Q&A with Josh Lanyon discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
THE GREAT ARCHIVE
>
What's New From Josh?
Mod
http://joshlanyon.blogspot.fi/2014/09..."
That was a very good blog post, a bit of an opening of a Pand..."
Yep. Which is why I find myself drawing back more and more and more. Basically our little group here and FB is where I socialize. Because there is a genuine personal connection here. We are online friends. Or at least that's my perception.
The rest of it is increasingly just too much.
Josh wrote: "And to complicate matters there is an expectation that if you are out here in social media, you will be entertaining and interesting to follow/friend.Holy Hell!
It's not enough to show up. You ..."
But you're good at writing them ;-)
Josh wrote: "Varecia wrote: "Johanna wrote: "New blog post When Worlds Collide from Josh:http://joshlanyon.blogspot.fi/2014/09..."
That was a very good blog post, a bit of an o..."
It's not only your perception, I believe. We are online friends here :) That is my perception too.
Josh wrote: "And to complicate matters there is an expectation that if you are out here in social media, you will be entertaining and interesting to follow/friend.Holy Hell!
It's not enough to show up. You ..."
I'm not sure any human being would be able to be all that at all times. Not, and still keep our sanity.
Mod
http://joshlanyon.blogspot.fi/2014/09..."
That was a very good blog post, ..."
Yep, yep. If this isn't online friendship I don't know what is. :-)
I agree with Josh, Anne and Johanna: it feels like online friendship here, definitely.I wonder if a higher proportion of writers are introverts than the average, and that is one reason why they don't relish social media. But so often these days one is expected to be good at marketing just because one is good at something else: why should it be assumed that a good writer will also be good at other things? More importantly, why should he have to spend/waste time which could be spent more productively in writing?
I'm always struck at how brave you are to take on topics such as this. We are friends and I am enriched and glad of it.
Mod
KC wrote: "Anne wrote: "Varecia wrote: "Johanna wrote: "New blog post When Worlds Collide from Josh:http://joshlanyon.blogspot.fi/2014/09..."
That was a very good blog post, ..."
A big part of the problem is the “ I am the center of the universe feeling, that more and more people are developing ( Varecia have said it in better english ). You can find it like a pest plant and the interaction, which said people is often in a way surreal!
Sabine wrote: "KC wrote: "Anne wrote: "Varecia wrote: "Johanna wrote: "New blog post When Worlds Collide from Josh:http://joshlanyon.blogspot.fi/2014/09..."
That was a very good ..."
Yes, surreal; which when the comment is not mean can make it even a bit funny.
KC wrote: "Sabine wrote: "KC wrote: "Anne wrote: "Varecia wrote: "Johanna wrote: "New blog post When Worlds Collide from Josh:http://joshlanyon.blogspot.fi/2014/09..."
That w..."
If I could, I could write books and they were indeed funny!:-D
Mod
I wonder if a higher proportion of writers are introverts than the average, and that is one reason why they ..."
Yes, friends. : )
I'm not so sure whether it's that there's a personality type (introvert) that's particularly drawn to writing or that the nature of the work itself requires solitary space/time for focus. Our (society's) expectations and stereotypes for artists are interesting. There's the tendency to categorize artistic work as "fun" and therefore somehow less important than "work." And there's the desire to have some personal connection to the magic and the magicians. Otherwise why have gallery openings? Just for the free wine and snacks? ; )
My undergrad degree was in Fine Arts (photography) and I spent the late 70's and the 80's coordinating an artists' space, then running a gallery/consultancy showing local contemporary work. My husband was a painter — was, because he pretty much gave up visual art for the tango. And he is an extrovert so I suppose a social expression of artistic impulses was a better fit for him than working alone in the studio. ; )
Anyway, I once almost lost a sale because the client was unsatisfied with my knowledge of the details of our artist's background. I was prepared to talk about the work, but the client wanted a "more personal" context. So we went to the artist's studio.
Also, artists' position in society is often that of the madonna/whore stereotype the 70's feminists tackled. There are very contradictory expectations. If you are successful, you've sold out. But if you're a "starving artist" you must also be entertaining to be included in "higher" society.
Hmmm. Ranting much? And this is about one of my past lives. : )
Mod
I've really enjoyed reading the discussion here and over at Josh's blog. I agree that the increasing attitude of entitlement is troublesome. People forget about boundaries and respect. It's important to remember that artists are people, people with their own lives to live outside of the internet. I would imagine all you authors out there have got folks tugging on your proverbial sleeves all damn day and night wanting attention and wanting a piece of you and that's got to be exhausting all by itself. I agree that we've got a special group here and I value everyone's friendship tremendously. :)
Mod
I wonder if a higher proportion of writers are introverts than the average, and that is one reason why they ..."
Given that writing demands huge amounts of time spent simply thinking and imagining, it seems likely.
There are always exceptions, but if you're the personality type that requires a lot of interaction with people, writing is going to be a tough gig.
Mod
..."
Well...yes! :-D
(And there speaks the writer.)
Mod
I wonder if a higher proportion of writers are introverts than the average, and that is one reaso..."
I don't think that's too negative. I think you're right. And I think some of these expectations/projections even calculate into things like ebook pricing.
Though you don't really see people come out and say so, I think part of the pressure to make ebooks so cheap, to make it so difficult to earn a living writing, is perhaps a little of this idea that creating fiction is not REALLY work. It must be largely a treat, a hobby, something someone does for fun and therefore writers are already getting their reward. Writers get attention and they get to play and should they really earn money for that too?
I don't think it's a conscious attitude, but I do believe it accounts for so much of the illogic regarding how much fiction or music or art should cost. And why you will have people argue sincerely that piracy is absolutely okay, it's a victimless crime.
Mod
Yes, you can definitely smell the entitlement in the air sometimes. But mostly with a certain type of reader.
Part of what someone like me is fighting is the fact that I am a private person living in the age of Reality TV. I have never much believed in this very recent notion of a writing "platform." In fact, the very idea is contradictory to creating fiction, IMHO.
Police officers writing police procedurals, PI's writing PI novels, musicians writing about musicians, etc. I mean, it's not that there's anything wrong with it, but first hand knowledge of a particular job or how the plumbing works does NOT mean that you are the best qualified person to write fiction about characters who share your profession or religion or gender or orientation, etc.
That is a modern and fairly nonsensical notion. This notion of BEING THERE. It's terrific in an autobiography. But fiction is about more than Being There. Fiction requires craft and skill -- it is an art. A demanding art at that.
We see it frequently in this genre where certain male authors are openly bewildered that being a person with a gen-u-ine penis does not automatically equal readership.
But of course it doesn't. Being a prick doesn't automatically mean you can write entertainingly or even convincingly about it.
Mod
I wonder if a higher proportion of writers are introverts than the average, and tha..."
Something I've noticed, is that extroverts don't always understand what it means to be an introvert. They tend to think all people are like them, requiring lots of communication and interaction with other people just to survive. Obviously not all extroverts are like this, but from my experience, a good number of them are, if not most of them.
And that right there plays into the idea that writers are basking in the limelight like actors and actresses walking the red carpet in heels and a shiny dress, and enjoying it. What we enjoy is having other people read our work, enjoy our work, even understand our work, because that means we've done something that is not only pleasing to us, but to others as well. But I think it stops there for a lot of people. They would rather not talk about it to anyone else, except maybe close friends. Stay home on the couch with the laptop or a good book to read, wearing pajamas, staying comfy with the dog or the cat.
Writers seem more like cat people to me, btw. I sort of understand this, but not really. I much prefer dogs. lol.
Mod
That's very true. I know a cop who decided to become a writer for teens. Sure, he's done everything when it comes to being a cop, and his class on undercover work was fantastic. But, his writing... yeah... I didn't get very far in the first book for many reasons.
That said, I know what it's like to be a librarian. But I really don't see how I could write about one, and yes, I've tried. It's just so boring. lol. Unless you count the crazy people that hang out here all day. But on a regular day, not much happens that would make for a good book. Not that I can think of anyway. And maybe that's just me. I do tend to prefer cops and robbers to other, more gentle reading. lol.
Mod
I wonder if a higher proportion of writers are introverts than the ave..."
That's funny, but yes. I do think that non-writing people have a tendency to imagine that things most writers cringe at (lots of personal attention) would be one of the perks of the job. :-D
Mod
Some of the WORST crime fiction I've read has come from cops. Oh my god. Because the very characteristics that make you a good cop can work against you as a writer. In real life you don't want a cop who embellishes and romanticizes and fictionalizes. ;-D
Mod
Sooo true! HA, and that explains why his books are so skinny!
Just read the post, very good, have not read every single comment so if I double up - please excuse.There was a dust-up yesterday on goodreads. The reviewer was pretty awful (she later edited her post so she didn't sound so bad) but still it wasn't a good idea for the author to respond. To make matters worse the author was jumped on not just by readers but by two other authors (which I thought was a low, desperate grab for readers).
It has got me thinking about this though. Unfortunately, most of the writers who respond to readers good and bad are small. They have more time to respond and more time to feel hurt by the things readers say. They're also easy to damage. So I feel like I should mention a few things.
Seventy percent of published writers make less than a thousand dollars a year. That means a book you love (or hate) may be returning on an hourly basis less money than the guy who flipped your most recent burger makes.
I do get why readers sometimes feel cheated and angry after reading a book. It happens to me often. But I only truly feel cheated when I read a bad book from a big publisher (and these days that's at least half of them) ... what big publishers do best is marketing. They don't choose the best books. Their editing has gone down hill. It's all marketing and marketing is always a con job. So, in that case, I think readers should pound away. Yes, there's an author behind it all but they chose to go with the big marketing machine and, hopefully, have the bank account that's supposed to go with that.
But beating up the little guy? A lot of what I see and have occasionally experienced is more like bullying than reviewing. (Yes, bitching a reader out for asking a simple question is stupid and mean. But trumpeting it on social media before she has a chance to think better of it and possibly apologize is also terrible behavior.)
Finally, on Goodreads readers are quick to say "I'm striking you off my list". Well, that's short sighted. By all accounts Truman Capote was a hateful little man - but I think In Cold Blood and Breakfast at Tiffany's are amazing. People say horrid things about Patricia Highsmith and I love her books. My guess is that they'd both have been social media nightmares with readers crossing them off their lists left and right. Which would have been a terrible thing. For the readers.
Mod
There was a dust-up yesterday on goodreads. The reviewer was pretty awful (she later edited her..."
Hey there, Marshall.
As regards reviewing -- a lot of what is referred to now as "reviewing" is really more a kind of social interaction. It's dialog between readers. Which is fine. But a lot of these reviews are not about the books, they are about the reviewer. Increasingly we see reviews as performance pieces. Someone trying to be funny or clever for their bookclub. What is Goodreads if not a collection of online bookclubs?
This is neither bad nor good, it is simply the new reality for all of us.
I noticed a couple of years ago -- first on Amazon -- that there seemed to be a growing trend of hostility toward writers. And while I understand that writers who ceaselessly and tiresomely promote and market themselves in every conversation are unlikeable, it seemed to be more than that.
The tenor of the conversation seemed more generally hostile to writers, period. As though all writers were an opposing army that needed to be squashed before they overran and ruined literature forever.
It's very odd. Like your immune system attacking your own blood cells. But it's also quite serious. These are not folks with a sense of irony. With a few (often mainstream) exceptions, they see authors as the enemy.
I do think that authors need to withdraw from the fray. That authors have made themselves too accessible, too familiar -- and familiarity breeds contempt.
As for the whole I'M TAKING THIS AUTHOR OFF MY AUTOBUY LIST!!! I find that silly. Who the hell autobuys anything in reality? Not me. As much as I adore the authors I adore, of course I look to see if a book is something I'm going to enjoy. Because the authors I adore are perfectly capable of exploring topics and stories I'm not interested in -- not even from them.
Which is how it should work.
The reader is the passenger. The author is the driver. The reader is always free to exit the vehicle. But the driver must decide for himself where he's traveling.
Josh wrote: "We see it frequently in this genre where certain male authors are openly bewildered that being a person with a gen-u-ine penis does not automatically equal readership.But of course it doesn't. Being a prick doesn't automatically mean you can write entertainingly or even convincingly about it...."
Most of us have a gen-u-ine penis. They are just attached to someone else... or know where we can borrow one.
Mod
But of course i..."
LOL
You're right about the book club aspect, which can have very positive results for an author (though sometimes negative). The thing that may become very challenging is that Amazon (which pioneered 'citizen reviews' in order to save themselves money) now owns Goodreads and I have to assume as some point they'll be folding it into their store in some way, shape, or form.
Consequently, things that happen here could become very important. For example many reviewers try to have some integrity and don't want to over-rate books. But, I've heard that Amazon considers a three-star review to be not-recommended. That means if you write a positive, encourage review but give a book three stars (on the principle that you don't give many 5-star reviews) you're actually hurting an author.
On Amazon, discoverability is king and a three star review makes you less discoverable... unless... you're a big author with a big publisher. Then your publisher is buying you space on the front page and with it lots of discoverability. So it really doesn't matter how your book is reviewed.
Also, I find a lot of reviews on Amazon suspicious. There used to be a site that would pay people to do simple tasks at home. Some of that was to review products positively (or negatively). I don't have any proof but I suspect that some of this went on. There are a lot of reviews from people who only reviewed one or two books over the course of many years. That I find suspicious. I also have seen a lot of one line reviews that complain about the book without noting specifics. I've also noted that my self-pubbed stuff gets this kind of review while my work from a publisher does not.
Mod
The thing that may become very challenging is that Amazon (which pioneered..."
I think the new reviewing dynamic must be very frustrating for those serious reviewers.
Companies like Amazon -- as you say -- have encouraged, even pressed everyone who buys anything to offer "a review." And this push to review things that are often quite subjective (a book or a movie, for example) has led to a lot of not-very-useful thinking aloud online. Which makes it harder for the sincere reviewers to get any airplay.
Just as authors are competing for a reading, so are the real reviewers!
And this influx of I-think-blah-blah-blah has damaged the credibility of citizen reviewing as a whole.
We're all suspicious -- rightly so -- of these absolutely unknown authors who pop out of nowhere with 50 5-star reviews the first day. Of course it's bullshit. We all know it. And readers increasingly know it too. We are all increasingly cynical about books, authors, publishing.
I can see it in my own reviews. The books that show up on Net Galley have a zillion reviews. But the stuff I put out myself? A much smaller number of reviews. I don't usually bother to send review copies, so reviewers have to buy their own copies. Which is presumably what is happening with all these zillions of glowing reviews for previously unknown newbies.
And paying for reviews affects their sales too. You buy 50 reviews and you have just guaranteed yourself 50 sales, so now you're on the bestseller list and all those glowing reviews mean that legitimate readers are now discovering you and buying your book -- and if the book is good, well, I guess it's money well-invested. I guess you could look at it as promotion.
I think it's cheating, but...I am sure my objections would be dismissed as sour grapes.
Mod
BUT the pressure to review books is a weird one because not every book really leaves you needing or wanting to review. But I think the desire to get books for free in exchange for "reviews" has led to a fair bit of huh? reviewing. And also because reviewing has become part of the general conversation of books, you have a lot of "reviewing" that is really more just note making on the part of readers. But then authors see it and flip out.
Because a lot of authors still believe reviews are the key to sales and success.
You also have the review-clowns hunting books so that they can be funny for their five followers.
Everybody wants to get in on the act. ;-) I think this is why it's just a relief, so refreshing when you come across people who just want to go read in a hammock. Which is actually still most people.
I was just scanning the reviews of Duck Duck Ghost by Rhys Ford which just came out this morning.Many reviews had arc copies, and said "was given to me in exchange for an honest review."
That term "honest review" sticks in my craw. What, someone out there is going to say their review is dishonest? Those who don't state that the review is honest are suspect? I know it's semantic silliness but it annoys me.
I paid for my copy. Does that make my review more or less honest? :) (That one sentence fragment I manage to squeeze out...)
Did I say before I hate reviewing? Yes, folks, I hate reviewing.
I don't think that reviews - whether citizen or professional - hold the kind of sway they once did. The majors - especially the studios - have done everything they can to destroy professional reviewing. I don't think the quality or the ease of manipulation has created much confidence in citizen reviews. I keep pretty close track of my sales and I can tell you that on Amazon the number of reviews the first Boystown book has is .008% of readers while on Goodreads it's .125%. And neither of those numbers takes into consideration loans and piracy, so the numbers could actually be much lower.
Mod
Many reviews had arc copies, and said "was given to me in exchange for an honest r..."
I used to review all the time for a mystery magazine. I actually enjoyed it a lot. But it is one reason why I am very opinionated about reviews and reviewers. And why I think most of what passes for "reviews" these days are really book reports.
(And book reports that would be getting a "C" grade from me if I was still teaching. ;-) ) That said, I'm actually quite tolerant of reviews from the "just a reader" contributors.
It's the blogs and review sites that are just so godawful amateurish that rile me. Or would if I still read them. But one reason I quit reading reviews was my impatience with what had become of the whole art and craft of reviewing.
Sabine wrote: "KC wrote: "Sabine wrote: "KC wrote: "Anne wrote: "Varecia wrote: "Johanna wrote: "New blog post When Worlds Collide from Josh:http://joshlanyon.blogspot.fi/2014/09......"
:-) I think i lost track a bit of this thread...but just to clarify, i meant that the surreal comments of the "me me me" people can sometimes be seen as a bit funny.
Mod
I've been thinking about that.
Putting aside the fact that it's kind of a childish thing to yell at people -- what does that actually mean?
Because I know in the comment section of my own post there was a remark about "we give you love, etc." and my own reaction was...hmmm.
I think for authors there is a separation of the work and the person, and I believe there is for readers too.
I feel affection for the writers of work I love -- but it's the work I love. I probably know almost nothing about the authors themselves. I was very sad when Mary Stewart died and I will always regret not writing to Hansen because I know he was lonely.
But then that's something that is changing in this new dynamic. An expectation of knowing the person behind the words.
Most of you who regularly check in here know WAY more about me than I ever knew of any author I loved. And there does seem to be this expectation that that's how it works.
And I do want to be liked. Certainly I feel liked and appreciated here -- we're friends. But that's because we know each other.
But is it my *expectation* to be liked -- let alone loved -- by my general reading public?
No. I don't think it is.
I review for a blog site. I consider myself a reactor and not a not a critical reviewer in any way. That would take a wide-ranging, serious background in many genres that I don't have. It's tough to rate a book a 3 because the story/plot was good, but the writing poor. Everyone thinks you're saying the book stinks. I know I'm not. In fact, I think I'm bring fair. I believe I know good writing when I find it and I know what I like. That's about it.
Mod
http://joshlanyon.blogspot.fi/2014/09......"
Yes. I expect that's because reading is now an interactive sport. ;-D
Mod
Phew! *Decides to keep writing those not-real-reaviews-but-more-like-scattered-thoughts of books she really, really likes* :-)
Mod
And that's fine. I think a sincere reaction to a book, good or bad, is useful to other readers, especially when the reviewer can articulate why they reacted they way they did.
As for three stars...well, yeah. I see the dilemma. Nobody likes an average rating. And average doesn't make sense most of the time anyway when it comes to art. Does "average" from you reflect what you think is average for the genre, for the author, for books received at your review site?
And wouldn't "average" depend on whether it was your first review, your twentieth or your one thousandth? ;-D
I think trying to place numerical and grade values on art is part of the trouble. I've received rave three star reviews. And I've received four star reviews that read like a two star review.
And more than once I've read comments like: for anyone else this would be a four/five star, but for Josh Lanyon this is a three/two star. Which means nothing to anyone -- including the reviewer when she looks back in a couple of years and tries to remember if she liked that book or not. :-D
Mod
Phew! *Decides to keep writing those not-real-reaviews-but-more-like-scattered-thoughts of bo..."
You write excellent reviews. You know why I think so? Because you are cogent and articulate, but also because your reviews are very personal and you share why you are reacting the way you do. Anyone reading your review knows exactly where you are coming from. That's useful.
Everything I Know had a couple of hostile but what I would consider ultimately useful reviews. These readers were very clear about what bothered them in the story -- and while I dismissed them as emotionally unsophisticated, I thought the reviews would be helpful to other readers.
Mod
Absolutely true.
Mod
True.
Well, in the same way that being a writer is no longer "special," so too is being a reviewer or a blogger no longer "special."
The old "opinions are like assholes -- everybody has one" has never been truer than it is on Goodreads.
Josh wrote: "Marshall wrote: "I don't think that reviews - whether citizen or professional - hold the kind of sway they once did. The majors - especially the studios - have done everything they can to destroy p..."But it is still a delight when you get a well-written appreciative review. Even if it doesn't sell a lot of books.
Lou wrote: "As an introvert and a private person I share only so much of myself on social media. I have the constant nagging notion I should be more outgoing, promote myself more--and it is certainly what the ..."As a reader I often wonder if an author like that thinks his/ her readers are stupid. At the end of the day, it is the book that counts. Is it good or not, do I enjoy it or nor? Maybe they can fool a reader into buying the first book, but not the next. Give us some credit, please ;)
After a while we also learn to read between the lines when it comes to reviews too, and realise what is real reviews and what is just fan- girling.
And last, some of the most beloved Norwegian books were written by people we know were not nice, the books are still wonderful. Somehow it would be a shame if these stories didn't find an audience because people disliked the author. Or a painter, a musician. There should be a distinction between the artist and the art. This was easier when the artist lived somewhere else, and you never came in contact with them, or expected to. Things are changing and we are in the middle of the change, it isn't easy to see how this will end.
Mod
There's nothing better.
Or one of those lovely, long letters where someone takes the time and trouble to tell you why they enjoyed something you wrote so much.
I still find it amazing that readers care enough to do this.
Lou wrote: "Marshall wrote: "Finally, on Goodreads readers are quick to say "I'm striking you off my list". Well, that's short sighted."I haven't been able to watch any Tom Cruise movies since he'd been reve..."
They both seem to specialize in playing assholes who are really nice guys underneath. Knowing that they're assholes who are really assholes underneath does kind of ruin the illusion.
But it is also different. Someone who's rude on the Internet isn't the same as a wacko cult member and a rampant bigot. Those are actually good reasons not to watch and/or read someone. From what I understand Gibson's anti-Semitism and homophobia came across loud and clear in The Passion of Christ (which I refuse to watch so it's hearsay).
Josh wrote: "Most of you who regularly check in here know WAY more about me than I ever knew of any author I loved. And there does seem to be this expectation that that's how it works...."Oh I don't know. I read all three volumes (three inch thick books each) of Isaac Asimov's autobiographies. He was quite the character and it says a lot about his writing that he could hold my attention while he talked about himself for three books... big books...
You are still a bit of an enigma. Ducking out of the shadows to converse with us. After some authors I follow in FB or Twitter, you are still the Mystery Man.
Mod
I think sometimes it does work though. And I think that is why authors continue to do it.
Some of them seem to believe this is how it's done. That we all do this. I have NEVER paid for a review. Heck, I'm so lame I can't manage to send review copies out to the people asking for them! Let alone would I have time to organize fake reviews.
Some of them believe the field is now so crowded their only chance is to buy their way onto a list.
I have always believed that good writing would ultimately trump all promotion. Especially fake promotion. But...I have to confess that over the past two years I've come to wonder if that's true.
It's kind of depressing, but I think maybe people can buy their way to success.
And I think you are correct about readers being able to read between the lines of reviews. Although again even there, I think the fakers are getting better and better about parroting what a real review sounds like. Maybe because this fake review business is a lucrative one and it behooves the fakers to do their job well?
Again, depressing to think.
And yes, I agree. A lot of fantastic art has been created by some very unpleasant people. But now unpleasantness is not confined to your neighbors and family...now all the world can know how really awful you are. Will it make a difference?
It seems like it might. But then again with all the constant buzz of information and news and blabber who can remember and keep track? I can't keep track of all the people I like, let alone the people I dislike.
Mod
I haven't been able to watch any Tom Cruise movies since he'd been reve..."
That would be nice. I often toy with the idea of making this a closed group, making my FB pages private, withdrawing from everywhere but these two little areas.
The vast majority of my readers do not interact with me online or anywhere else -- I can see that from my sales. So would it matter if I withdrew? Would it maybe even be *better* for sales?
Or would sales plummet if I didn't appear to be accessible?
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Q&A with Josh Lanyon
Books mentioned in this topic
YOOICHI KADONO Sketches:門野葉一 スケッチ集 (other topics)Lament at Loon Landing (other topics)
Perfect Flaw (other topics)
Perfect Flaw (other topics)
The Dickens with Love (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Shirley Rousseau Murphy (other topics)Lilian Jackson Braun (other topics)
Alexis Hall (other topics)
Alexis Hall (other topics)
Alexis Hall (other topics)
More...
Holy Hell!
It's not enough to show up. You have to be warm and witty and accessible and...frankly a lot of stuff that is probably not natural to the writing personality. Certainly not 24/7.
I can happily go DAYS without saying a word, so...