Category Archives: Writing

My book’s just 99 cents this month, look at the kitty

Yeah, fine, it’s already halfway into the month and I should have advertised it two weeks ago, but I’ve been busy neglecting to do that, so I didn’t get a chance to do it.

Praise of Motherhood is just $0.99 as a Kindle ebook this month. It’s been nominated for ForeWord’s Book of the Year award, and it’s got lots of nice reviews from people on blogs, magazines, and Goodreads. If that doesn’t sell it, it… has… a foreword from Caleb J Ross, who is nice, and… doesn’t… feature…

… vampires. I think.

Please buy my book. Please. Please.

kitty

Look at the goddamned cat. It’s frickin’ adorable. Buy the damned book.

 

How to be absolutely fascinating

I have a few pictures of myself graduating from high school, and on a recent trip back home to Portugal I found them in a box full of other embarrassing mementos. I know, just from looking at those pictures, that I was in good physical condition, and that my hair has never been quite as luxuriously indifferent to the world since I left school.

PJ Grad

Keeping grinning, kid.

Most of it is a blur, of course. I don’t really remember much about that day, not on the whole, except that I had very suddenly (the night before) embarked on a wildly terrifying and fun romantic whirlwind with someone I’d just met. And that I drank less champagne than I should have.

I also know I that gave a graduation speech, and that I hadn’t been the popular choice for that task. I like to think I didn’t disappoint the critics in my class: I made no mention of how much fun our class had had together, and I didn’t try to highlight the cohesion of the group, the debt we owed to our teachers, the memories we’d cherish forever.

Instead, I addressed the younger students, tried to imply (without overtly criticizing anyone) that it was worth trying to talk to those in the student body who were usually isolated, and offered some other sound bites that weren’t particularly in keeping with previous graduation speeches at that school.

Yep, I was that kid, the loner on a messianic mission.

The only things I knew were keeping me going at that time were a total faith in my ability to “do better” than I’d done so far, and the incredible relief of seeing the light at the end of what I thought to be a very dark tunnel: the end to five years at an expensively impersonal boarding school.  They were years of feeling utterly alone, and although I didn’t quite want to admit it at the time, a lot of that loneliness had come about through my own social ineptitude and my own glorification of it, the self-serving belief that chosen isolation was better than the nothingness of popularity.

It may not be surprising that it was around that time I read Kierkegaard most obsessively.

While many parents came up to me to congratulate me after the speech, what I remember most is a few unpleasant glares from my classmates as I walked off the podium. They were probably right: I was the school’s best student, and one of its unhappiest. I’d trained myself badly. I would have preferred more friends and less publicly acknowledged brilliance. I’d have tried less hard to stand out because of my achievements if I’d felt like I had a place.

But on that graduation day, smiley and enamored as I was, there was very little inside me that you could call happy. The killer part is that a lot of that unhappiness was a result of my own decisions, and had been innocently encouraged by a school that wanted a truly good student and which, in the end, was much less to blame for my unhappiness than I thought at the time.

I was publicly aggressive. Because I got along with the teachers (yep, I was also that kid), I was often given, hmm, special privileges. Sometimes they let me get away with things I really shouldn’t have been allowed to consider doing at all. That, too, was ultimately counterproductive. It made me feel comfortable not following the rules, and making up for it by being a high achiever. This is a stupid attitude to create in yourself: the idea that as long as you keep on being excellent at a few things, you are exempt from social niceties. You lose friends that way, and eventually you lose all sense of what you actually are: a mortal, flawed, egotistical kid.

When I left school, I spent a year “finding myself” in the world. Technically, I found very little of myself. I discovered ways of being more sociable (tip: ask people questions about themselves before you announce the death of civilization) and I got some travel experience.

But the most valuable part of that year, I think, was the chunk of time I spent living in Turkey. That was truly life-changing, and I wish I’d kept the true lesson of those months in mind later. I moved to Istanbul to live with a friend I’d met while traveling there the previous summer, and I set myself a stupid, helpful, reductive goal:

I would not leave Turkey until I’d spent three months talking to 30 strangers a day.

With the exception of Sundays, when I was allowed to slack off, I had to approach 30 different people every day and talk to them, however briefly: young or old, male or female, hostile or welcoming. It didn’t matter if it was only for ten seconds. It didn’t matter if it went terribly wrong. The only goal was to have a verbal exchange with 30 strangers.

Why? Because I was a wuss. I was afraid of people. I had managed to go my entire life without ever feeling comfortable around people. I’d told myself I was absolutely fascinating, and I’d proved it by being absolutely fascinating to those who bothered to notice, without ever really sitting down to ask myself whether I was okay. The short version is that I wasn’t okay. I was academically “okay”  and I had developed an unapologetically vicious sense of humor; I had a naturally athletic body (though even that deteriorated for a few years) and few obvious nervous tics.

This is Howard Roark, who never cared what anyone thought, ever. And was a fictional character.

The result was that I could be clever and funny and presentable for the first few hours of meeting someone, and beyond that I felt stifled by my own inadequacies. What was there to me, beyond what I already knew and couldn’t communicate? Even if I had interesting things to say, or assumed I did, there was always a hostility to the way I handled social situations, something irrationally aggressive and individualistic, that stopped me from making friends. It was sheer self-defense. And I hadn’t even read Ayn Rand.

Those months in Istanbul were transformative because I had to humiliate myself. I decided to get humble. Realistic. The first couple of weeks were terrifying: I relied on a Turkish phrasebook, which I would use to approach some random old man, some store clerk with nothing else going on. I’d point at a Turkish word and ask them how to pronounce it. They usually looked amused, and helped me out. Then I thanked them and left the scene. That was one. Only twenty-nine more to go.

I knew it would pay off, because it was logical that it should pay off. Talking to thirty strangers a day is scary even when you’re “normal” or well-adjusted. I was no longer able to come across as absolutely fascinating for a few hours, and then crash and burn. I had a few seconds of a stranger’s time, multiplied by thirty. That was it. Many of these people spoke no English. They looked at me as if they thought I was the weird thing they’d seen that day, and I probably was. I had a forehead covered in sweat, I kept grinding my teeth, and there’s also this: I was walking around asking people how to pronounce words in Turkish.

But after the first two weeks, things picked up very, very quickly. It was a dramatic difference. I started making friends. The scary part died down, and it turned fun. Because I didn’t know anyone there except the friend I lived with (who worked at a fashion design office until midnight every weekday, and so couldn’t keep me company), I had to start from scratch. I went from having no sense of what was happening around me to getting the numbers of many new people.

I remember a dude with a ponytail called Ugur in particular, because we both played bass guitar and I met many new people through him. I went on dates, and wrote a lot of songs. An unusually poppy track that I recorded recently features a section that I wrote back then. (It’s the obnoxious “I don’t wanna go home again!” part, which probably isn’t surprising.)

Kierkegaard’s handwriting here spells out the following words: “I should really get a social life.”

What initially took me four or five hours, with a lunch break in between, ended up taking no more than two on a normal day. I knew the most crowded places (my favorite was Taksim, which is worth witnessing for yourself if you ever go, because some vendors will try to sell you your own shoes if they feel cocky; when you sound American, you make an obvious target) and I went out there, talked to my strangers, and left.

Sometimes I cheated: If I talked to someone who was in a group, I counted every single person to whom I addressed at least a word. But that was okay. I was happier.

I have never been quite so sociable since. It’s a shame that, over time, I forgot the biggest lesson: that I was only happier because I’d tried to overcome my own pathologies. I’d admitted to myself that there were things to work on, and then I’d gone out and tried my best. When I left Turkey I felt better than I had ever imagined feeling.

I went to university, and fell prey to many of the traps of undergraduate life: inflated sense of my own understanding of the world, libido, and a tragic forgetfulness when it came to recalling how much happier you can be when you just admit you’re still learning to learn how to live.

How to come out as a writer (video)

I’d like to make a weekly stupid video gently mocking various things in the writing world, but I’m not sure how feasible it is. I get bored easily with such projects. It could end up being a monthly thing.

Anyway: behold!

Lying, memoir and literary detail: a recording of my talk at St Anne’s, Oxford

I was invited to give a talk on the 17th January at St Anne’s College, Oxford, and I’m glad I went. Very friendly people, good questions, and a lot of free sandwiches. Seriously, so many free sandwiches. I had about 7 and took 2 with me. No remorse.

My talk was about how I wrote Praise of Motherhood, my unconventional memoir about my mother’s death. In particular, I talked about how I chose what details to include and what details to leave out entirely, at the cost of factual truth.

I discussed (in far greater depth during the Q&A than during the talk) the distinction between truth and truthfulness.

There’s a recording of my talk you can check out on YouTube. I didn’t include any of the Q&A or the introduction, for various reasons: sound quality, privacy, etc.

Thanks to the friendly folks at Oxford for inviting me.

You’re not helping: the world of haters and publishing fads

It looks like we’re in a relatively quiet moment in the writing world. I say “relatively” because the publishing industry is still changing dramatically and everyone knows it. Still, there hasn’t been a Twilight lately. The Hunger Games is already becoming old news. Depressing to think about it, sure, since everyone was talking about it only months ago. The 50 Shades of Grey thing seems to be dying down as well, which means that we’re in between fads.

I’m not saying the books behind these fads have stopped being relevant, by the way. Twilight will remain a profitable franchise, as will The Hunger Games, as will 50 Shades of Grey. What I’m saying is that it seems everyone’s had enough of buying them in a rush, then moaning about them, or just moaning about them without having bought them.

It’s as a writer that I’m talking right now: a writer who, like most writers, has been mesmerized by the success of this or that fiction franchise, and shared opinions, and noticed a discouraging difference between the size of my bank account and that of, say, JK Rowling’s.

We’re in between fads, and there will be new fads coming along soon enough. But before that happens, before I can be accused of just trying to go against the grain in the heat of the moment, I’d like to say this:

Stop whining about fads in the publishing world.

I’ve said this before, both to weirdly incredulous people sitting right in front of me and to angry people online (who are brilliant and omniscient because they are on the internet), and I’d like to say more eloquently now. Stop whining.

If you “bought a copy of Twilight and gave it a go, but had to put it down because it was so bad” — the only thing you accomplished was adding a few dollars to Twilight’s sales.

If you “can’t believe so many people are reading junk like 50 Shades of Grey” and you’ve “lost all faith in humanity” — take a breath and ask yourself what you actually sound like when you say this stuff.

The point is, if you lament the decline of literary standards, or you wish new, interesting authors were given more of a chance, you are not alone. But you’re not helping by pitting yourself against the masses of idiots who bought 50 Shades of Grey instead of your favorite indie author’s book.

Book fads are the likeliest to involve a reading public you’d never ordinarily call a reading public. If you know people who have only read 10 books and 7 of those books feature Harry Potter, it’s worth wondering what kind of public you’re really missing out on. These are not necessarily voracious readers. From a glass-is-half-full perspective, they collectively injected a lot of money into the book world, at the cost of encouraging publishers to focus even more on trends.

And if you want to be a pessimist, if you want to insist that not only is the glass half empty, it’s almost totally empty, then allow me to take this to an even more extreme height: For every minute you spend worrying about the 50 Shades herd you despise, the hive mentality that magically turns your fight for good literature into something godly and historically necessary, you are wasting a chance to change things for the better.

Perhaps it seems like a lot of work, but let me suggest it anyway: Google something inanely phrased that expresses your feelings about a franchise you hate. I just tried it with “twilight sucks” and got predictable results:

Twilight Sucks Forums

Why Twilight Sucks

100 Reasons Why Twilight Sucks

There’s a whole bunch of Yahoo! Answers posts about this, as well, which feature opening words of the most humbling and depressing variety:

Hello i am composing a list of reasons why twilight sucks. i have already thought of several reasons of my own just wondering other peoples thoughts

You can mock Twilight all you want. I’d rather mock the Pokemon mentality that goes into this kind of debate: Gotta catch all the bad metaphors in Twilight! Gotta list all the reasons my refined reader tastes are offended! Gotta list all the basic rules of good writing I have internalized over my years of publicly talking about my own writing! Gotta mark my territory!

Because that element seems to me worth emphasizing. My scientific research is conclusive: 87.5% of the internet hates every franchise you hate. You are not alone. Everyone agrees with you. Everyone who has ever learned about effective metaphors, either in a high school English class or a college lit class or Wikipedia, agrees with you. That battle has already been won. There is nobody in the world, except maybe people who actually like Twilight, who considers those books well-written.

If you want to wage a war, how about creating a website about an author you consider neglected? No, I mean it. Your favorite indie author has not received the recognition you think she deserves, so why not play a part that doesn’t turn you into another insect voice in the chorus of franchise bashing? You could create a Facebook page called “(Author’s name) deserves more readers” instead of “The Twilight Series Sucks & Stephanie Meyer is a Terrible Writer” — the latter, by the way, beautifully exemplifies the impotent snobbishness of those who gather online to spend some time not actually getting any writing done. Let me quote from their introduction:

These are the types of people this group caters to:

1) People who, upon reading Twilight, immediately vomited and burned their copy of the book as is appropriate for bad literature.

2) People who liked Twilight initially but as the story dragged on recognized Stephenie Meyer’s mindless drivel for what it really is.

3) People who wanted Bella dead from two paragraphs into the first chapter.

4) People who realize that the style in which Twilight is written is, in fact, just properly punctuated fanfiction.

Those are the first 4 of 70 so far, most of which are “suggested by group members.” The hater’s tendency to self-flattery is the marketer’s secret tool. Twilight bashing and Twilight loving are both responsible for Twilight having been a success. Financially helpful hype is generated by hatred, not just fandom. This is not complicated, it’s not a divine revelation, and saying it won’t change the human desire for bonding through mutual interests. But it’s still, as far as I can see, true.

Go write something.

Just tell a goddamn story

Another writing post from the indefatigable Caleb J. Ross… — PJ

Just Tell a Goddamn Story

It’s been my experience that new and veteran writers alike would often do well to circumnavigate classically learned fiction processes entirely and instead focus on one universally important guideline: tell a goddamn story.

By graduation, any university-trained fiction writer will have hacked through years of jargon-infused, overwrought bramble en route the elusive Perfect Piece of Fiction, emerging from the academic experience with a portfolio a few inches fatter, but eluded still.* I’ve met graduates who were stunned, yes stunned, that their nautical themed prose poetry chapbook, despite its technical and linguistic superiority to the mass market paperback tomes filling Wal-Mart shelves, somehow evaded the throngs of avid readers and with them the six-figure advances thrust upon those “Pattersons and Evanobitches” and their knee-padded, open-throated agents. Yes, stunned.

Why the disconnect? Why, after years of studying and perfecting the mechanics of writing are would-be professional writers left to roam as hobbyists?

Two reasons: 1) a false belief that consumers need art, and 2) a false belief that the literary, and all that term implies, is meant to supplant plot.

Function first, then form. Never, for the professionally minded writer, the other way around.

Consumers don’t need art

Fiction writing students are encouraged the way any visual artist is encouraged, to create something of beauty, something with cerebral staying power. The problems is that while this mentality is great for holistic self-worth and liberation (re: liberal arts) from the hard sciences, in the all-important supply v. demand economy not many people care that you created something pretty. People can see pretty for free by looking out their windows.

What people do want is comfort, an escape from everyday life. I know what you’re thinking: “But Caleb, there are plenty of literary masterpieces that make fortunes for their authors.” First, there are fewer than you probably imagine. Second, those literary masterpieces may be technically and linguistically brilliant, but they are amazing stories as well. They sure as hell aren’t prose poems chapbooks.**

Function first, then form. Wall first, then paint. Story first, then the flourishes.

During the 2010 AWP conference in Denver, Colorado, author Tod Goldberg said something important. Very important. He revealed that he teaches writing in his classes as a trade. It’s his job (I’m paraphrasing) to ensure writing students are able to actually work as writers. What a concept, right? This concept once again came to my attention just a few weeks ago when Jan Friedman authored a blog post titled “Commodity Publishing, Self-Publishing, and The Future of Fiction” which explores the idea of story as a product, writing as a commodity. Be sure to check out the comments; to some readers, Jane’s words come across nothing less than sacrilege. ***

Calling a work literary should never be a way to mask your terrible story-telling

Most university level writing classes emphasize all else above plot—focusing on elements such as character development, empathy, metaphor, allegory, and on and on, which I will refer to as “academic elements” for the sake of simplicity—to the extent that a susceptible student might truly believe that round characters and a few footnotes (to help out all those future critics, of course) are all that a story needs. While I agree that academic elements are an extremely important component of a strong piece of literary fiction, the remaining portion—plot—cannot be forgotten.

Function first, then form.

The priority placed on academic elements may be the result of an assumed understanding and appreciation of plot. Perhaps the thought goes that since writing students have spent the first 18 years of their lives watching mainstream, plot-heavy television sitcoms and dramas that professors are basically playing catch-up, trying desperately to elevate an understanding of the academic elements. So, plot gets tossed aside in favor of what is assumed to be lacking (never mind for a moment that the best fiction professors will help students deconstruct those plot-heavy television sitcoms and dramas to help them better understand why they work).

I understand this assumption. I really do. It makes sense. Add to the assumed understanding of plot the fact that academic elements—developing a rounded character, for example—is generally more difficult than creating a plot, and you can see why university writing classes legitimize themselves by liberating students from their self-acquired storytelling knowledge. Anyone can tell you that a man is traveling through dangerous lands to rescue a princes (plot) but it’s much harder to give me a compelling reason why this particular man is traveling through these particular dangerous lands to rescue this particular princess (character development).

A commercially successful fiction writer has to fool readers into art. Feel free to elevate your language, to invert established tropes for the purpose of witty culturally commentary, to craft a page full of beautiful words, but please, don’t forget to tell a goddamn story.

*It is very important that I note how pivotal my university writing experience was. I was one of the lucky ones, instructed by a fantastic professor (Amy Sage Webb, author of the recently released story collection Save Your Own Life), who never overpromised the commercial validity of finely crafted fiction. She is a realist. But I’ve met plenty of writers who weren’t so lucky. This article is for them.

** Prose Poem is certainly a term invented by some writer to appease his own need for categorized validation; the term prose poetry surely isn’t one invented for readers.

*** I must say for the sake of full disclosure that I do not support myself and my family on my fiction writing alone. Every-once-in-a-while I make enough to pay my mortgage, but that’s a stretched every-once-in-a-while, for sure. Personally, I write for the story and the beauty of the language.

The book before the brand

There’s an old saying in the publishing business:

The book before the brand.

It means you treat a book as a thing in itself (theories of deconstruction be damned), and you don’t start trying to create marketing opportunities out of a series of books that haven’t even been written yet, just because they’re going to be the next big thing.

It means, in the end, that you look at a text and think about it and try to get something out of it before you start promoting it, so that it feels important to get the word out there — you need to believe in what you’re promoting.

It’s very time consuming, and nobody actually does it, which is why I made up that old saying in frustration, sadness and smart-aleckry.

————

(This post was written on April 26th, 2012. It lingered in my blog’s drafts section for so long I figured, well, let’s bury it out in the open…)

New column series on LitReactor: Notes from the Drunken Editor

I believe I didn’t announce this last month, so here it is. I’ve got a new column thing at LitReactor called Notes from the Drunken Editor.

In this month’s riveting installment, I use standard joke formats to illustrate (or just mock, very cruelly, like Hitler) certain times of problematic queries that I get.

This is the intro:

Are you familiar with jokes at the expense of artists? Here’s one:

Q: What is the difference between a large pizza and a writer?
A: The pizza can feed a family.

Ha! But as with any profession that’s been around long enough, you don’t need to look very far if you want jokes. They’re often called “case studies” and they can go like this: “This person or company did this and got these results. Let’s look at what happened and learn something from it.”

Professional jokes are like universal case studies, scientifically designed to say a lot in a little. They sum up recurring problems and find common ground in different situations. Lawyer jokes are easy; writing and publishing jokes are trickier, but this one works for me:

A screenwriter comes home to a burned down house. His sobbing and slightly-singed wife is standing outside. “What happened, honey?” the man asks.

“Oh, John, it was terrible,” she weeps. “I was cooking, the phone rang. It was your agent. Because I was on the phone, I didn’t notice the stove was on fire. It went up in second. Everything is gone. I nearly didn’t make it out of the house. Poor Fluffy is–”

“Wait, wait. Back up a minute,” The man says. “My agent called?”

I cringed when I first read that. It rings perfectly true.

So, in today’s cute and clever gimmick, I’m going to offer a list of don’t-dos for authors entering the world of publishing.

————

(Last month, I talked about becoming tougher and more independent as an author.)

Nobody gives a f*** that you wrote something

The single most popular post I’ve written here is Ten Brutally Brutal Writing Commandments. It’s the one that brings in the most daily traffic, and I still think it represents my thinking on writing pretty accurately.

This is a follow-up post from Caleb J Ross, one of my great writing friends, whose novel Stranger Will I’ll be re-releasing in a bigger-badder versino through Perfect Edge this month now that his old publisher closed down.

Nobody gives a fuck that you wrote something.

Every internet-savvy person writes enough text messages, emails, blog posts, or forum messages to fill out multiple books per year. Producing, in-and-of-itself, is not an accomplishment worthy of praise and monetary reward. The truth is nobody but your therapist gives a fuck that you wrote something. And in your therapist’s case, she’s getting paid to feign interest in your output.

Let’s dissect a few of the most common assumptions made by new writers.

Soul Destroying Assumption #1: “People need to read my book”

Most new writers have delusions about how successful they will become as published authors. “Sure, the odds of professional success to the level of sustaining a median lifestyle are terrible. But,” says the naive optimist, “my book is something that people need to read.”

Who the fuck cares? To make a living as an author, you have to forget what you think people need to read and instead focus on what people want to read. This basic rule of economics is precisely why Author is not my primary job title. I write what I want to read. When other people like it, I’m ecstatic. I feel like I’ve found a like-minded community. I’m connecting. All good things. But none of these things are commercially viable on the small scale. I’ve learned this hard lesson, and you should too.

Soul Destroying Assumption #2: “Everyone will love my book”

Writing a book is easy. Publishing a book is easy. When the production of a product is easy, gaining market share (ie, competing against the trillions of other authors out there) becomes incredibly hard. “But everyone,” you argue, “is going to love my book.”

If everyone loved every book ever written, consumers would gladly pay $20 for an ebook and Borders would still exist. The truth is the market simply cannot support every book.

The back-of-the-napkin math

I know that the circumstantial observations I’ve noted above are not going prevent most writers from assuming themselves as the exception. After all, people still buy lottery tickets. So let’s delve into some math.

For an author to make $50K/year, s/he would have to sell 25,000 books annually (10% royalties of a $20 cover price, no advance), using a traditional publishing model. It is commonly stated that a traditionally published book sells around 1,000 copies during its LIFETIME.

For self-publishing, the numbers still aren’t very good. Let’s ignore for now the learning curve and additional expense inherent in self-publishing (hiring editors, cover artists, and printers). If selling your book on Kindle exclusively, at say, $9.99 (which is quite high in my opinion, but I’m trying to paint a rosy picture here), the author would have to sell 7,153 copies annually ($6.99 royalty per book). The average self-published book sells 100-150 copies during its LIFETIME.

The very act of authoring a book is not special. The author, in making a conscious effort to write professionally, is essentially saying “I just invented new blood-borne disease. Who wants it? WHAT?! Nobody wants it?”

Verdict: a substantially small percentage of people give a fuck that you wrote a book.

Soul Destroying Assumption #3: “I’ll be set for life if I can write just one good book”

I’ll give you points for optimism. But as you’ll learn, you can’t feed a family with points.

Think of the publishing sales structure like a grocery store sales structure where the grocery story is equivalent to a bookstore. You approach the canned good aisle. Hundreds of varieties of cans (books) line the shelves. Del Monte (A publisher) knows that it cannot viably support itself by canning and selling only peaches (only romance fiction). So, they produce many different foods (genres), in hopes of integrating themselves into every meal a person eats. You know where the author is in this model? In the fields, picking the peaches, pears, and pineapples to fill the cans.

The publisher has the financial benefit of multiple revenue streams to keep itself alive. If Del Monte only packaged and sold peaches picked by a single picker somewhere in California they wouldn’t survive. Likewise, an author who wants to pick peaches for a single season and be financially set for life is banking on some unrealistically amazing peaches (Nobel Prize winning book).

Writing begins with the message, not with the medium

Writing a novel must be approached as a component to overall personal gratification, not unlike other selfish activities like eating donuts, taking the trash to the curb in the winter without wearing shoes, and masturbation.

The inherent difficulty is that what constitutes personal gratification literally prevents the act from being gratifying to anyone else. But this is the risk we take as authors.

My advice: determine early in your career what kind of books (yes, plural) you want to write.

  • If your primary goal is to be financially sound, then write what sells the most: currently this is fast-paced, young adult, hard-genre fiction or cookbooks.
  • If your primary goal is to write life-changing literature, then do just that, but make sure you’re not burning any day job bridges.
  • If your primary goal is to be financially sound and write life-changing literature, then get a different primary goal. You might luck out and win the lottery, but counting on a lottery win is stupid.

Did you know I’m the person of the year?

Sure, perhaps not for everyone. But when I left my little hotel room in Marrakech this morning to find the internet (25 new emails since I checked yesterday, only 8 of which need a reply, which means I’m still on holiday), I discovered that I was someone’s person of the year. That person runs SYW Magazine (formerly known a little more provocatively as Slit Yours Wrists! Magazine), so it went public.

Ordinarily, it means nothing to be someone’s “something” of the year. We were all Time’s person of the year in 2006, after all.

What makes the difference for me here is the acknowledgement of the things I’ve tried to do in my personal life as well as public:

Over a year ago, I somehow scrounged up the $40 to join an online writer’s workshop known as LitReactor. Not because I wanted to take writing seriously mind you, but rather to show off the suicide letter I was passing off for a novel draft. I’m being serious here, that’s pretty much what it was. When I posted pieces of this document in the workshop, Phil Jourdan was a main person to critique each one of them. At the time, I didn’t know who he was or what people would soon know him to be. I didn’t even know he was the co-founder of LitReactor.

He didn’t critique my bad grammar, the ridiculous use of semi-colons as commas, or the passive voice covering the pages of the manuscript. No – he was able to look at those jumbled words and see an idea I didn’t even know was being portrayed. He discovered this ‘letter’ was a hypocritical message asking for forgiveness from mankind for the action I intended to carry out and a message to stop others from falling onto the same path. I didn’t recognize what he was saying then, but as a slew of overdose attempts continued to fail – I started to think if I’m going to stick around – my letter might as well attempt to become something of literary merit. From those reviews on, I kept writing and always have had his advice in mind.

I feel pleased and, oddly, a bit inadequate — not because I don’t think I’m worthy of being liked, but because I keep having to remind myself (and far more frequently as time goes on) that I’m not a passive observer, that solipsism is cute but hurts others, and that good or bad or humiliating or flattering things can come out of making yourself public over time, but things will happen. I’m glad I’ve got away with what I do so far.

Unrelated:

Are you (and other 2006 people of the year) in Morocco? You and your friends should totally get wasted and come see me speak about the French language, Jacques Lacan and untranslatable words on the 4th of January in Rabat. It’s in French, though, so make sure you’re really wasted if you don’t speak that.
Alors, les détails:
Vendredi 4 janvier, à 15 h, salle des sémianires,  le Laboratoire Langage et société, de la FLSH de l’université Ibn Tofail.
“Lacan et Derrida : un inconscient français dans le discours philosophique anglo-saxon du 21e siècle.”