productive as writers, by the way. Certainly, those writers who labor at a snail's pace to say what they need to say could directly benefit from the convenient visualization (and implied permission to write) a template affords them. For my part, I'm naturally prolific and don't need new ways to generate new material, but an organized approach always holds appeal for me. Sometimes there's imply too much material.

Though Black's example at Inkwell Editorial is not directly practicable to writers of fiction (it's a template for a restaurant review), it offers plenty of ideas for how to envision a new short story.

(Writers for the stage or screen may, in fact, already benefit from this kind of thinking through scene assignments and the structuring of acts.)

For me, a very simple short-story template might look something like this:

Introduction of protagonist steeped in dramatic problem (p1)

First live complication (p2)

Second live complication (p3)

Third live complication (p4)

Worst-case scenario + Resolution (Damage Control) (p5)

Expand and contract at will.

Notice that I don't make space for backstory; my short fictions are often told in the present tense and I'm always trying to chop out all the GEL (great expository lumps). By not giving space for GEL to bloom in my template, I'm giving myself some measure of prevention against overwriting (one of my biggest weaknesses).

Also, I joined the last two elements (Worst-case scenario + Resolution) because, in short fiction, there's no legitimate place for falling action after the climax. In fact, I'd almost not even use the term Resolution at all (hence Damage Control as a parenthetical) because it implies closure, and short stories—the best I've ever read, anyway—are never about battening down all the hatches.

This template suggests the traditional structure I usually start with. Third person present, clipped. However, as a creative writer, I often find myself switch-hitting at times, wanting to mix up elements and experiment.

For instance, I once wrote a "backward story" and from that experience learned that a/I really enjoy writing "backward stories" and b/they are not simply "forward stories" written in reverse. I could design a template for that one as well and see where it takes me. Suffice it to say, it can't resemble the traditional template I've shown above at all.

There could be many other templates in my future; I once wrote a short story that incorporated past, present, and future tenses. It earned an honorable mention and was published. Most importantly, it worked. I can see now how mapping the template of that story might do me well for future projects. Really, the sky's the limit, in that sense. And what you learn about yourself as a writer, while developing these templates, is nothing short of priceless.

The key is to remain true to your style and vision. You might write stories and novels with a mosaic of perspectives. You might make use of prose forms in ingenious ways. There might be genre elements to keep in mind; readers of specific genres like sci fi and romance have expectations that you'll need to meet as a writer, and a template might be the perfect way to keep you on task in meeting those expectations while still composing the story in your own, unique way. Whatever it is that makes your writing work, make sure you capture it in a template.

On building a novel template: you might borrow your short-form template to get started, but remember, novels are not meant to be one-note. You'll need to add the entanglements of subplots; there will also be more characters to manage, as well as a greater need for a more fulfilling resolution than what Damage Control (above) might suggest. Think of a short story as a single blade of grass and a novel as a convoluted vine. They're both green and alive, yet altogether different.

Consider the benefits of creating templates for your work. As Black suggests: "…having a template in front of me when I sit down to write seriously cuts down on the time it takes to organize/edit material, which, as any writer knows, can be more than half the time spent producing a piece."

Who doesn't want that?

Two more nanos...

National Novel Editing Month
"It is here that people from all over the world gather together to spend 50 hours in March editing their novels. This is not as easy as it might sound but the forums are available to get advice and ask all the important questions you may have. Advice from real published authors will also be here to help you and a certificate of completion awaits each winner at the end of the month."—The Emerging Writers Network

National Short Story Month
"While the poets of the world have shrewdly united to have April be National Poetry Month every year, creating a fair amount of attention for their craft, we (proverbial) here at the EWN have decided that we sort of like concentrating on one form for a lengthy period of time, so we're declaring that around here, May will be Short Story Month."—Anna, Queen of NaNoEdMo

Arguments against multitasking

I believe myself to be a good multitasker when it comes to my creative life. I tend to work on many things at one time: a new poem here, edits for a completed novel draft there, throw some blog entries in and an attempt to fine-tune a short story along with writing the commentary for the next community newsletter…No, nothing happens simultaneously, not in the true spirit of that word. I do not split myself into many clones in order to get all these jobs done.

I found a different way to explain how I multitask on the creative level while chatting with one of my clients this week. It's like this: my writing life is like one big house in my head. When I finish doing work in one room, I leave the room, close the door behind me, and find my way into another room. After all, we don't do the same things in the bathroom that we do in the garage or the kitchen.

So it was with trepidation that I read this New York Times article on the myth of multitasking: "Slow Down, Brave Multitasker, and Don’t Read This in Traffic" (Mar 25, 2007). It seems we're getting less done than we thought, if the conclusions from these studies on multitasking behavior are accurate at all.

Though we have technology to thank for helping us out of this dilemma (which may, in part, be part of the reason why we fell into this dilemma at all). From the article:

"Further research could help create clever technology, like sensors or smart software that workers could instruct with their preferences and priorities to serve as a high-tech 'time nanny' to ease the modern multitasker’s plight."

I don't think I need a time nanny so much, but boy, there are hundreds of people I know who do. What a cool idea.

The thing is, the more I multitask in my creative life, the less I'm willing to multitask in my daily life. I feel an almost overwhelming need to reject the idea that everything in my life needs to be executed with lightning-speed efficiency. Weeding a garden doesn't work that way. Neither does making milkshakes with your kids, cleaning out the gerbil cage, or cooking a meal you actually want to eat. So I only do one thing at a time, capture some live-in-the-moment zen while I'm at it. (Oops, that's multitasking, isn't it?)

The studies in the article seem to indicate that time management problems rest at the heart of a busy multitasker's life, but I'm not sure I'm sold. I don't have a blackberry/raspberry/blueberry whatever-it-is gadget. I have a palm pilot that I refer to only once a day for about 10 minutes. I use my cell phone less than once a day. Tivo is my friend. So are my tennis racket and the local covered gym where I hit balls during my daughter's swimming practice. That's multitasking, but then, it's not, because while I'm hitting balls against the brick wall, I'm not doing/thinking/dreaming/creating anything else. That's half the reason why I do it in the first place.

I'd love to know what others think about the study. I advocate multitasking, and still think it's a good thing to do, so I have to wonder: perhaps the kind of multitasking they are studying is not the kind I practice. At the end of the day, I still find time to do irresponsible "time-wasting" things like dig for clams, or worse, do nothing at all. It's called downtime, and you guessed it: it's part of my schedule. I honor it religiously.

Freebie podcast novel wins Nebula

Writes Cory Doctorow for BoingBoing (May 13, 2007):

"James Patrick Kelly's Hugo-nominated novella Burn won the
Nebula Award last night. As far as I know, that makes it the
first Creative Commons-licensed work and the first podcast
to win a Nebula."

Burn was a free download podcast made available through Kelly's audio website.

Now isn't this interesting, that a book, which bypassed the gates of the crystal palace known as American publishing by becoming a Creative Commons-licensed work, managed not only to find and please readers, but to win a prestigious award AND to make the author some money even after it was initially delivered free as a podcast?

Food for thought.

I keep hearing nothing but good news about folks offering their books free via podcasting (aka "podiobooks") and blogging (aka "blooks"). Might this be the fab new way for writers to generate audiences for their work? It's not a new marketing strategy, per se: those of you who took Small Business 101 in college know it as the Loss Leader approach. Give something away and you'll get more business and make more money. But it's new to writers.

My personal jury is out on this matter. I still crave the validation of a publisher's imprint and the moment when I have a contract spread before me discussing rights and royalties. I live among too many people who still don't know what podcast means (or Creative Commons, for that matter). And what can I say? I tire of explaining the abstract to people who don't read at all, but who know I'm a writer and, therefore, think they know what that means.

But I'm not averse to the idea of creative marketing strategies, especially when they seem to be working for some folks.

Thus, here are some links to get the rest of you thinking a bit more about the possibility of creating a media racket over your own books.

Networked Books (Buzz, Balls & Hype, Sept 2006)
Giving It Away (Forbes, Dec 2006)
Google Unbound: Free online books will spur sales (DMNews, Jan 2007)
When “webscabs” unite: Celebrating International Pixel-Stained Technopeasant Day (Bloggasm, May 2007)

Editors are your friends!

From MetaxuCafe:

"The Internet simply makes it too easy to publish. We need to learn how to edit before we send our work to a magazine editor, agent, or any kind of reader."

I could not agree more.

The entire middle passage of the publishing process—editing and revision—seems to be lost in this instant publishing climate we have created for ourselves. It's not a good trend. I reviewed an iUniverse self-published novel a couple of years ago and my chief complaint, in a nutshell, was this: "…great story, but what a mess!"

Why do writers balk at the idea of being edited? It can't still be that old—and incorrect—assumption that the editor somehow functions as a writer's worst adversary, can it? Editors do not exist to work against writers; they work to advocate them. Editors see the diamond in the rough and help the writer to polish it to the highest lustre possible. You can bet that if a writer enjoys success with the publication of her book, her editor is at least as excited as she is about that event as well. Editors invest themselves in other people's books. That's what they do.

With this explosion of online and self-publishing happening all around, it behooves us to be keen to all the aspects that comprise the publishing process. Taking a concept to its first draft is the beginning; taking the final manuscript to a printer is somewhere along the end of that spectrum (along with marketing, publicity, and the business end of publishing). But publishing is not a two-step process. That necessary in-between stage, editing—whether done scrupulously through revisions by the author or through the employment of an editor—can't be left out of the process. Not unless you want your book reviews to point out all your mistakes.

Remember, once your work is published, there is no DEL button, no CTRL-Z to make the errors go away. Your words, printed on paper, are permanent; so are any appearances your words make on the Internet, thanks to Google cache. Don't wait until then to recognize where you could have been better. Make it perfect before the world lays its eyes on your writing.