Time to Write

Think better!

"Think Better," reviewed by Jurgen Wolff from jurgen Wolff on Vimeo.

Is your mess a badge of honor? (three tips for getting organized)

In the excellent book, "Making Ideas Happen," Scott Belsky reveals the results of a 2007 poll of over a thousand "creative professionals" regarding how organized they are: 

     7% of those who responded claimed to feel “very organized”

     14% claimed to work in a state of “utter chaos”

    48% attested to “more mess than order"

He says,"The disarray experienced by many professionals was regarded as a badge of honor."

I can relate! Getting organized is something I have done successfully. Staying organized is more of a struggle! It's like the smoker who says, "I have no problem quitting smoking, I've done it many times."

For me it's not that I consider a mess a badge of honor or even the sign of a creative mind, just that clearing up or going through old files never seems as important (and certainly not as enjoyable) as working on a creative project. 

The problem, of course, is that at some stage it becomes hard to find things or you forget to deal with things that are at the bottom of a pile of papers and dealing with those crises take more time than it would take to get organized.

I can't claim that I've cracked this, it's more accurate to say that I'm a recovering messaholic. But a couple of strategies that I find useful are:

1) Use a "zone" plan of attack. Don't say you'll clean up your office, say you'll clean up the left side of your desk. The next day tackle the right side of your desk. The next, the floor around your desk and so on.

2) Schedule a weekly period to maintain the progress you've made. Unfortunately it's not a 'do once and you're done' task, it's more like brushing your teeth or washing the dishes. If you can make it part of your routine, it gets a lot easier to do.

3) Take advantage of periods when you're not feeling very creative, or a little tired, by using those periods to do the more routine tasks like filing, working on the administrative backlog, etc.

I'd better stop and clear the left side of my desk...

Shocking findings regarding creativity in America

An excellent lengthy article in Newsweek by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman about creativity reveals the shocking fact that today's American children are less creative than their counterparts twenty years ago.

It says: "Kyung Hee Kim at the College of William & Mary discovered this in May, after analyzing almost 300,000 Torrance scores of children and adults. Kim found creativity scores had been steadily rising, just like IQ scores, until 1990. Since then, creativity scores have consistently inched downward. “It’s very clear, and the decrease is very significant,” Kim says. It is the scores of younger children in America—from kindergarten through sixth grade—for whom the decline is “most serious.”

This, at a time when creativity is more necessary than ever before, for solving the multitude of problems we face. It seems a paradox, coming at a time when the the internet and other technology is making it much easier to be a creator rather than just a consumer. Almost every child has a phone, a Facebook page, some have blogs, many are making videos to put on YouTube, they have access to almost unlimited information. 

Yet creativity scores are going down. 

What's responsible? The article says, "It’s too early to determine conclusively why U.S. creativity scores are declining. One likely culprit is the number of hours kids now spend in front of the TV and playing videogames rather than engaging in creative activities. Another is the lack of creativity development in our schools. In effect, it’s left to the luck of the draw who becomes creative: there’s no concerted effort to nurture the creativity of all children."

I'm skeptical about blaming television, and creativity has not been a part of many school programs in the past, either.

My guess--and that's all it is, of course--is that it has something to do with our increasing demand for instant gratification. We want what we want NOW. Creativity is about exploration, patience, and a willingness to go down the wrong paths, all of which take time and delaying gratification. 

For instance, if you cook your own food, you're liable to try some variations on the recipe and that can be a kind of creativity; if you stick your store-bought meal into the microwave, the only option you have is whether you'll nuke it for 1 minute and 30 seconds or 1 minute and 40 seconds. 

These findings should sound an alarm bell for the educational system, for business, and for individuals. We'll see whether that happens and, if so, whether people are ready to get creative about improving creativity.
 

(If there's a young person whose creativity you'd like to encourage, consider giving them a copy of my book, "Creativity Now!"--you can get it from Amazon or other online and offline retailers.)

a little gift for you

 

Does grammar still count?

 I usually don't get too much into grammar on this blog, partly because it's not my strongest point either, but there's one error I've been seeing a lot lately. Here's an example, a headline in an online medical newsletter I receive:

"Hope for cancer patients found in citrus peels."

What are those cancer patients doing in citrus peels? 

The classic example of this sentence construction is the old Groucho Marx joke: "One night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. What the elephant was doing in my pajamas I'll never know!"

In the world of Groucho, it may well have been that the elephant was wearing his  pajamas (or pyjamas), but in the case of the prostate cancer patients I'm pretty sure they meant, "Citrus peels offer hope for cancer patients." (Just moving it around to "Hope found in citrus peels for cancer patients" is closer than the first version but still awkward.)

I had to look up what this is called: a misplaced modifier, apparently. (And you have no idea how many scholarly papers there are out there that reference the Grouch marx line.) Here's the simple explanation, from a site trying to prepare students for the SAT exam:

"When reading a sentence that contains a modifier, pay attention to what the modifier is describing.

My friend saw a puppy on the way to school.

The modifying phrase "on the way to school" is misplaced. Since it is closer to "puppy" than to "my friend," the modifier seems to describe "puppy." The puppy was not on the way to school. My friend was on the way to school. To correct the sentence, move the modifier closer to the words it is describing." [If you want to read more about this, go here.]

The problem with mistakes like this, or mixing up peek and peak and pique, for instance, is that it distracts the reader from what you're trying to say. So while I fee like some old high school grammar noodge saying it, it's true: grammar and punctuation count!

A book trailer that fails (for me) but watch it anyway

When I say the following trailer for the book, "The Beaufort Diaries" fails, what I mean is it didn't make me click over to Amazon to order it. I think this is a fundamental problem with videos for works of fiction--the experience of watching is different from the experience of reading and liking the trailer may or may not mean you'll like the book.

But I did enjoy watching the clever animation and hearing the narration by David Duchovny. The book is by Gary Shteyngart and illustrated by Alex Petrowsky. Have a look (warning, if you're in the office: there's a bit of strong language).

Beware this terrible advice about writing dialogue

 I was reading a writing magazine today that shall remain nameless. Specifically, an article on how to write dialogue, by a writer who shall remain nameless. 

She starts with this sample sentence: "I know I locked that door but now it's open," said Roger.

She rightly points that it doesn't exactly leap off the page. As an alternative she offers this:

"I know," said Roger, staring at the key in his hand, "that I locked that door this morning but now it's open"

She says "by putting the 'said Roger' in the middle of the sentence, we introduce a more interesting rhythm that might catch the reader's attention."

Yeah, that clunking sound caught mine.

That's a TERRIBLE way to break up that sentence! 

Better:  "I know that I locked that door this morning," said Roger, staring at the key in his hand, "but now it's open."

Here's another option she offers: "I know I locked that door but new it's open?" Roger spoke in such a way that suggested he was asking her a question. Susan wondered if he was now doubting the 'fact' that he had locked it.

"In such a way that suggested he was asking a question." Clunk and double clunk.

One more example is all I can stand:

"Aren't we going to be late?" asked Anna, glancing up at the station clock.

Jeff was searching in his pocket for the tickets. "Not if we get a move on," he retorted without looking at her."

In your writing, please don't make anybody retort. 

Ever.

LIsten, i know the world is full of bad writing like that and normally it doesn't disturb my Zen-like demeanor. But when it comes from someone holding these up as examples to learn from, it's more than I can stand. 

I'm off for some calming deep breathing and a gin and tonic.
 

(I'm confident you will find better advice in my book, "Your Writing Coach," published by Nicholas Brealey and available from Amazon and other online and offline retailers.)

A creative genius outdone by Public Relations

This short animated film tells part of the story of one of the great but largely forgotten creative geniuses, Nicola Tesla, and how superior PR prevailed (for a time) over a superior idea. If you want to find out more about Tesla, a longer documentary about him is available in ten-minute chunks on YouTube, starting with this. 

Thinking for a change

"Thinking for a Change," reviewed by Jurgen Wolff from jurgen Wolff on Vimeo.

What is M. Night Shyamalan's secret? I don't know--do you?

"The Last Airbender," the latest film from the M. Night Shyamalan has stayed on trend, if the reviews are to be believed--namely that, after a brilliant start with "Sixth Sense," each film he makes is worse than the one before it. Among the choice descriptions of "Airbender" are "incomprehensible plot, laughable dialogue, and a joyless sense of detachment" (from the Rotten Tomatoes site).

Nonetheless, it took in something like $40 million on its first weekend, a very respectable showing. Some of those flocking to see it presumably are fans of the TV series. And there might be some die-hard fans of MNS left despite his last two or three films.

There has also been controversy over the casting of non-Asian actors in Asian roles although more than one critic has pointed out that the biggest handicap of young lead actor Noah Ringer isn't that he's not Asian, it's that he can't act.

In an interview with the Washington Post's Jen Chaney,  Shyamalan said, "The thing that’s protected me creatively is that the movies have made profits. Basically all of them except one have made a lot of profit. That’s been a great source of protection for my creative side, which then protects the commerce."

I haven't seen "Airbender" and, based on the reviews, I'm not sure I want to give it two hours of my life, but if it continues to make money, we'll be seeing more movies (dead or alive) from MNS, including the rest of the planned "Airbender" triology. 

Of course it isn't the first bad movie to make money and it won't be the last. But to consistently disappoint and still make money is a rare talent. What's the secret? 

(There's more about screenwriting at my newest site, www.ScreenWritingSuccess.com)

Protecting your material--and yourself

 The Electronic Frontier Foundation does a very worthwhile job spreading information about threats to free speech and freedom of information but also cares about the rights of copyright holders. Here's a short animation that dramatizes the issues they focus on (the first one is especially relevant to writers):

http://w2.eff.org/ninapaley/

(If you want to protect your manuscript or screenplay or other material, you can find out about how to do it here: http://timetowrite.com/protecting-your-material/)

Writers: Be aware (and beware) of this new book format

Waterstones, the book chain, is promoting a new series of ebooks it calls Brainshots. Is it just me, or does anybody else think that's an awful title? At least for anybody old enough to remember the Kennedy assassination...

Anyway,here's how they describe it:

BRAIN SHOTS: Byte-sized books for busy people

Brilliant ideas are at the heart of the books published by Bodley Head (part of the Random House Group) - but knowing that not everyone has the time to read all 400+ pages of each of their titles they've created Brain Shots: 'big idea' books in a byte-sized format.

The Brain Shots series covers a diverse range subjects - from international crime to medieval history; from what maths can teach you about winning the lottery to what listening to Bach, or Blur, does to your brain. Each Brain Shot captures the essence of the original, full-length book - but is now available in a concise and accessible eBook and audio format. Now for the first time, there is time to read the latest in contemporary thought.

Authoritative authors, original ideas, expert analysis and unique insight - there's a brilliant idea in every shot.

The titles available in this format include "Essential Things You Didn't Know You Didn't Know," "The Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England," and "The Emperor's New Drugs." The prices range from £3.99 to £5.01 (not sure where they penny comes in...). 

The original "Essential Things" book is actually called "100 Essential Things...", has 304 pages and costs £8.99 at Waterstones. The full ebook version costs £8.18--you don't save much even though you're giving paper, binding, glue...). 

The Brainshot version is 60 pages long and costs £3.99 . Did you notice that the price hasn't gone down in the same proportion as the page count? Based purely on the page numbers, the Brainshot version should cost about £1.70. However, presumably we are getting the BEST 60 pages. It makes you wonder whether it needed to be 304 pages long in the first place.

I'm sure they are tracking carefully whether selling the abridged e-book versions stimulates or stunts sales of the hard copy or the full ebook editions.

Pearson US is doing something somewhat similar with chapters of my book, "Focus: use the power of targeted thinking to get more done," but so far I haven't received word of how the sales are going.

I suspect we're going to be seeing more of this--and authors need to check their contracts carefully to make sure they benefit appropriately. 

I'm not suggesting that Random House isn't being fair to their writers in this regard, only that often the first contract you are offered skews too far in the direction of the publisher. If you can't get an agent or don't want one, hire a lawyer familiar with the book world to check the contract for you and negotiate on your behalf. Some will do it for a flat rate, others will charge you by the hour (be sure to ask the hourly rate in advance). 

(If you're thinking of writing a book, see my book, "Your Writing Coach," published by Nicholas Brealey and available from Amazon and other online and offline retailers. You can also get a free "getting started writing your non-fiction book guide" at www.timetowrite.com.)

So you don't write every day? Read this!

We read so often about writers who say "I write every day--I can't go to sleep unless I've written something," that we may start to feel like imposters if we don't have this compulsion. I've had several aspiring writers "confess" that they don't write every day and they were surprised to hear that I don't either, unless I'm on a deadline that requires it.

I was reading an interview with novelist Gayle Brandeis ("Self Store," "Delta Girls") recently and she said this:

"I am a completely undisciplined writer. I have no schedule, other than writing when I find slivers of time. My tendency in the past has been to write in big sloppy bursts--I sometimes go for weeks without writing, and then I'm consumed by the need to write and it will gush out quite abundantly (plus I'm a big fan of writing a quick first draft and then using subsequent drafts to shape and hone the work). The non-writing times have been fertile, percolating times, filling the well so it can spill over again."

She's so "undisciplined" that she's managed to write three novels. In the interview she talks about how her book, "My Life With the Lincolns" was rejected as an adult novel and she re-worked it as a Young Adult book, which also required energy and commitment.

So here's to us "undisciplined" writers, it turns out we're not imposters after all!

Want to solve a problem? You may be thinking about the wrong things

In an interview on the Fertile Unknown site, creativity expert Paul Scheele comments on how we get it wrong when we try to solve problems:

"If we examine time allocation, 20% of the time is spent in problem definition and solution finding, then 80% of the time is devoted to implementation. I can virtually guarantee that the solutions will have emerged from the same problem solving approach that unintentionally put the problem in place to begin with.

We need to switch that equation around. Take 80% of your problem solving time in problem definition and solution finding. Explore seven, nine, or eleven potential solutions. Challenge each solution by anticipating the ways things could go wrong with implementation and build in creative approaches to maximizing the potential benefits. Then, 20% of your time will be devoted to implementation, which will also move much more smoothly and effortlessly. Spend more time in exploration of the problem – more time in creative exploration, new and unexpected solutions can emerge."

The next time you have a challenge, try devoting more time to defining it. What is it all about? What is it a part of? What are its constituent parts? Then generate more possible solutions than you normally would. Force yourself to go past the obvious or easy answers.

(For more ideas on how to focus your attention, solve problems, and overcome procrastination, see my book, "Focus: Use the power of targeted thinking to get more done" -- get the one with the yellow cover, that's the new expanded edition. Available from Amazon and other online and offline retailers.)

Are you writing something set in the future? Or just curious what it will be like?

BigThink.com asked a variety of big thinkers what life will be like in 2050. A few of the predictions:

 * Much more massive cities, with changes that (like the internet) are basically invisible, so cities will not look that different 

* The divisions between home and work life will fade away totalliy

* There will be a return to local crops and an emphasis on eating slow, real, local,and fresh.

Of course, pundits are notoriously bad at predicting the future. I can remember from the covers of magazines my father used to read that we should all have our own one-person helicopters now, or at the very least jet packs. 
 

Video phones (in wristwatches) are long overdue but maybe the new iPhone moves us closer. 
 

We should be eating flavorless food pellets (Chicken McNuggets?) and have a staff of robots at our beck and call. 
 

Oh yeah, nobody should be going hungry, either, and there should be world peace. 
 

What happened?