Why I Write

While the topics I write about vary in subject and opinion, my underlying reason for writing hasn’t changed. I’m passionate about words and ideas. And writing is one of the easier ways to share those words and ideas. Writing isn’t simply something I do but rather something I am.

When I started this blog it seemed another avenue for sharing, another way to express myself. But somewhere along the way, I started writing for an audience, second-guessing my words and ideas, debating whether someone else would find them of interest.

These thoughts have kept me from writing much on this blog for the last few months. I could take the easy route and blame it on my increased workload and the demands of everyday life, but that isn’t the truth. Instead I kept silent, waiting for the moment when the words would start to flow again. Now comes the time to face the hard facts.

I’m selfish when it comes to my words. The more I shaped my words around a potential audience, the less the words meant to me. The more I looked for “relevant” topics to interest my audience, the more I felt I was following in the footsteps of others instead of exploring new territory. The more my site visits went up, the less attention I paid to the words that wanted to escape.

I started this blog under the premise of examining the bold words of others, and while I may continue to do so, I think it’s time I generated a few of my own. I think it’s time that my writing reflected who I am instead of who I think potential readers want me to be. I’m not dismissing the content I’ve generated to date. Instead, I believe I can do better.

For my writing to regain its meaning, I’ve decided that the usual measurements will no longer suffice. I no longer care if I write something I want to post every day, but I will write every day. My writing may be long, it may be short. Ultimately, it will be just right. You may hate it, you may love it, but that can no longer be a driving factor behind why I write. I write because I love it and that is enough.

What A Coincidence—Whose Story is It?

Many of the movies and televisions shows that make it onto the big screen or into our living rooms began their lives in the pages of books. In most instances, for works not in the public domain, the authors enjoy a large payday for surrendering their worlds to the magic of Hollywood. However, authors may find themselves on the receiving end of amazing coincidences between what they’ve written versus what they’re seeing on the screen.

The recent story that caught my eye involves author Pete Hamill. His novel, Forever, explores the immortal life of of Cormac O’Connor and his quest for justice and the woman who can grant him peace. Imagine Mr. Hamill’s surprise when fans brought to his attention Fox’s series New Amsterdam, slated for launch this fall.

From the New Amsterdam site I discovered the following details of the new series:

• The main character is named John Amsterdam.
• He saves a “Native Indian” girl from death by stepping in from of a sword. She in turn weaves a spell granting him immortality “Amsterdam will not age, she told him, until he finds his one true love. Only then will he become whole and ready for mortality.”
• Shoot forward to present day, and Amsterdam lives and works in New York/Manhattan as a homicide detective.

How does O’Connor compare? According to the CNN article:

• O’Connor still bears a scar, “a ridge of dead flesh on his shoulder,” from his fatal wound. Amsterdam is marked with “scars everywhere … all over his torso and body,” according to a script acquired by Hamill’s agent.
• O’Connor learned to play the piano, becoming a fan of legendary jazz player Art Tatum. Amsterdam plays too, and favors the work of legendary jazz player Thelonious Monk.
• O’Connor has one way to return to a normal life: finding the right woman amidst Manhattan’s multitudes. And Amsterdam … “You will not grow old,” he is told,” until you find your one. One woman, that is.

Any guesses how the producer for New Amsterdam responded? See if this matches your guess:

Although the show’s executive producer, David Manson, insists that John Amsterdam was created independent of Cormac O’Connor, Hamill and his fans aren’t quite convinced—although the author’s attitude leans more to resignation than litigation…Manson, asked about the similarities in a session with TV critics earlier this summer, said he’d never read the Hamill book and was unaware of its existence until production was wrapped.

“I guess what I think about it is this—the subject of immortality has been compelling to, since the dawn of time, various cultures,” the show’s executive producer said. “I think that it’s not—it’s not surprising that there will be overlaps in this world. That’s all I can say.”

While I’m keenly aware that more than one person can have the same idea, I find the amount of overlap perplexing. And as Hamill points out:

“To try and prove anything about this would take thousands and thousands of dollars, which I’d rather spend on my grandson,” Hamill said. “You’ve gotta laugh.”

The world of intellectual property is tricky. I’m not an expert by any stretch, but I imagine it can be incredibly difficult to prove the original genesis of an idea. How do you prove that someone else didn’t have an idea before you, especially if there’s no “hard” record? How do you dis-prove coincidence?

This incident is neither the first nor the last time that authors will be left with a series of coincidences that leave them shaking their heads. There’s always been individuals and entities willing to push the ethical boundaries of “inspiration” and “coincidence.” Technically, no laws are broken (at least ones provable in a court of law).

Few things rank higher on my personal commandment list than “thou shalt not steal others’ ideas.” Our technology offers the ability to easily capture our ideas. At the same time, we can just as easily “borrow” them, too. More resources have granted access to more information, creating more personal responsibility. If I don’t exert every effort to ensure that I properly cite from where and who I get content, how can I expect the same respect?

Companies have shown time and again a willingness to go after individuals infringing on their intellectual property. (Reason Magazine has an interesting article from 2004 about Disney’s court battle with a cartoonist.) For individuals, the battle is much harder to fight. I wonder if the entities willing to walk this moral line would take the hint if we refused to participate, if we refused to reward them for claiming coincidence?

Comments?

Moving On to New Opportunities

The recent resignation of Alberto Gonzales as the Attorney General started my brain a-whirling about resignations in general. If you’ve been working for any length of time, odds are good you’ve probably resigned at least once. Every time I’ve given notice, I’ve written a resignation letter that gave me a rush of satisfaction. For me, the resignation letter was a sign of progress, proof I was moving ahead with my life. However, we’re all keenly aware that not every resignation letter is written with such pleasure.

Richard Nixon, one of history’s more well-known resignees, kept his letter short. He used only eleven words, not counting the salutation or closing:

I hereby resign the Office of President of the United States. (link)

You’ll notice none of those words included the reason behind his resignation. Resignations are intriguing because we so rarely hear the real reason behind them. Common, catch-all explanations include the infamous “spending more time with family” or the equally common “moving on to new opportunities.” Gonzales used “this is the right time for my family and I to begin a new chapter in our lives,” a nice combination of the two. (link) Again, no mention of the obvious factors that might be driving his decision.

Why are we so disinclined to write the real reason? In most cases, we already know the reason. What prompts us to use the “polite” explanation for our exit? I’m guilty of relying on the “new opportunities” explanation. I didn’t think it politic to list my reason as, “I can no longer force myself to get out of bed to come to work for you.”

The Web is filled with resignation letters, some real some fake, but definitely entertaining. I’m uncertain about the validity of this particular letter, but part of me hopes it’s real:

From: [REDACTED] Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 1:11 PM Subject: FW: Goodbye…

As many of you are aware, today is my last day at the firm. It is time for me to move on and I want you to know that I have accepted a position as “Trophy Husband”. This decision was quite easy and took little consideration. However, I am confident this new role represents a welcome change in my life and a step up from my current situation. While I have a high degree of personal respect for PHJW as a law firm, and I have made wonderful friendships during my time here, I am no longer comfortable working for a group largely populated by gossips, backstabbers and Napoleonic personalities. In fact, I dare say that I would rather be dressed up like a pinata and beaten than remain with this group any longer. I wish you continued success in your goals to turn vibrant, productive, dedicated associates into an aimless, shambling group of dry, lifeless husks.

May the smoke from any bridges I burn today be seen far and wide.

Respectfully submitted,

[SIGNED]

ps. Achilles absent, was Achilles still. (Homer)

Not every resignation is for negative reasons. Sometimes, you’re truly moving on to new and better things. There’s also the reality that the people/reasons your leaving won’t be affected by a beat down. As in many situations, the company as a whole, upper management, or something else my direct superior had no control over caused me to say “enough.” Why take out my unhappiness on people I still felt affection and respect for?

That still leaves the other reason behind resignations—public pressure. Again, the majority of people know the reasons. They’re analyzed by pundits and dissected in blogs. We all know what drove Gonzales’ resignation, perhaps not the final catalyst, but the general rationale for him to say “enough.” Why not say, “I quit. I’m tired of seeing story after story highlighting my missteps as Attorney General. I’m sick of seeing editorials demanding my resignation. I’ve had enough of public life.” Imagine how much fun the pundits and bloggers could have with that resignation.

Comments?

Staying True to the Story

It’s been nine days since I picked up the first Harry Potter book.

No spoilers included, so don’t worry.

Having read all seven in a row, my initial impression of J.K. Rowling’s talent is only confirmed. She’s created characters who both enchant and annoy—much like many of the people who cross our paths. I don’t think Harry Potter would have meant so much to so many if he hadn’t been true to form, meaning he did, said, and thought things that were typical for any adolescent or teenager. As much as I like Harry, that didn’t keep me from wanting to give him a swift kick on occasion.

My earlier posts on Harry Potter touched on Rowling’s ability to appeal to both adults and children and her skill at creating worlds. After finishing the last book, I wondered, as with all of the really good books, why certain events had to happen. I’ve noticed that most of the stories that stick with me after I hear them don’t automatically lead to the “happy ending” we’ve been trained to expect. A true happy ending is one that doesn’t betray the beginning or the middle.

Stories themselves are a bit like the characters that inhabit them. They have individual quirks that make them different from each other. And when they’ve stayed true to themselves, from beginning to end, I believe they can become a part of how you see the world.

That’s why we’re pushing back against storytellers who aren’t staying true to their story. That’s why Dell got hit so hard on its customer service. Dell told a different story than the reality, and they paid the price. It’s why JetBlue and other airlines can’t seem to make a full comeback. They aren’t staying true to their story.

Rowling, Tolkien, and other amazing authors have created worlds and stories that stayed true to their character from beginning to end. Whether you’re a company or an individual, I think it makes sense to honor this code. It doesn’t matter rather you read volumes or little at all—we know what makes for a good story. And frankly, it’s been awhile since I heard one outside of a book. Who’d like to be the first to change that?

Comments?

My Harry Potter Confession

I have a confession—I haven’t read Harry Potter. I haven’t seen any Harry Potter movies. I suspect I’m in the minority. With the final book a mere week and a day away from debut, I decided to come clean. In essence, I’m confessing to a case of the lazies. I never got around to reading the first books, then it became a challenge. How long could I go without “spoiling” the story? Apparently all the way.

I know some of the basics—character names, the death of a main character (but no name), story outline—but that’s it. No specifics. I’d always hear the speculation about story direction between books, but I never confirmed the validity of the predictions. The only J.K. Rowling I’ve read up to this point is an essay on her site about girls and weight.

Today, I bought the first three books in the series. I’m taking the plunge. With the end near, it’s ok to give in because I can read clear through from beginning to end without waiting. That’s the power of J.K. Rowling. My anticipation for Harry Potter reached a point where I’d rather know nothing than know a little and have to wait. The point has been made before, but it’s worth repeating: J.K. Rowling got a generation of kids to read.

In an earlier post, I highlighted the power of storytellers who have the power to draw out childish giggles and adult chuckles. Rowling is one of those storytellers. Her initial aim may have been children, but Rowling reaches both young and old, both readers and non-readers. And she has changed the way we think about children and reading. Before Rowling, I suspect book editors would scoff at a children’s book over 800 pages (820 to be precise in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix), but the size of Rowling’s books never seemed to faze her devoted audience.

Here’s the lesson I take from Rowling: tell a story worth listening to, and you’ll have a captive audience. Rowling’s current success makes it easy to overlook the risk she took in the beginning. The first Harry Potter was rejected by 12 publishing houses. (link) I wonder if the editors who rejected her have trouble telling a compelling story about why they passed.

Comments?

Qualities of a Writer

Good books are hard to find. I tend to split my reading between the “classics” and contemporary writing. And a post on Josh Porter’s Bokardo highlighted an author I consider a classic, Douglas Adams. A striking aspect of Adams’ piece on “How to Stop Worrying and Learn to Love the Internet” is the applicability almost 10 years after the fact:

I expect that history will show ‘normal’ mainstream twentieth century media to be the aberration in all this. ‘Please, miss, you mean they could only just sit there and watch? They couldn’t do anything? Didn’t everybody feel terribly isolated or alienated or ignored?’

‘Yes, child, that’s why they all went mad. Before the Restoration.’

‘What was the Restoration again, please, miss?’

‘The end of the twentieth century, child. When we started to get interactivity back.’

The good writers last, and maybe without even planning to, stay relevant years after a publication date. But these good writers didn’t just spring up overnight.

Writers On Writing

T.S. Eliot believed “there is no method except to be very intelligent.”(link) But Ray Bradbury took the position that “any man who keeps working is not a failure. He may not be a great writer, but if he applies the old-fashioned virtues of hard, constant labor, he’ll eventually make some kind of career for himself as writer.” (link)

William Faulkner might capture what it takes to be a good writer better than anyone else:

At one time I thought the most important thing was talent. I think now that the young man or the young woman must possess or teach himself, training himself, in infinite patience, which is to try and to try until it comes right. He must train himself in ruthless intolerance—that is to throw away anything that is false no matter how much he might love that page or that paragraph. The most important thing is insight, that is to be—curiosity—to wonder, to mull, and to muse why it is that man does what he does, and if you have that, then I don’t think the talent makes much difference, whether you’ve got it or not. (link)

Writing Today

I believe Faulkner’s quote is especially applicable to those who write blogs. Isn’t it curiosity about what’s happening in our world that drives us to self-publish? Isn’t it our wonder at how amazing our world has become that drives us to write, even if only to an audience of one? And isn’t it our patience that keeps us posting even when the comments are few and far between?

Writing is tricky, and sometimes I wonder why I do it. Famous publisher Bennett Cerf offered up his reasons to avoid writing:

Coleridge was a drug addict. Poe was an alcoholic. Marlowe was killed by a man whom he was treacherously trying to stab. Pope took money to keep a woman’s name out of a satire then wrote a piece so that she could still be recognized anyhow. Chatterton killed himself. Byron was accused of incest. Do you still want to a writer—and if so, why? (link)

What drives you to pick up the pen or pound at the keyboard? For me, it’s about getting the words out. Once in awhile, I get lucky, and the words make sense, and I feel really good about what I’ve done—until the next time I sit down at the computer and stare at a blank screen. Sometimes the hardest thing you’ll ever do is fill up the big, empty space with words. But when it happens, and things click, there is no greater feeling in the world. So here’s to the “cult of amateur” who keeps finding the words to share their worlds. Thank you for filling the blank screen time and again.

Comments?