Do shyness and fiction mix?

Yesterday The Times had an great article on the benefits of being shy.

I've often thought that being shy is a huge disadvantage for the fiction writer. I say that knowing that writers in general are considered to be a shy sort. But particularly with regards to fiction, it seems that if you have limited experience getting to know people and finding out what makes them tick -- in real life, not through words -- you're going to have a harder time creating vivid characters with details and motivations that ring true.

(I myself have always been an introvert that was sort of lured out of his shell through journalism, alcohol, and a curiosity about other people -- particularly folks who don't fit a particular mold. I like to think I have both things going for me. But in day to day living, the results are not always pretty. I often feel conflicted in social situations and can go either way, often to my own surprise or disappointment.)

The above article (which actually has nothing to do with writing; this is my personal tangent) made me rethink my view, for reasons that seem to be totally obvious. The advantages of being an introvert -- heightened observation skills, imagination and painstaking consideration of possible outcomes -- are critical to fiction. But can they eclipse what the writer is not able to gather through direct interaction and experience? I'm still not sure.

I heart failing fast

I've struggled quite a bit with the transition from writing non-fiction to fiction. But what made it easier is that, having spent 10 years in daily journalism, I have a invaluable and fairly transferable set of writing tools.

One of them is the strategy of "failing fast." You find this adage in business and it applies well to writing, too. It's not a new concept in literary fiction, in fact, but that's not where I learned it.

As a reporter on deadline, I didn't get writer's block. I couldn't. I simply had to come up with words and fast, and whether they were in the same key or not was something to worry about later. My individual strength, however, was being an extremely fast writer, even for a journalist. I could and often did write 15-inch breaking news stories in ten minutes or less. Not Pulitzer stuff, mind you. But the basic story was there.

This had several advantages. By writing a less-than-stellar rough draft, I was able to see very quickly what elements I was working with and what parts were missing. If I wrote my first draft fast enough, there was a good chance I had would have time to make that extra call to get the final detail or confirmation I needed.

The second advantage of this strategy was that it got me thinking about the story, whether I was initially in the mood to do so or not. Once I had something on the page, even if it was a bunch of poo, and especially if it was a bunch of poo, I couldn't turn away. It had to be fixed.

Which is tied to the third advantage: It is much easier to fix an existing draft than to start with a blank page. It's getting the hard work out of the way -- the content, i.e. the who what where when why how.

I'm not surprised to be running into this concept in fiction. Without even realizing it, this is how I approached the novel. Looking at each chapter as its own story, I found myself getting the words down first (usually by hand, which I often did as a reporter in the field), then refining it until I thought it was good enough for my writing group.

I realize some writers can lay down an entire first draft of a novel straight through, beginning to end, before tackling revisions. I don't ever see this being an option for me; with full time work and five kids, breaking things up was way more practical.

So too has been the failing fast strategy. For folks like me, there ain't no time to fail slow.

Practicing journalism or law?

Today I got caught up to speed with the drama surrounding the Medill Innocence Project, the Northwestern University-based program that, over the past dozen years, used the work of journalism students to exonerate 10 or so death row inmates who were unjustly convicted of their crimes.

It seems David Protess, who headed the program, was essentially kicked out of the university because he allegedly altered the text of an email that hid the fact that his students were cooperating with defense attorneys in the cases they worked on.

Actually, Protess officially "resigned" -- although that may be a loose definition given the circumstances. In fact the New York Times this morning had a nice wrapup on the shady mess.

The title of this post has been a question others have been asking of J-schools regarding this case. I think it's an appropriate question.

I had already left the newspaper industry for the first time to work for a niche online publisher when Protess and the Innocence Project starting getting national attention -- and attaining a sort of celebrity status in the journalism industry. But I was still captivated by what they were doing. Like many others, I went into journalism with a sense of purpose and to do some good. But saving lives? That's pretty huge.

Although Protess' fate seems to have more to do with university politics than anything else, the Times article suggests that the success of the Innocence Project -- some tie the elimination of Illinois' death row to its work -- may have led to some overstepping of journalistic bounds, which essentially stripped the students from protection under Illinois' shield laws for journalists. And by handing over their notes to defense attorneys (as well as professional journalists), it actually does sound like the students were practicing law more than they were practicing journalism, particularly since they weren't even writing their own stories.

All of which isn't really so bad, given the results -- unless this mess actually impacts those results. Here's hoping that won't happen.

Oscars, stunt people and Yakima Canutt

I'll start off with a confession: My first dream job was "lumberjack." I don't know why, but the thought of climbing giant trees with sharp objects sounded appealing... and very manly. Tuff, as my inner Ponyboy would say.

That lasted about a year. But my second dream job, "daredevil," lasted much longer. Between the ages of 7 and 12, I was so obsessed with Evil Knievel and movie stuntmen that I would do stuff like jump out of trees in homemade parachutes and swing around on flagpole ropes (and breaking my foot in the process).

Another favorite trick was getting into a cardboard box with a bunch of pillows and having my little sister push me down a full flight of hardwood stairs -- or off the porch railing, a full one-story drop. Ah, good times.

Anyway, when I read this morning that movie stuntmen are lobbying for their own Academy Award (to be handed out before the actual ceremony), I thought, well, of course they should get one. It's about time. In fact, its a bit of a shame that 100 years of movie stunts -- the vast majority performed without the benefits of modern photography or computer effects -- will go unnoticed.

Researching great movie stunts online, however, I was happy to see that one pioneer got an honorary Academy for his contribution to the field. And to think I had hardly heard of ol' Yakima, although I have seen him in action:



A casual observer might argue that the Oscar ceremony is already too long to keep adding awards to it. Who cares? I hardly ever watch it myself. To me, it's a simple case of giving credit where it's due.

'Gay Girl,' a modern day 'Jimmy's World'

Once upon a time, noting a rise in niche bloggers who had carved out a unique identity and legions of fans online, I toyed with the idea of creating a fictional blog that sounded real.

Actually I did less than toy with the idea -- I thought about it for about 10 seconds. Then I shoved it to the back of my mind under, "Stuff I'll never have time for." And there it stayed.

Today I read about the "Gay Girl in Damascus" hoax. The whole story is fascinating, yet one that I have little time for on Monday morning. But what was most interesting is how, before blogger Tom MacMcaster revealed himself -- and even after doubts had been case that his creation, Amina Abdullah (or "Abdallah"), wasn't real, respected news media organizations accepted Tom's blog as truth.

Reported CBS News on June 8:

"Author of the internationally acclaimed blog "A Gay Girl in Damascus", Amina Abdullah, has been abducted and possibly jailed by what family members believe to be security forces of the Syrian government or agents of the Baath Party militia.

Abdullah has received attention worldwide for her bravery and resolve in the face of death..."

That was the lede. In fairness, a hint that there was some trouble with the veracity of Amina's story was in the story, but not until the very end.

No such hint in this Time Magazine piece written before "Amina's" reported "abduction":

"Inspiring the Syrian protest movement is an honest and reflective voice of the revolution: a half-American citizen journalist who, in illustrating her country's plight, risks death herself..."

Nor in this Al Jazeera piece:

"A female blogger has been abducted by armed men in the Syrian capital, Damascus, relatives and activists say..."

No, just the blog said. Whatever happened to making a few calls to check out something you found online?

Again, not a lot of time for such stuff this morning. But this story either proves that certain highly regarded news outlets are lazier than I ever expected, or that good writing can fool anybody. Probably both are true.

PS, I'd link the quotes above but I have a feeling they'll be dead by noon. Here they are anyway:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504943_162-20070103-10391715.html

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/05/10/a-gay-girl-in-damascus-lesbian-blogger-becomes-syrian-hero/#ixzz1PAO7Pk2c

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/06/2011671229558865.html

Palin emails, media bias, and Monday morning quarterbacking

So I woke up this morning to find this article from the Guardian, which prompted a major gut check on my part:

Release of Sarah Palin emails angers US conservatives/Rightwingers accuse media of vendetta against possible Republican nominee and ask why Obama was not targeted too

Reading it, I felt myself starting to turn a corner on the whole media-biased-against-Palin argument.

Before today, I didn't give this issue any thought. I thought journalists were simply digging hard into someone whose political ambition far exceeded her level of competence, and who had a little dirt up her sleeve. Now I'm not so sure.

First, I do think the effort to secure Palin's emails as governor was important, and here's why.

Compared to previous major party vice presidential candidates, most voters knew nothing about Sarah Palin when John McCain plucked her out of obscurity. Of course, many voters didn't know much about Barack Obama, either. (I'll admit that. I knew he was a Democratic Senator who gave a great speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, but that's about it.) Yet Obama had far more political experience than Palin, who spent most of her political career serving a town of 6,000 people.

So no one knew Palin. Then stuff began surfacing about her that sounded illegal, unethical, or just plain wacky (i.e. Troopergate, using public funds for personal expenses, flip-flopping on the Bridge to Nowhere, shooting critters from the sky, banning books, using private emails for state business, etc.). So all things considered, the media had ample reason to dig in.

OK, but... What did they find? So far, not a whole lot. Nothing truly horrendous, at least, nor anything that Palin herself can't or won't effectively play down with folksy talk and half-truths. In fact the only major thing we've learned from all her emails is that she distrusts the media.

Of course she would, you say. But hers is not just the view of the average politician. More people every year feel the same.

In fact, most "mainstream" news sources in the U.S. – both newspapers and network and cable TV news – are facing trust issues. The number of Americans who have a favorable opinion of network TV news and major national papers have steadily eroded between 1985 and 2007, according to the Pew Research Center. Audience and readership numbers are falling, too.

The reasons may have been valid. But by going after Palin's emails and no one else's – and not just filing open records requests, but engaging attorneys, fighting for three years for the release of her emails, setting up special Twitter accounts to broadcast the findings, hiring additional reporters, and encouraging Americans to join in on the fun – well, that either means the news media has it in for Sarah Palin, or they just see her as a meal ticket. Either way, it seems biased.

And barring the discovery of something truly evil in her emails, the whole effort appears to be working in Palin’s favor by hardening her support base and making the news media look like Geraldo and The Mystery of Al Capone's Vaults.

The other thing bugging me is my personal belief that Sarah Palin would make a horrible president. So did I secretly want her emails to contain some major nasties? Yeah. And I'm still waiting to see what's in the 2,000 or emails currently being withheld for “executive privilege." I don't think that's a fight that should be given up, either.

But as things stand, I don't think the news media is going to come out of this looking very good. Everyone's getting plenty of eyeballs on this story, sure. But I think it would done greater good to do the same digging into every presidential and vice-presidential candidate -- Obama, McCain and Biden. Expensive? Absolutely. Impractical? Probably. But not impossible. And such a strategy would have both dismantled the appearance of bias and increased the chances of finding something newsworthy about the three other candidates.

So how is the news media handling the criticism that they're biased toward Palin? Here's Mike Oreskes, AP’s senior managing editor for national news:

“Palin is one of many officeholders whose public record and leadership the AP has sought to illuminate by obtaining emails, memos and other documents … She's maintained a sizable profile in the current political scene and may run for president. We are pressing to obtain the records of other presidential contenders in the months ahead.”

Sounds a bit hollow to me. Um, where are Biden's emails? Plus Palin isn't even an officeholder anymore.

(Man, I better watch it. I'm going to start sounding like one of them.)

Anyway I think Charles Mahtesian, Politico's national politics editor, was a bit more frank on the issue in The New York Times:

“I think there’s some truth in what the critics on the right say about a double standard for Sarah Palin ... Having said that, she is an incredibly compelling character. And anything she says or does will have a bearing on the 2012 presidential election cycle. So it’s a pretty easy call as a news story.”

And there you have it, I suppose. The eyeballs win.

Turn down the sun, I'm trying to write

I've always thought there was a correlation between temperature and my writing production. I thought I can't be the only one. But when I went to look it up, the first thing I found was this, from WiseGeek:

"According to at least one study, office temperature does influence worker productivity. A study at Cornell University found that office workers in a warm environment are more productive than they are in colder spaces..."

No, no, no! You've got it all wrong! Warmer temperatures equals LESS productivity! Idiots!

I don't know about you, but I can't write or perform any strenuous mental activity when I'm too hot. So when the summer hits, everything from my regular job, my creative output, my energy level, dips. Worse, my sleeping time -- what little there is to begin with -- crashes.

How warm is too warm? In my case, it's anything higher than 72 degrees Fahrenheit. Pathetic, right? Yeah, I know.

The odd thing is, summer was always my favorite season, by far. At least it used to be, when I didn't have school or kids or a full-time job, and I was in shape and could go skating, surfing and hooping for 12 hours a day. But that was the hyper, more physical Lutz of the past; today the majority of my pursuits are related to thinking. And I dont know what it is, but I have trouble thinking, let alone writing, when I'm too warm. Which I don't point out as an excuse, but as a plea, to the ether, for empathy.

Oh, here's some: This article from AbsoluteWrite, while not 100 percent relevant to my predicament, offers some advice. In the meantime, you can find me with my head in the refrigerator, watching Pengu cartoons on my Droid.

Fear, failure and f*cking wastes of time

Yesterday I picked up Janet Burroway's book, "Writing Fiction: A Guide to Narrative Craft," which I understand is something of a staple in creative writing courses. I used to have another copy of it somewhere, or maybe I loaned it out and forgot about it, I don't know. I think I'm on my third copy. But it was worth buying again.

It's a dense book -- not physically, but thick with information and examples. You can tell a huge amount of effort and thought went into it. It's not easy reading. Anyway, I cracked it open again and ran into this bit from an extended quote about fear, from author Dorothy Allison:

"...The best fiction comes from the place where the terror hides, the edge of our worst stuff. I believe, absolutely, that if you do not break out in sweat of fear when you write, then you have not gone far enough..."

This made me think of something Scott Kempner of The Dictators said in "Please Kill Me, The Uncensored Oral History of Punk." Kempner was talking about The Stooges and being "psychically wounded" watching Iggy Pop perform:

"...Iggy put life and limb into every show. I saw him bloody every single show. Every single show involved actual fucking blood.

"From then on, rock & roll could never be anything less to me. Whatever I did -- whether I was writing, or playing -- there was blood on the pages, there was blood on the strings, because anything less than that was just bullshit, and a waste of fucking time."

As I was thinking about these things, I was reminded how -- a bit of knowledge I picked up from my straight gig -- most small businesses fail. I don't know what the exact stats are, but the vast majority do no better than break even. Yet among the over 100s of CEOs and small business owners I've talked to over the years, most seem to have a practical outlook toward failure that I think writers could learn from.

I suppose it depends what your idea of failure is, of course. But I'd much rather fail than create something that was "just bullshit." Because my worst fear is doing exactly that.

What the hell is an ebook?

I have ebooks on the brain pretty bad. I hardly thought about them six months ago, but now I can't stop thinking about them. (I just did a search of my blog to see if I've even mentioned them before and came up empty. Talk about being out of it.)

Anyway, are they good or bad? I don't know -- but something pretty amazing is happening and it could either be the best or worst time to be writing a novel. I am, however, seriously considering publishing Denny as an ebook, and not the least of the reasons is financial.

For a long time I wanted to write a novel to say I could. (To me, it always said something about somebody who could write a novel, though I've never been able to pinpoint what that something was.) That was part of the reason anyway -- when I started writing, I wasn't even thinking about getting an agent or getting approval bestowed upon me from some publishing house in New York. I saw friends struggle with these sorts of challenges, and I was still busy writing, so I filed them away in the back of my mind as necessary yuckies to deal with later. Who writes a fiction novel for money, anyway? I knew before starting out that my changes of being published were slim.

But nearing the end of my journey (sans rewrites), I looked out and saw colossal shift has taken place. Amateurs are selling hundreds of thousands of ebooks; professionals are selling millions. (Hatchette Book Group just announced today that James Patterson has tripled his ebook sales in less than a year.) While I haven't figured it all out, apparently the revenue cut for the author is a lot better on Amazon than with most publishers. And when you've got five kids and you're running yourself ragged with multiple jobs to make the bills, the thought of actually getting paid for your art is -- well, it'd make my wife feel a lot better about me going off to my writing group every week, for starters.

Again, I'm just starting to figure it all out. Which is a little frustrating, because I feel as though I'm way behind the curve on this one. But then, I've been busy writing. And no matter what happens, I can't stop doing that.