Grammar Still Matters, Don’t It?

Posted on by

by James Scott Bell
@jamesscottbell

What does a grammatically correct owl say? “Whom, whom.”

We all know the language, and the uses thereof, have fallen on hard times. Don’t U feel it 2? Texting, combined with the loss of grammar studies in schools, have set us on the slide toward becoming the Eloi, that docile future race in the The Time Machine who barely talk and are easy prey for the Morlocks.

Sites like X are rife with mistakes, of course, due to dull thinking and quick typing. I recall one of those innumerable back-and-forths dripping with vitriol, where someone ended with this zinger: Your ignirance is not a good look. That used to be called being “hoist on your own petard.” (Now it’s a “self own.”)

In the golden age of newspapers, you had reporters who pounded out stories that were examined by crusty, eagle-eyed editors with blue pencils and cigars, who put the writers through their paces.

What great wordsmiths we had then. I grew up reading the L.A. Times when it was owned by the Chandlers, and had columnists like Jim Murray, Jack Smith, and Al Martinez. And then there were the syndicated writers like Art Buchwald and Jimmy Breslin; and for laughs, Erma Bombeck.

Not to mention the workaday reporters who wrote clear, concise, and factual (remember factual?) stories.

As the publisher Joseph Pulitzer (for whom the prize is named) said of newspaper stories: “Put it before them briefly so they will read it, clearly so they will appreciate it, picturesquely so they will remember it, and above all, accurately so they will be guided by its light.”

Did you notice the word whom in the above parenthetical? That’s because I learned the trick of saying the sentence using him or them, and noticing the m, which means you use whom.

But today, with instant digital publishing and the lack of educated editors, we get the “mistake creep” that threatens to become epidemic. Here are just a few examples I’ve collected over the years:

The trick play gave Georgia a 14-0 lead, while the Michigan defense looked lost on defense on consecutive drives. (Where else would a defense look lost?)

Which doesn’t quite jive with Sunday’s piece. (I’m as much a fan of jazz as the next guy, but jibe is the word.)

I don’t know if the victory that’s already been had will get the attention commiserate with its significance. (Um, commensurate.)

Both real estate agents were reticent in not requesting an amendment to the contract of sale at the time the buyer made the statement. (Reticent means reluctant in speech. The word should be negligent.)

Besides being an alumni at the university, Smith revealed that the young woman also attended the graduate school. (The singular for a female graduate is alumna, but that’s another can of worms. Worse is that the object of the first part of the sentence is the young woman, not Smith. That’s a common error following the comma in a prepositional phrase. See the next example.)

As someone born in 1985, Reagan was long gone from the national scene when I came of age politically. (A neat trick to serve as president before you’re even born.)

I didn’t like it when my beloved English teacher, Mrs. Bruce, made us parse sentences. But I learned. Today, students do that homework by typing, “Grok, parse this sentence for me.”

I’ll quickly add, however, that AI can check your writing like one of those old-time editors, and that’s a valuable tool. Just be sure to ask for notes, not a re-write. Preserve your voice and your humanity. And know that AI may skip aspects of your writing that could be sharpened, so keep on learning your craft. That’s why I keep a copy of Strunk & White and Jan Venola’s Write Right! by my desk. And every so often review my heavily highlighted copy of William Zinsser’s On Writing Well.

An article from Writer’s Digest (Aug. 2002, written by Becky Ohlsen) contains some solid advice on avoiding grammar and stylistic pitfalls.

Lose the flab, modifiers that say nothing, e.g., really, truly, very.

Sentences that start with “There was” or “There are.” Rewriting makes the sentence stronger.
NOT: “There were three people dancing in the street.”
THIS: “Three people danced in the street.”

Do a search for adverbs, words ending with -ly. Find a stronger verb.
INSTEAD OF: “He ran excitedly down the hill.”
THIS: “He bounded down the hill.”

Replace vague adjectives with actual description.
INSTEAD OF: “His shirt was quite loud.”
THIS: “His shirt was iridescent chartreuse with an orange quilted collar and 16 whalebone buttons.”

And learn the differences between homophones (words that sound alike). Two common mistakes:

Affect vs. Effect. A retired managing editor once explained it this way: The verb affect means to influence; the noun effect is the result of the influence. Example: How you spell will affect (influence) your pay. The effect (result) of poor spelling may be a pay cut.

Principal vs. Principle. A simple trick is to remember that principle is like a rule (both words end in –le). A principal is a main thing (the –a in main reminds you of the –al in principal).

Yeah, it’s work. But do you want your prose flabby or firm? Do you want readers putting your book down (at The End, mind you) with the feeling they especially enjoyed that ride, even if they can’t identify why? Do you want them anxious to find more of your work, or have them muttering, Meh, it was okay…

Up to you.

By the way, my favorite movie about a crusty but benign newspaper editor is Teacher’s Pet with Clark Gable and Doris Day.

So what is your relationship with grammar? Any common goofs you see out there that chap your hide? 

Weaving Tapestries

Posted on by

I have a world of stories filed away that may never get used in my novels. Some are significant recollections waiting to be used, based on coincidences, while others are the seeds of ideas planted for future use.

My folks are from the country, survivors of the Great Depression, who lived in Red River bottoms, the border between Texas and Oklahoma. Chicota was a community of farmers who raised most of their own food, cows, and kids, along with the crops that fed the rest of this country.

When those old men (who were younger than I am today) took time off, it was for church, town on Saturdays, and to fish on Sunday afternoons. That meant throwing a line in the Red, or pools which were often full of crappie, the best eating.

Thinking about those fish reminds me of a natural spring pool about four miles from my maternal grandparents’ farmhouse. It was one of the few remaining springs in the area that once boasted dozens, if not more than a couple of hundred seeps, bubblers, and gushers.

When I mentioned the word pool above, I meant what some might call a pond, or tank (in West Texas). It was large enough to launch the Old Man’s vee-hull boat and motor, so it was of some significant size. He took me there several times, to fish, and to see the underwater beauty of such a natural wonder.

When the Old Man wasn’t around with the boat, my younger Cousin and I rode up on our bikes to enjoy something highly unusual in our part of Northeast Texas, clear, running water.

The gin-clear water in that pool, the fish of all sizes, and its shady banks still call to me, because most pools, creeks, streams, rivers and lakes in our part of the world are muddy. Which brings us back to my original discussion, clear water.

Several years ago, Cousin (who was much rounder in his later years) and I went looking for that unnamed spring lake. The years degraded our memories, and the land was different. The pastures were gone, and houses hunkered in the woods like ugly weeds.

“Posted” signs warned us away from the original trail we’d used over fifty years ago, so we followed blacktop roads to our estimated destination. A gray-haired gentleman was outside his house, working on a truck when we pulled up in his drive and waited for his dog to stop barking.

He rose, wiping his hands on a greasy rag. “Howdy boys. What can I do for you?”

I took the lead. “We’re looking for a spring lake that used to be around here.”

“Well, I’ve only lived here about ten years. Haven’t heard of a lake.”

Cousin was interested. “Where’d you move from?”

“Prosper, Texas.”

I shook my head in wonder at such a small world. “That’s where my wife grew up. Did you know the Reynolds family?”

His smile became genuine. “Sure enough. Robert and Robbie were good friends.”

Such a strange coincidence created an immediate bond and we visited for half an hour before getting back around to the reason we were there. Our new friend pointed. “The only pool around here is that little muddy puddle over yonder on someone else’s land that stays wet year-round.”

We looked where he pointed, and my recollections of the area superimposed themselves on the “muddy puddle.”

“Good Lord.” My spirits fell, and Cousin’s face mirrored my own.

He rubbed his bald head. “They’ve killed the spring with all this construction around here.”

The sweet water that once flowed fast enough to fill a small, three-acre-pool struggled to survive as a mud hole. Disappointed and saddened, we left, thinking about such a strange coincidence that I would meet friends of the War Department’s dad and brother in my ancestors’ community, and how “progress” was killing such wonderful, natural resources.

Here’s another. A few years ago, when I drove a dually pickup–––Let’s pause here, because I had to explain duallys to one of my city-dwelling editors who’d never heard of a six-wheeled truck. After explaining the concept, that individual still misunderstood, thinking there were three in a line on each side. I wrote back again, sending a link so that person could see there were four on the back and two in the front.

Because a dually is hippy, it won’t fit into most garages, especially the one at our old house, so I parked it on the street the entire time we lived there. Unfortunately, someone broke in one night and stole whatever wasn’t nailed down, (including my Juicy Fruit gum) and that included a pair of prescription Oakley sunglasses. I sincerely hoped they wore them while driving into a bridge abutment one night, but it didn’t happen.

They took tools, OTC drugs (antacids and allergy pills I kept in the cab because my former son-in-law was dangerously allergic to stings), and the Bride’s little pocket camera she used for work with the Frisco ISD, but forgot to take out that night.

Figuring all was lost, we filed a police report and went on about our lives. Somewhere around six weeks later, she got a call from the local PD.

“Mrs. Wortham, we have a report here about a burglary of a motor vehicle.”

“It was my husband’s truck. He filed the report. I’m surprised you called me.”

“Well, it’s an interesting story. We busted a vehicle burglary ring and found a digital camera in a house full of stolen items. There was a photo of the front of a school, and when we went to that location, they remembered you came by with your camera. We have the couple who broke into his truck. The guy is cooperating, but the female is a war horse, so I’d like to know if you’d like to press charges.”

She laughed. “I’m sure my husband will.”

I did.

Now here’s one last story I can draw from, but haven’t yet found the place. When we were still in that same house, the Bride came home for lunch and called me a few minutes after she left. “Hey, there’s a car in the alley right behind the house. It’s running, but no one is in it. I wonder if they have some kind of trouble. You might want to go look.”

I walked out to find an old car idling a few feet from our drive. No one was behind the wheel, and when I glanced inside, the back of my neck tingled. A screwdriver protruded from the steering column.

“911. What’s your emergency?”

I told dispatch where I lived. “There’s a running car behind our house and no one is in it. I think it’s stolen.”

“What makes you think that?”

“Because there’s a screwdriver in the ignition, for one thing.”

Her voice changed. “What kind of car is it, and can you see the license tag?”

I told her.

“Sir, get away from the car and go in the house now. Officers are on the way.”

Following such direct orders, I did as she said and waited. Two minutes later every cop in the city was at our location, looking for the bank robbers who’d used that vehicle as a getaway car, dumped it in the alley, ran through the yard between our house and the neighbor, and drove away in another vehicle parked on our street.

But one lighter moment was when several young officers showed up to search the area, they insisted on checking our back yard, only to find my nineteen-year-old daughter sunning beside the pool. They checked the backyard several times until I asked her to come inside, even though our premises was the safest place in town.

So with those in mind, (and I confess none of these images are real by the way),how many of you writers draw from old memories and or unlikely events to use in your manuscripts? Do you have stories of police work you can weave into a future work, but haven’t done it yet? Do you have real life adventures or coincidences, or pet peeves and disappointments that can enrich your works?

I still have more, but these will have to do at this writing.

 

 

Reader Friday . . . D-Day

Posted on by

Today is D-Day. No, not Deb’s Return to The Killzone Day. I am glad to be back, though! Thank you to those who filled in on Fridays during my hiatus.   😊

Now, let’s talk about the real D-Day.

We often usurp the term D-Day to describe events of lesser import—such as work assignment deadlines, bills due, even personal stuff, like weddings or maybe divorces finalized.

But the real D-Day back in 1944 was (and still is) a day to remember. Because it was a day that sealed the fate of one of the real enemies of mankind.

According to my D-Day research, “Operation Overlord was the code name for the Battle of Normandy, the Allied operation that launched the successful liberation of German-occupied Western Europe during World War II. The operation was launched on 6 June 1944 (D-Day) with the Normandy landings, Operation Neptune.” (From Wikipedia)

Many books have been written, and many movies have been created about this period in history. I happen to be one of those movie-goers who would choose a war movie over a romance every day and twice on Sundays. But what’s important is in the next paragraph.

I will be forever grateful for those brave men and women who fought these battles, and for those who gave their lives on this day. Which brings to mind a 102-year-old gentleman, the father of a friend of ours. Still spry, with a sense of humor and a knack for the flirt, he is one who thankfully returned to his family.

Many Americans, along with our allied forces and their families and loved ones, however, gave their all so that I can sit here writing this post for you to read. Sometimes I just can’t wrap my head around that. I ask myself, if I’d been in that generation, would I have been willing to sacrifice myself, or a husband or child?

Think a moment. Try to imagine what our world would look like if this day had never happened, and those enemies had not been defeated.

I think, maybe, our world would be much different.

Comments welcome.

 

Dual Protagonists

Posted on by

Dual Protagonists

Terry Odell

two knights with swords facing each other

PJ Parrish did a wonderful post not long ago about secondary characters, and in response to one of the comments, she said “Someone here should do a post about dual protagonists.” Well, here I am, and I’m going to give it a shot.

Early in my writing endeavors, I was talking to another newbie, and he asked about the protagonist in my manuscript. I told him there were two, and he said, “no, your main protagonist.” As I tried to explain that the two characters were on equal footing, and they each had their own arcs, and then there was the addition of a mystery plot, he rolled his eyes, mumbled something, and walked away.

Although I thought I was writing a mystery when I played with creating something resembling a novel, my daughters pointed out it was a romance. I’d never read one, so I didn’t know how I could be writing one. But, apparently I was. Then I discovered romantic suspense, which was closer. Since I was always reading mysteries where the protagonists had lives outside solving their cases, it wasn’t too much of a stretch.

For the record, anyone who thinks that when they have a free weekend, they’re going to crank out a quick romance and make a bunch of bucks—think again.

In a romantic suspense, you’re juggling three stories. The hero and heroine each have their own character arcs, and there’s the mystery plot as well. If you’re writing a straight mystery with dual protagonists, you don’t have to deal with the pesky relationship culminating in at least the promise of a Happily Ever After. But each protagonist has to be developed in the same way you’d develop a single protagonist.

Given my stumbling into romance, I learned from Deb Dixon and her Goal, Motivation, Conflict approach. What does each protagonist want? Why do they want it? What’s standing in their way?

Then, throw in how they’re going to have to work together in the book. Are they working to solve the same crime? Are they in competition? What’s in it for each of them? A reward? Bringing someone to justice? Self-satisfaction? Do their individual goals, backgrounds, life circumstances create more conflict?

I write in deep POV, but there’s no reason you can’t have two POV characters regardless of the POV choices you make. Often there are more than two, but usually those are secondary characters, not protagonists. Since PJ’s challenge said “dual protagonists” I’m sticking with two, which is how I prefer to write.

My preference—and again in a romantic suspense, you’re tied to reader expectations and genre conventions—I will introduce hero and heroine in their own opening chapters. (That means you’re effectively writing TWO Chapter Ones with all the challenges that entails.)

In my earlier books, I wrote two scenes per chapter, alternating protagonists. With the current trend of short chapters, I now write each protagonist’s scene as a separate chapter. As with any scene or chapter, we strive to end it with a page-turning moment.

Now, when the reader turns the page, they’re going to find they’re in another character’s head. My position is that you have to ground the reader in the who, when, and where for every scene or chapter change. Because—heaven forbid—the reader might have put the book down and might be coming back to it hours, days, or weeks later. I’m not fond of chapter headings, because as soon as the reader turns the page, they’re gone.

This holds true regardless of how many protagonists you have, but if there’s a single one, the ‘who’ is generally understood.

If your protagonists are working together and have been in the same scenes, once you set up the reminder of whose head you’re in, you can move the story along.

If they’re apart, it’s more of a challenge, because now you have to make sure the reader gets back into that character’s timeline. The opening paragraphs will have to work harder to establish what’s going on, but without info dumping.

In the spirit of Show, Don’t Tell, here are a couple of examples from Danger Abroad, my most recent release.

Chapter 3 is a Maddie POV scene. She’s arrived at her new lodgings in the Faroes and is having tea and cake with the landlady, who’s asked what brought her to the island. It ends like this:

As Maddie mentally composed her reply—the reasons she’d given when she’d requested a room—a banging on the door, accompanied by “Open up. I know you’re in there,” shattered the moment.

Chapter 4 is a Logan POV scene, and he’s somewhere else, working on his own task, which is finding Maddie, but he’s in San Francisco and she’s in the Faroe Islands. When his chapter ends, how do I draw readers back into Maddie’s story?

Chapter 5 is back to Maddie, and it opens like this:

Maddie’s tea sloshed into the saucer. Who could possibly know she was here? She’d done everything right, covered her tracks. Hadn’t she? She set her tea on the coffee table and studied Hanna, who didn’t seem alarmed—or confused—by whoever was outside.

Same thing goes for the POV chapters/scenes of the second protagonist. Bring the reader back to the who, when, and where.

As for PJ’s concern that readers might find one protagonist more attractive? I say it’s unlikely that every reader will like every character in a book equally. In reality, most romantic suspense books, although they have two protagonists, they’re not completely equal. It’s more like a 49/51 split. One of them will have a slightly stronger role, so yes, it’s quite possible a reader will prefer one over the other. If the reader’s goal, as it usually is when reading a mystery, is to see the crime solved and the bad guy brought to justice, do we care which protagonist they prefer?

In any genre, every time you add a POV character, you risk the reader not liking that character or the plot thread they’re commanding and skimming or skipping those parts. With only two, it’s less likely to happen, but yes, it’s possible.

I hope I’ve touched upon some answers to PJ’s question. If you have more, fire away. Feel free to share your experiences, either as a reader or writer, with dual protagonists. My brother’s visiting, so I might not be around to reply to comments right away, but I’ll check in when I can.

New! Find me at Substack with Writings and Wanderings

Danger Abroad

When breaking family ties is the only option.

Madison Westfield has information that could short-circuit her politician father’s campaign for governor. But he’s family. Although he was a father more in word than deed, she changes her identity and leaves the country rather than blow the whistle.

Blackthorne, Inc. taps Security and Investigations staffer, Logan Bolt, to track down Madison Westfield. When he finds her in the Faroe Islands, her story doesn’t match the one her father told Blackthorne. The investigation assignment quickly switches to personal protection for Madison.

Soon, they’re involved with a drug ring and a kidnapping attempt. Will working together put them in more danger? Can a budding relationship survive the dangers they encounter?

Available now.

Like bang for your buck? I have a new Mapleton Bundle. Books 4, 5, and 6 for one low price.

Terry Odell is an award-winning author of Mystery and Romantic Suspense, although she prefers to think of them all as “Mysteries with Relationships.”

Multi-tasking

Posted on by

The secret to multitasking is that it isn’t actually multitasking. It’s just extreme focus and organization. —Joss Whedon

* * *

The term “multi-tasking,” sometimes called “multi-processing,” has become part of the lexicon of modern writers. Multi-tasking implies doing two or more things at one time.  Although it’s not possible to have the brain consciously working on two different problems at the same time, many of us say we’re multi-tasking when we think about the plot of our next book while doing brain-free activities like household chores, etc.

In the world of computers, the term “multi-processing” means there are two or more processors, now called ‘cores,’ working inside the computer. Neither of them is doing more than one job at a time. However, since there are multiple cores, they can accomplish multiple tasks in parallel.

The term “multi-programming,” however, describes a single processor that works on one thing at a time, but may swap tasks to be more efficient. For example, if one process has issued a print command, the processor may initiate the print, then return to the original process to continue or even start another process. It may appear that it’s doing multiple jobs at the same time, but it really isn’t.

So multi-tasking for writers where concentration is involved is more like multi-programming. We each have one brain and can only process one thing at a time, but we can swap tasks in and out to maximize our efficiency.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately because I’m in the midst of a multi-tasking hurricane. My husband and I are moving to another home, and even though we thought we had pared down all the stuff we own, we seem to have acquired more! I’m sitting in the middle of dozens of boxes, mostly books, with more to be packed. And then there are all the other things that need to be taken care of when moving from one place to another.

In addition to all that, my first middle grade novel, Another Side of Sunshine, launched a couple of weeks ago and requires some attention in the marketplace. The next book in the series is in the final stages of editing, and I’ll need to spend some time reviewing the entire manuscript and running text-to-speech on it. Then there’s the second book in the Lady Pilot-in-Command series which is partially written but needs significant hours of work. Email requires attention, and there’s always a need to post on social media, run a promotion, communicate with other authors, and of course, write a bi-weekly TKZ post.

In order to accomplish all these tasks and retain a modicum of sanity, I need to multi-program – swap from one task to another in the most efficient way possible. I’m finding that spending 30 minutes to an hour on one thing, then switching to another works pretty well. Refocusing turns my attention to the matter at hand and gives the boys in the basement a chance to continue working on all the other tasks.

I’ll be at the new home today and not sure how much connectivity I’ll have there, but I’ll check in when I can.

* * *

So TKZers: Even without moving from one home to another, there are dozens of writing-related tasks that we have to keep up with. How do you manage them all? Do you divide your day up into time slices? Any secrets you want to share with the rest of us?  

* * *

 

Cryptic clues, the elusive Mr. Shadow, and the promise of a hidden treasure combine to give the Reen & Joanie Detective Agency their first challenge. But they can’t multi-task. They have to solve the clues in a sequence, and they only have three days to find the treasure before time runs out. Can they do it?

Click the image to go to the Amazon detail page.

Fond Memories of Joe Hartlaub

Posted on by

by Debbie Burke

Over the weekend, I received a punch-in-the-gut email. Joe Hartlaub, longtime TKZ contributor, had passed away suddenly and unexpectedly during a heart procedure.

Joe had been a beloved member of TKZ’s crew, going way back to 2010. His stories were always witty, wise, and warm. While reading his posts, my computer screen suffered many coffee snorts from his killer sense of humor.

He made fun of himself but not of others.

I hope he’s chuckling at today’s tribute to him because I used both “suddenly” and “unexpectedly”, which came to mind after reading his 2020 post about the sudden, unexpected death of a friend.

Joe wrote about anything and everything and we eagerly read his stories, recollections, observations, and insights. He wrote about:

Fats Domino;

Pizza;

His beloved granddaughter;

A feral cat;

Alcoholism;

When his neighbor was murdered.

He wrote about writing, books, movies, and music.

In going back through his posts, I found many first page critiques where his comments clearly but diplomatically explained what the anonymous author needed to do to improve the submission.

One first page critique from 2017 stayed close to my heart cuz it was mine. Joe’s gentle suggestions were mixed with praise that gave me hope my work might someday be published. His encouragement kept me going through many disappointments and setbacks.

Joe said goodbye to TKZ in 2021 with this post and more than a few tears were shed by readers.

This 2020 post is how I want to remember Joe.

RIP, Sweet Joseph.

Satisfaction, Hey Hey Hey

Posted on by

by James Scott Bell
@jamesscottbell

There are two questions which currently occupy the greatest minds of our generation.

First, how does quantum physics explain the existence of the cosmos?

And second, how is Keith Richards still alive?

The latter inquiry was the subject of a recent article.

Richards shared with The Telegraph he quit smoking in 2019 and hasn’t lit up since. Additionally, he kicked his heroin habit in 1979 and stopped doing cocaine in 2006. However, Richards does indulge in a cocktail every so often, but he doesn’t drink to excess anymore.

He said, “I still like a drink occasionally – because I’m not going to heaven any time soon – but apart from that, I’m trying to enjoy being straight. It’s a unique experience for me.”

Being on the straight-and-narrow must be unique for someone like Richards, who has been tied so closely to “the rock and roll lifestyle.” There have been plenty of jokes made about his drinking and drug use over the years. Frankly, it’s a miracle he’s alive.

Keith Richards rocks on

Alive and rocking. At 81, he just had a solo effort hit the UK charts with Live 3.10.22, backed by the band the X-Pensive Winos.

Richards, of course, co-wrote with Mick the monster hit “Satisfaction,” as in “I can’t get no…” The song is about the vapidity of consumerism and the frustrated pursuit of, ahem, amorous congress.

Which brings us to the question of the day: Do you get satisfaction from writing fiction?

There’s an old saying: I don’t like writing; I like having written. I have never related to that, even when the writing is frustrating, as it often is. Because working through the frustration to a breakthrough is one of the most satisfying feelings a writer can have.

I’ve written before about the “30k Wall.” Most of my novels have run into that edifice, but each time I found—after a period of agony—the way around or through it. That’s a great feeling! And it comes out of the frustration, not in spite of it. Hello frustration, my old friend (apologies to Simon and Garfunkel).

Here are some other things that give me satisfaction as a writer:

  • Writing a particularly sparkling sentence.
  • Coming up with a twist.
  • Bringing a character to life.
  • Receiving a nod of approval from my tough but compassionate first editor, Mrs. B.
  • Seeing what needs to be fixed and figuring out how to fix it.
  • Writing an ending with resonance, especially when it brings a tear.
  • Nurturing a killer idea for a new project.
  • Finding just the right “mirror moment.”
  • Getting a startlingly good memo from The Boys in the Basement.
  • Hitting the flow state as I write.

In fact, they all make me more than satisfied. They make me happy.

This kind of joy cannot be handed to you by a bot. It only comes from “doing the work.”

I know there is a very small subsection of typists (I hesitate to use the term writer) out there who think writing fiction should never be “work.” It should only be “fun.” It should never involve taking constructive criticism, or sweating the small stuff (or the big stuff, for that matter), or even editing beyond the occasional search for typos. Books written this way may be fun for the creator, but not for the reader.

On the other hand, Mr. Stephen King extols the value of revising after others have read the manuscript. In On Writing he explains that his first editor is his wife, Tabitha. Then: “In addition to Tabby’s first read, I usually send manuscripts to between four and eight other people who have critiqued my stories over the years.” His practice is “two drafts and a polish.” In other words, does the work, and I’m absolutely certain he’ll break out someday.

“The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary.” – Vince Lombardi

Where do you find satisfaction in your writing life?

Creative Words of Wisdom

Posted on by

Recently I’ve been recentering myself on creativity and the creative side of writing. I just finished Elizabeth Gilbert’s Big Magic, which discusses creativity and the creative process, and decided to dive into the KZB archives for more wisdom on creativity.

Unsurprisingly, I hit paydirt.

First up is Joe Moore on the qualities of creative personalities. Then, James Scott Bell talks about both creative time and how it can help keep your brain youthful. Finally, Garry Rodgers lays out how to behaviors that help creativity and those which hinder it.

There has been active debate on whether creative genius is dependent on mental illness or insanity. This debate continues further by stating that madness alone cannot suffice as Source for creativity. Nay, nay. An openness to experience, intelligence and wisdom complete the mysterious formula. They are actually writing papers on the subject. The bottom line: Creative people make creativity a way of life.

We can all name artists, musicians, writers, scientists, etc. who inspire us with their fascinating and divergent thinking. (Look at our own Basil Sands, for goodness sake.) The argument for creative personalities presented by Hal Lancaster during the late 90’s in The Wall Street Journal stated six basic qualities exist:

  1. Keen powers of observation.
  2. Restless curiosity.
  3. An ability to recognize issues that others miss.
  4. An ability to generate numerous ideas.
  5. Persistently questioning the norm.
  6. A talent for seeing established structures in new ways.

Do you see yourself in any or all of the above? I do, which is fun. But, what really appeals to me is the recurring theme of madness in creative beings. After all, if you’re considered a little crazy you need no excuses for your behavior. I like that.

Joe Moore—January 31, 2012

I have long taught the discipline of a weekly creativity time, an hour (or more) dedicated to pure creation, mental play, wild imaginings. I like to get away from my office for this. I usually go to a local coffee house or a branch of the Los Angeles Library System. I also like to do this work in longhand. I mute my phone and play various games, like:

The First Line Game. Just come up with the most gripping first line you can, without knowing anything else about what might come after it.

The Dictionary Game. I have a pocket dictionary. I open it to a random page and pick a random noun. Then I write down what thoughts that noun triggers. (This is a good cure for scene block, too.)

Killer Scenes. I do this on index cards, and it’s usually connected to a story I’m developing. I just start writing random scene ideas, not knowing where they’ll go. Later I’ll shuffle the stack and take out two cards at a time, and see what ideas develop from their connection.

The What If Game. The old reliable. I’ll look at a newspaper (if I can find one) and riff off the various stories. What if that politician who was just indicted was really an alien from a distant planet? (Actually, this could explain a lot.)

Mind Mapping. I like to think about my story connections this way. I use a fresh blank page and start jotting.

After my creativity time I find that my brain feels more flexible. Less like a grouchy guy waiting on a bench for a bus and more like an Olympic gymnast doing his floor routine.

Now, I’m going to float you a theory. I haven’t investigated this. It’s just something I’ve noticed. It seems to me that the incidence of Alzheimer’s among certain groups is a lot lower than the general population. The two groups I’m thinking of are comedians and lawyers.

What got me noticing this was watching Carl Reiner and Mel Brooks being interviewed together, riffing off each other. Reiner was 92 at the time, and Brooks a sprightly 88. They were both sharp, fast, funny. Which made me think of George Burns, who was cracking people up right up until he died at 100. (When he was 90, Burns was asked by an interviewer what his doctor thought of his cigar and martini habit. Burns replied, “My doctor died.”)

So why should this be? Obviously because comedians are constantly “on.” They’re calling upon their synapses to look for funny connections, word play, and so on. Bob Hope, Groucho Marx (who was only slowed down by a stroke), and many others fit this profile.

And I’ve known of several lawyers who were going to court in their 80s, still kicking the stuffing out of younger opponents. One of them was the legendary Louis Nizer, whom I got to watch try a case when he was 82. I knew about him because I’d read my dad’s copy of My Life in Court (which is better reading than many a legal thriller). Plus, Mr. Nizer had sent me a personal letter in response to one I sent him, asking him for advice on becoming a trial lawyer.

And there he was, coming to court each day with an assistant and boxes filled with exhibits and documents and other evidence. A trial lawyer has to keep a thousand things in mind—witness testimony, jury response, the Rules of Evidence (which have to be cited in a heartbeat when an objection is made), and so on. Might this explain the mental vitality of octogenarian barristers?

There also seems to be an oral component to my theory. Both comedians and trial lawyers have to be verbal and cogent on the spot. Maybe in addition to creativity time, you ought to get yourself into a good, substantive, face-to-face conversation on occasion. At the very least this will be the opposite of Twitter, which may be reason enough to do it.

James Scott Bell—July 8, 2018

Improving creativity starts with a foundation of subject knowledge, learning a discipline, and mastering a proper way of thinking. You build on your creative ability by experimenting, exploring, questioning assumptions, using imagination, and synthesizing information. Learning to be creative is like learning a sport. You need a desire to improve, develop the right muscles, and be in a supportive environment.

You need to view creativity as a practice and understand five key behaviors:

  1. Associating—drawing connections between questions, problems, or ideas from unrelated fields.
  2. Questioning—posing queries that challenge common wisdom.
  3. Observing—scrutinizing the behavior of others in, around, and outside your sphere.
  4. Networking—meeting people with both common and different perspectives.
  5. Experimenting—constructing interactive experiences and provoking unorthodox responses to see what insights emerge.

Read this as — listen, watch, ask, mingle, and stir. Sir Richard Branson has a mantra that’s bred into the corporate DNA of his Virgin staff — A-B-C-D — Always Be Connecting Dots. Branson swears that creativity is a practice and if you practice these five behaviors every day, you will improve your skills in creativity and innovation.

Now, if these five behaviors put you in the right direction for improving creativity, then there must be behaviors to avoid. I found eight:

  1. Lack of courage—being fearful of taking chances, scared of venturing down new roads, and timid about taking the road less traveled. Fear is the biggest enemy of creativity. You need to be courageous and take chances.
  2. Premature judgment—second-guessing and early judgment of outcome severely restrict your ability to generate ideas and freely innovate. Let your initial path expand and follow it to its inevitable destination.
  3. Avoidance of failure—you can’t be bold and creative if you fear failure. Creativity requires risk and making mistakes. They’re part of the process.
  4. Comparing with others—this robs your unique innovation and imagination. Set your own standards. Be different. Something new is always different.
  5. Discomfort with uncertainty—creativity requires letting go and the process doesn’t always behave rationally. Accept that there’s something akin to paranormal in real creativity.
  6. Taking criticism personally—feedback is healthy, even if it’s blunt and harsh like 1&2-Star Amazon reviews. Ignore ridicule. Have thick skin, a tough hide, and don’t let criticism get to you.
  7. Lack of confidence—a certain level of uncertainty comes with any new venture. Some self-doubt is normal but if it becomes overwhelming and long-lasting, it will shut down your creative abilities. The best way to create is to first connect with your self-confidence.
  8. Analysis paralysis—overthinking renders you unable to make a decision because of information overload. “Go with your gut” is the answer to analysis paralysis.

Aside from positive and negative behaviors, there is one overall and outstanding quality that drives successfully creative people.

Passion…

Passion is the secret to creativity. It’s the underlying feature that’s laced the successes of all prominent creators in history.

Garry Rodgers—June 29, 2023

***

  1. What qualities do you believe creative people possess?
  2. What ways do you like to let your creativity play?
  3. What behaviors have helped your creativity? What ones have hindered you?

Reader Friday: What Happens Next?

Posted on by

Fredric Brown (1906 – 1972) was a spec-fiction pulp writer and a master of flash fiction—short-short stories with a twist. (I love his collection Nightmares and Geezenstacks.) He wrote a famous story called “Knock” which begins:

The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a knock on the door.

Without looking up the story, write the next line (or paragraph if you are so moved).

And AFTER you’ve done so, you may read the story here.

The Creepy Case of the Floating Feet

Posted on by

Between 2007 and 2016, sixteen disarticulated human feet encased in running shoes were found washed up on Pacific Ocean tidal shores in northwest Washington State’s Puget Sound and the southwestern British Columbia Gulf Islands. It’s also known as the Salish Sea.

Theories of dark and sinister forces emerged. A foot-fetish serial killer? A podiatrist cult ritual? A prank pod of kinky killer whales?

The truth, it turns out, was stranger than fiction. And it happened at a time I was a coroner tasked with investigating unexplained human deaths in this jurisdiction.

When I first began contributing to the Kill Zone, Thursdays were marked as true crime sessions. I’ve deviated from that to all sorts of topics I thought would interest readers but, today, I’ve returned to the roots. And rather than rewriting an evergreen post, I’m simply sharing a link to the article I wrote on my home website at www.DyingWords.net. Over the years, this piece has been reproduced by many online agencies including the Huff Post where I once was a regular contributor.

So, if the Creepy Case of the Floating Feet intrigues you, here’s the facts of what happened and why it happened. https://dyingwords.net/the-creepy-case-of-the-floating-feet/