Eleanor Arnason's Blog, page 74

Today

I woke up feeling pretty good and thought, This is my favorite part of the day. Patrick is still asleep. The apartment is quiet and cool. (We have air conditioning, but it is not holding its own against the 90+ midday and evening heat.) I drink freshly made coffee and eat toast with marmalade.

Then I made a mistake: I read the news. The problems of the Murdoch publishing empire are fun, but I am not enjoying the budget struggles of the US Government and the State of Minnesota.

Now I am grouchy.

Obama's Cure

This is from Michael Hudson's blog. He's an economist I pay attention to.

When I was in Norway one of the Norwegian politicians sat next to me at a dinner and said, "You know, there's one good thing that President Obama has done that we never anticipated in Europe. He's shown the Europeans that we can never depend upon America again. There's no president, no matter how good he sounds, no matter what he promises, we're never again going to believe the patter talk of an American President. Mr. Obama has cured us. He has turned out to be our nightmare. Our problem is what to do about the American people that don't realize this nightmare that they've created, this smooth-talking American Tony Blair in the White House."

APOD

What's that astronaut doing? Unloading a space shuttle -- for the last time. After the space shuttle Atlantis docked with the International Space Station (ISS) last week, astronaut Mike Fossum underwent a long spacewalk that included carrying a Robotics Refueling Mission (RRM) payload from Atlantis' cargo bay to a platform used by the space station's famous robot DEXTRE. On Earth, the RRM box would have the weight of about three people and be much more difficult to carry. Pictured above on the far left, DEXTRE prepares to help move a failed space pump back to Atlantis. Visible behind the astronaut is the space station's Kibo Experimental Module. The much awaited final shuttle return flight is currently scheduled for 5:56 am EDT Thursday, July 21.

Money # 1

I'm going to talk about money, since writing is -- to a considerable extent -- about money.

First of all, it is not easy to write while working full time.

Second, publishers used to want one book a year from writers. That was how you built a career: by building an audience. I could never write that quickly, in part because I was working a day job. What I am hearing now is that publishers want two books a year. What I am also hearing is that the money you make from writing two books a year isn't really a living.

This is a Catch 22. In order to write enough to establish a career and be able to become a full time writer, you need to be a full time writer already.

A lot of the writers I know have a partner who has a day job. This provides health insurance, which is increasingly expensive, and gives the household some financial stability; and the writer can focus on writing, rather than on making a living in some other way.

My technique for many years was to work part time and write part time or work full time and then quit and write full time for a while. This enabled me to write five novels and gain a modest reputation. I never made a living.

Then, around fifteen years ago, I looked at the neat little printout that Social Security used to send everyone and realized that I wasn't going to have enough for retirement. So I focused on working and building up my Social Security for 10+ years. Now I'm retired, with enough money to survive, and am writing full time. It took me till I was 66 to become a full time writer.

Always remember that I am a slow writer, who tinkers a lot with her writing and who takes time off from writing to think or enjoy life. Way back, when I was much younger and publishing was different, I had dreams of making a living as a writer; and I got very frustrated because my career never took off. I finally realized that I was not going to be one of those miracle writers, who can making a living from a handful of books, and I felt I simply could not write enough -- which was one book a year in those days -- to build a mid-list career. What I settled for was writing the best I could and building a reputation. If possible, I want to be part of the history of science fiction and the history of American literature.

I am not trying to be depressing here. I guess I am saying, think about what you want from writing and think about what you feel you can do. I found it easier to work day jobs, with benefits, than to write quickly; and I realized that what I really wanted was to write as well and carefully as I could, to have the luxury of discarding bad work and of walking away from bad deals.

How to Write Mid List Fiction # 1

I have been reading Kristine Katherine Rusch on the business of writing, because it's been a long time since I thought about writing as a business, and publishing is changing, due to Kindle and Nook. She sounds authoritative, and the topic is interesting to me at the moment.

Then I got to her advice on how to write, if you're going to survive as a writer. I'm less sure about this.

Rusch says writers should think of themselves as storytellers, rather than authors. I think she's telling people to not take themselves too seriously. Don't think of yourself as a fine art or literary writer.

She says writers should write fast, not worry about revising and not worry about style. Practice will make one a better writer and practice will enable one to find one's "voice."

According to Rusch, the famous writers -- the ones we still read, like Dickens and Shakespeare -- wrote fast. It is certainly my impression that Dickens was a fast writer. He wrote 14.5 novels in 34 years. That's half a large novel a year, which is impressive, but not as impressive as Rusch, who can write four to six novels a year.

Shakespeare wrote 1.6 plays a year during his working life, which is lot more than most modern playwrights, though Shaw must have him beat. Again, this is impressive, but not as impressive as the number of words Rusch has put out. Remember that a play script is a lot shorter than a novel.

Then there are the novelists who were far less prolific: Emily Bronte (1 novel), Charlotte Bronte (4), Herman Melville (4), Jane Austen (6), Lady Murasaki (1), Wu Cheng'en (2). This is off the top of my head. All these people are still read. I am not an Emily Bronte fan, but I love Jane Eyre, Moby Dick, The Tale of Genji, The Journey to the West and all of Jane Austen's novels.

I suspect all of these writers revised and thought about style. Shakespeare had an amazing vocabulary and was a master of the mot juste. I don't think that this came out of nowhere or even from writing a lot. It came from study and thought and craft. Here is Macbeth, after murdering King Duncan:

Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood
Clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather
The multitudinous seas incarnadine,
Making the green one red.

And from a dictionary:

incarnadine
1591 (adj.) "flesh-colored," from Fr. incarnadine, from It. incarnadino "flesh-color," from L.L. incarnatio (see incarnation). The verb properly would mean "to make flesh colored," but the modern meaning "make red," and the entire survival of the verb, is traceable to "Macbeth" II ii. (1605).

I add the dictionary quote because it's interesting, and "incarnadine" is a neat word. It rolls off the tongue. Redness spills from it.

How to Write Mid List Fiction # 2

Rusch is talking about production writing. I borrow the term from weaving. When you go to an art fair and find handmade scarves for $50, you are looking at the work of a production weaver. Rather than make elaborate and difficult works, which will cost a lot and may not sell, she makes many works quickly: scarves, table runners, napkins. This is not bad work. Often it's lovely. But it's designed to be turned out quickly and to sell at an affordable price.

There are production potters and silversmiths. I have a lot of work by both. The point is to do work that is predictable and can be turned out quickly. Experiments take time and may fail and have to be redone. You do them to learn. But if every piece is an experiment, you are going to lose money.

Rusch excludes "literary" writers, the people who live off grants and teaching, from her discussion; and she excludes writers with day jobs, and writers who do well enough to publish a book every few years. As far as I know, Harper Lee has been living off To Kill a Mockingbird since 1960.

I think she unestimates the number of writers who can live off one book a year. That is the normal production rate for the mystery writers I read. This is time enough to revise and think about style, unless you are slow as I am.

But she is talking about production rates that amaze me: four to six books a year!

I can't argue with her advice to production writers. I can't imagine wanting to be one. I try to make everything I write an experiment of one kind or another. If I think I've written this particular story before, I toss it. I revise. I worry about style, constantly tinkering with words.

I have never come close to making a living. I once told an editor that what I made from writing kept me in conventions and Laura Ashley skirts. It's pocket money.

So, why do I write? To entertain myself. To deal with life. To impress my friends and relatives. To gain praise and pocket money. I would like undying fame, but will keep on without it.

The Last Approach

For the last time, the US Space Shuttle has approached the International Space Station (ISS). Following a dramatic launch from Cape Canaveral last week that was witnessed by an estimated one million people, Space Shuttle Atlantis on STS-135 lifted a small crew to a welcome rendezvous three days ago with the orbiting station. Although NASA is discontinuing the aging shuttle fleet, NASA astronauts in the near future will be able to visit the ISS on Russian space flights. Pictured above, Atlantis rises toward the ISS with its cargo bay doors open, showing a gleaming metallic Raffaello Multi-Purpose Logistics Module. Over 200 kilometers below lie the cool blue waters of planet Earth. The much-anticipated last glide back to Earth for the Space Shuttle is currently scheduled for next Thursday, July 21.

How to Write Mid List Fiction # 1

I have been reading Kristine Katherine Rusch on the business of writing, because it's been a long time since I thought abut writing as a business, and publishing is changing, due to Kindle and Nook. She sounds authoritative, and the topic is interesting to me at the moment.

Then I got to her advice on how to write, if you're going to survive as a writer. I'm less sure about this.

Rusch says writers should think of themselves as storytellers, rather than authors. I like stories, but there are other kinds of fiction, written by people like Borges and Calvino. "Don Quixote by Pierre Menard" is not a typical story. Nor is Calvino's Invisible Cities. I love both. I suspect both will last.

She says writers should write fast, not worry about revising and not worry about style. Practice will make one a better writer and practice will enable one to find one's "voice."

According to Rusch, the famous writers -- the ones we still read, like Dickens and Shakespeare -- wrote fast. It is certainly my impression that Dickens was a fast writer. He wrote 14.5 novels in 34 years. That's half a large novel a year, which is impressive, but not as impressive as Rusch, who can write four to six novels a year.

Shakespeare wrote 1.6 plays a year during his working life, which is lot more than most modern playwrights, though Shaw must have him beat. Again, this is impressive, but not as impressive as the number of words Rusch has put out. Remember that a play script is a lot shorter than a novel.

Then there are the novelists who were far less prolific: Emily Bronte (1 novel), Charlotte Bronte (4), Herman Melville (4), Jane Austen (6), Lady Murasaki (1), Wu Cheng'en (2). This is off the top of my head. All these people are still read. I am not an Emily Bronte fan, but I love Jane Eyre, Moby Dick, The Tale of Genji, The Journey to the West and all of Jane Austen's novels.

There are short story writers who are not prolific. For example, Ted Chiang, who writes one or two stories a year, which end in "best of" anthologies and win awards.

I suspect all of these writers revised and thought about style. Shakespeare had an amazing vocabulary. I doubt that this came out of nowhere, or even from writing a lot. It came, I really think, from study and thought and craft. Here is Macbeth, after murdering King Duncan:

Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood
Clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather
The multitudinous seas incarnadine,
Making the green one red.

And from a dictionary:

incarnadine
1591 (adj.) "flesh-colored," from Fr. incarnadine, from It. incarnadino "flesh-color," from L.L. incarnatio (see incarnation). The verb properly would mean "to make flesh colored," but the modern meaning "make red," and the entire survival of the verb, is traceable to "Macbeth" II ii. (1605).

How to Write Midlist Fiction # 1

I was reading Kristine Katherine Rusch on the business of writing, because it's been a long time since I thought abut writing as a business, and publishing is changing, due to Kindle and Nook. She sounds authoritative, and the topic is interesting to me at the moment.

Then I got to her advice on how to write, if you're going to survive as a writer. I'm less sure about this.

Rusch says writers should think of themselves as storytellers, rather than authors. I like stories, but there are other kinds of fiction, written by people like Borges and Calvino. "Don Quixote by Pierre Menard" is not a typical story. Nor is Calvino's Invisible Cities. I love both. I suspect both will last.

She says writers should write fast, not worry about revising and not worry about style. Practice will make one a better writer and practice will enable one to find one's "voice."

According to Rusch, the famous writers -- the ones we still read, like Dickens and Shakespeare -- wrote fast. It is certainly my impression that Dickens was a fast writer. He wrote 14.5 novels in 34 years. That's half a large novel a year, which is impressive, but not as impressive as Rusch, who can write four to six novels a year.

Shakespeare wrote 1.6 plays a year during his working life, which is lot more than most modern playwrights, though Shaw must have him beat. Again, this is impressive, but not as impressive as the number of words Rusch has put out. Remember that a play script is a lot shorter than a novel.

Then there are the novelists who were far less prolific: Emily Bronte (1 novel), Charlotte Bronte (4), Herman Melville (4), Jane Austen (6), Lady Murasaki (1), Wu Cheng'en (2). This is off the top of my head. All these people are still read. I am not an Emily Bronte fan, but I love Jane Eyre, Moby Dick, The Tale of Genji, Journey to the West and all of Jane Austen's novels.

There are short story writers who are not prolific, for example Ted Chiang, who writes one or two stories a year, which end in "best of" anthologies and win awards.

I suspect all of these writers revised and thought about style. Shakespeare had an amazing vocabulary. I doubt that this came out of nowhere, or even from writing in volume. It came from craft. Here is Macbeth, after murdering King Duncan:

Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood
Clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather
The multitudinous seas incarnadine,
Making the green one red.

How to Write Mid List Fiction # 2

I am being unfair to Rusch. She is talking about how to become a mid list genre writer, and her rules are for people who want a living from writing.

She is warning aspiring genre writers about getting obsessed with style. Mostly -- I think it's fair to say -- genre fiction is about the story line, which is often stereotyped. This kind of fiction is about the pleasure of reading a familiar story. Even though it's familiar, the story matters; and this means language should not get in the way.

As a rule, the reader of genre fiction -- space opera, mystery, romance -- is reading for character and plot. She does not want to keep tripping over the style.

There is science fiction that plays all kinds of games with style. Think of J.G. Ballard. And there is fantasy that uses lush language. Think of Gene Wolfe. But Rusch isn't talking about this kind of writer.

For the most part, commercial writers make their living through volume. As I mentioned, Rusch can write 4 to 6 novels a year. This means fast writing is essential, and revising becomes a problem, if it interferes with production.

I guess I am bothered by Rusch, because I write slowly. I feel defensive reading her, because she doesn't seem to allow any space for the kind of writer I am.

Why do I write slowly?

I'm a slow person. So far today, I have exercised, done a load of wash and a bit of other house work, read facebook and three blogs, and written these two posts. That has taken almost seven hours, most of it spent writing and revising. I need to think things through, write them down, then decide if I've said what I wanted to say. Some stories flow out. Those are the magical ones, that seem to come from a muse. In a lot of fiction, I'm feeling my way line by line. I stall and have to stop for a day or a month or more. I stopped for years between the first and second halves of A Woman of the Iron People and wrote an entire other novel.

This way of writing -- the slowness and the stops -- does not a commercial writer make. I knew from the the start I was not likely to make a living from writing, and I didn't want to rely on writing. I wanted to be able to walk away from a deal if I didn't like it. I did this once, when a publisher wanted changes to the politics of a novel.

Some of what Rusch says I really agree with. You need to know the business aspects of writing. No one is going to take care of you, and there are many ways to screw up or be screwed over.

I think her advice to aspiring commercial writers is probably good, though I don't know enough to be sure.

But I think there is room for someone who writes the way I do. For me, it seems that the slow and thoughtful method works; and feeling your way through a story line by line can lead to interesting and unexpected places.