My family is reading the Harry Potter series right now. We’re on the second book, and we’re reading it aloud to each other.
I did not remember how funny these books are. Maybe it’s just the difference between hearing them aloud and in my head, but we have been laughing and laughing throughout. Rowling really has a feel for broad characters and light comedy.
It’s fun!
Jay Lake talks about the value of talent and craft right here. It seems to me that this is a misguided post, mainly because it never really defines the difference between “talent” and “craft.” If I’m reading him correctly, he’s asserting that there are a set number of skills a writer needs, and the writer’s talent is made up of the skills they have without practice, while craft is made up of the skills acquired with practice.
I think this is misguided. Let me go further. “Talent” is not some inborn trait. Maybe some people have biological, social, and cultural tendencies that make certain parts of writing easier to learn, but once the skills are there, how do you tell them apart from “craft?”
You can’t. Not really.
Personally, I believe every writing skill is learned. I’m teaching a couple of them to my son right now (not to make him a fiction writer–god forbid) and he’s practicing them whenever he tells a story. The best thing to do is to learn as many of those skills as possible as a child, when learning is a little easier than it is for adults. And if practice can be made fun, so it never feels like practice, so much the better.
I define talent as accuracy. A writer who can accurately predict the effect of a specific sentence, a particular character, a certain sequence of plot turns, is considered talented. The more subtle or sublime the effect, and the more original the construction, the more talented the writer is perceived to be. A writer who can’t predict the effects of their sentences or plot twists is not considered talented at all.
Writers who acquire these skills early are called talented. Writers who acquire them late call it craft. In truth, talent and exceptional craft are pretty much indistinguishable–if you pick up a wonderful book by someone you’ve never heard of before, how much of that wonderful came from some nebulous, inborn “gift?” How much was learned?
Talent is teachable. It can be hard or easy to teach, depending on the person, but it’s something most anyone can learn.
What holds writers back is not lack of talent, it’s lack of critical self-examination, qualified instruction, and willingness to be original.
Okay, procrastination over. I’m going back to work on today’s pages.
1) Letters written to fictional characters by actual people. I like this one, this one, this one and this one. And now I can’t help but wonder what letter I would write.
2) Proving there’s a niche blog for everything (until someone creates a niche blog you never even thought of before): Handsome Men Who Are Now Dead.
3) Prank rollercoaster photos. Maybe not entirely safe for work, but not too bad.
4) via Steve Barr: Ferris Beuller is Tyler Durdin!. And now in video form (which I can’t watch at work.)
5) If movie titles were honest. The funny ones make up for the dumb ones.
1) Every _____ Comic in three panels, by Marvel editor Nathan Crosby.
.
2) Mainstream journalism throws more pop-science against the shoals of cultural prejudice.
.
3) “Have you read all these books? When do you watch TV?” A husband works in his wife’s bookstore while she’s sick, and records the conversations he has with customers.
.
4) How “non-lethal” weapons are too often used by police.
.
5) The history of the term “slush pile.”
.
6) The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Intelligent Design. Twelve of the Worst Book Titles Ever (NSFW) according to some dude at Huffpo.
.
7) Bookscan: how accurate is it?
Courtesy of my previous post, let’s play fill in the blank with this quote:
“There’s an unfortunate inward-looking, comfort-zone loving… aspect to some in the [genre] community that is preventing the imaginative genres becoming the literature of now…”
The ellipse hides a descriptor that would give the game away.
What genre do you think the poster is talking about? Would you change your answer if I told you the poster was a science fiction author? Would you change your answer if I told you the poster was a fantasy author?
(lol)
… Non-sequitur?
::scratches head::
I don’t want to talk about the dividing line between sf and f. I don’t care about it, don’t want to see the genres split apart on the book shelves and consider it a dull topic. I’m especially embarrassed by the contempt some people show for genres they don’t read and by the resentment other people show when their genre is disparaged.
But to go from “We should split the genres!” to “They’re complementary and will save the world!” in one conversation? Come on. It’s bad enough that Borders is hosting the Same Old Conversations, but waving one SOC around to distract from the holes in the other makes me feel like I’ve had popcorn for dinner.
1) Ever wonder why the left protests G8 and G20 meetings? It’s because of this sort of thing.
2) Rick Riordan goes from adult midlist mystery writer to bestselling kids author. How sad is it that I didn’t even *know* the dude wrote mysteries for adults?
3) Furniture designed for small spaces. These designs are fantastic.
4) Lady Gaga in everyday situations.
5) And you thought authors got a small cut: How much do musicians really make?
6) This randomness collection is more political than most: Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom in comic book form, which first appeared in 1945. BTW, did you know that Hayek thought we should have universal health care?
7) Quote of the day: “…it’s an easy, quick read, suitable for wallowing in decadence for a day on the beach and then entirely forgetting about afterward. Alternatively, one can forget about it ahead of time — and that’s what I recommend.” Andrew Wheeler, reviewing Bret Easton Ellis’s Imperial Bedrooms.
I’m only going to link to one this time: Compelling Women Who Kick Ass: Child of Fire by Harry Connolly written by Casey Lybrand.
I really enjoyed reading that review (and not just because it’s positive). It hits on a number of things I tried to do in the book, and also on ways that I know the book falls short. It’s also interesting in the way that a reader’s completely reasonable perception of a character can be so different from what I intended. There are still a lot of lessons to learn.
I’m also unsure if I should respond, and if so, how. I don’t want to be defensive, because the book has to stand for itself. I don’t want to talk about “Dumbledores” because if the author is the only one who knows a particular character is gay then does that even count[1]?
I don’t even know.
But this review touches on something that I’ve been trying to focus on: it’s easy to populate books with tv/movie types–good-looking folks who are pleasant to look at. I know why they cast roles that way, and I don’t blame them. I like looking at pretty people the same as anyone else.
There’s no reason to do that in a book, though. In books, you can “cast” a fat person in that dignified role as easily as a model, and you can include older folks, or whatever. You can show a truer representation of the world, because you’re working with words instead of faces.
But I’m not really sure how to talk about that.
[1] Toward a more accurate representation of the world, I mean.
I had another good day working on The Buried King. I’ve pretty much stopped fretting about word count and daily goals–at this point I make note of the page I’m on when I start a session and the page I’m on when I stop. What the hell, right? Keeping careful records wasn’t getting the book done, so I’m not going to bother.
And with the release date for GAME OF CAGES coming up, I have a crazy load of writing to do. That means it’s time for a list! Here are all of the projects I have to complete by at least the middle of August (in no particular order).
And so on. I know there are a lot of writers who could do that in a couple of afternoons, but I’m slow slow slow. This will take me quite a little while to do, but I’m hoping to steal some time this weekend to cross some of these items off my list (and the Kolchak is pretty far down the list of priorities–Sorry to anyone who has been enjoying those).
On top of that, I’m expecting the copyedit for MBW at any time.
Back to the day job.
I’m still buzzing from yesterday’s announcement that Game of Cages received a starred review from Publishers Weekly, but I know the rest of the world has quite sensibly moved on. So!
Writers of blogs and fanfic might want to watch this animated lecture. It covers a lot of recent research into motivation–is money a good motivation for people doing thinky, creative work? What are the best ways to get people invested in a project?
The answers are surprising (not only is a big pile of cash non-motivating, it actually has a detrimental effect). And as soon as I saw the artwork of the guy playing guitar, I thought about fanfic writers, why they do what they do and what they get out of it.
Anyway, it’s a fascinating little video (and beautifully produced, too). I recommend it highly, especially if you’re someone’s boss or manager.