A Couple Burning Issues: Books, The Demise of Books, and Is The Sky REALLY Falling?

Got a couple of other things I gotta get off my chest.

I loved reading the August 23, Publishers Weekly (PW) “The New PW Select,” by George W. Slowik, Jr., the President of Publishers Weekly. It finally shows an opening of hearts and minds—and a change of reality. Most change takes place in baby steps, and this is a fine example. A major industry player is recognizing that books are books, they LOVE books, and they want to include as many books as possible into their milieu.

This is GREAT!

This is the way it should be. It is only a matter of time before other venues take similar action.

Another topic: that books are gonna die. The physical ones. Sigh. A couple years ago—and I mentioned this before and I wish I’d kept it!—but PW did an entire issue on the “Demise Of <fill in the blank>.” It was such a wonderful issue, because it actually included clips of “the Sky Is Falling” articles that had been published at the time (late 1800s to early 1900s).

As I remember it, NONE of them had proven true. Not one.

I find it an interesting Human trait that we love to rail on about  the end of [any]thing[s]. Is it because of some buried Racial Guilt? Feeling of inherent unworthiness? I mean, why would someone, anyone, intentionally focus and delight in bringing about the end to one’s existence—to ending one’s life, or in bringing about the total and utter annihilation of an entire race [i.e., planet] of people? Makes no sense to me…unless these individuals harbor some innate feeling of unworthiness and the need for Universal Punishment.

My point is, the demise of anything only comes about because someone WANTS it; actually takes steps to BRING IT ABOUT.

It doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

Someone has to initiate it…then bring it about by constant attention in some way or the other.

If you really want to remove all physical books from existence, by all means go for it. You get what you pay for. Get want you CONCENTRATE upon. There is no “external agent,” no extraterrestrial race, nor God Force bringing this on—YOU’RE bringing it on YOURself. Period. So, quit whining and own up to it. To your own internal feelings and beliefs. If you want books to stay, KEEP THEM IN CIRCULATION. Just because we create some new-fangled techno-wizardry doesn’t mean books cannot coexist.

It’s a pretty big UNIVERSE out there, people.  I think it can handle multiple forms of media.

This all comes back to my earlier statements. We create our OWN realities. Individually and en masse. Each of us—by our thoughts and our actions. The more attention given to things you DON’T want, the more of what you “don’t want” will be exhibited in your life.

So, I have a cool suggestion.

Why don’t we all focus upon what we all DO WANT? Let’s not give press time—heck, THOUGHT time—to anything we DO NOT WANT?!

Whaddya say?

This is not the same thing as burying one’s head in the sand. It’s about giving the time of day to the GOOD THINGS in life, not the negative.

And, if you don’t understand that last part, then I suggest you re-examine your own thoughts about everything I’ve discussed here, and life in general, and do some reading about getting what you want out of life, because there are quite a few books out there and I’m certainly not gonna recreate the wheel in these new-fangled, techno-wizardry electronic pages….

Think GOOD THOUGHTS, people!  :-]

Peace.

What Is Writing, Really?

I belong to a couple writer groups. I like these people, I really do. They get into spirited debates about—mostly, from what I witness, anyway—the mechanics of writing. And that’s okay.  It is. I hardly ever see any real discussion on the heart of writing, its soul. This I find curious. Perhaps it’s because the soul of writing doesn’t need any discussion. What can be said about it?

That a piece of writing needs some?

That it doesn’t?

What is “soul,” anywho?

Do you even believe in a “soul”?

It is good and productive to discuss all-things writing, while part of a writers’ group of any kind, but I (personally) find such arguments mental masturbation (not that there’s anything wrong with masturbation…). I just find it not all that useful to the actual effort of writing—and maybe that’s to my detriment. I’m more of a metaphysical, organic fiction writer. I’ve heard from the published and unpublished, agents and publishers. All manner of well-meaning and wonderful people on the topic, but I truly do not think it matters, the mechanics of writing, that is. I’ve said it before…poor shit gets published just like good shit. There’s no accounting for taste.

Now, I intend absolutely no disservice to those reading either of the above, those agenting it, and those publishing it. I truly feel that whatever the book, it gets picked up little because of the mechanics involved (from my rather disadvantaged purchase, perhaps)…but because someone feels they can make money off it. That for one reason or the other (see previous statement) it got their attention.

Do you have to hook someone in the first page—the first word?

Only if s/he reading it believes this to be the case.

Does POV matter?

See above.

And sure the argument can be well made that only WELL-ESTABLISHED authors can “get away” with breaking rules.

For every argument exists an exception.

And when those such as ourselves become so focused on the very mechanics of writing we cannot always see the forest for the trees. In our minds, of course you have to have a well-written story…a well-conceived plot… action/something interesting on each and every page. Less adverbs, more nouns, less tell, more show—good Lord, pick yer poison! Rules-rules-rules!

Readers don’t care. I’ve asked them. Those that aren’t writers, nor have any inclinations toward writing. They tell me they just want a good story. Something that interests them. “A good book.”

I’m a writer—I actually make my living at it (currently I’m a tech writer, and yes, I DO outline lots in that world; see “organic writer,” above…)—and have been a reader since not long after sperm-and-egg, so I think I have a pretty good idea, you know, what’s “good” (see “no accounting for taste,” above), right? A couple years ago I read a bestselling book in which the writing not only sucked, but did so out loud. To me. So, I asked someone else what they thought of the book.

“It was great!”

Best thing they’d read in a long time.

There you go.

So, really, what is writing about?

Mechanics? Attention spans? Money? Whether or not something is, uh, “well written”? Some weird-assed Zen thing?

For every answer I can provide, someone out there will take exception with me, if for no other reason than they can…or want to prove me wrong…and have some vat-o-stats to slosh all over me like so much boiling oil. To each of them I can only say: Yeah…maybe.

 Sure, get involved in the discussions, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with them, a good didactic encounter never hurt anybody, but in the end, find out—inside you, inside your soul—why you’re doing what you’re doing. Make that your reason for writing. Don’t make it about having to do your efforts one way or the other to sell or grab the shortened attentions span of some agent/editor/reader. Do it for presenting the best damned story possible, to being true to the story (some say it’s all about characters, but characters are part of a story). Many don’t believe this, but I truly believe that if writers honestly open themselves up and allow themselves to be overcome with the soul of a story…the story itself will present the writer with the best method of expression.

Organically.

Write because you must.

Do the very best you absolutely can. Learn what you need to learn, then get on with the business of writing (here I mean actual writing, not the “business suit” end of things). I truly believe that after a while you’ve learned all there is about the mechanics of writing…that you then have to develop an ability so frigging powerful, so evocative, so gripping and whatever else it needs to be to be true to the story that readers cannot help but read your story, like rubbernecking roadkill and accidents.

If you are easily deterred by any other argument, it’s simply not your bag. No biggee. Doesn’t have to be. Don’t take it so hard. Find whatever else it is you’re supposed to be good at.

I was once asked (and I paraphrase) why I kept “at it,” with going to years of conferences and such when I wasn’t published (a matter of opinion, since I am self-PUBLISHED [and, BTW, did you read this week’s, August 23, Publishers Weekly “The New PW Select,” by George W. Slowik, Jr., about self-pub’d books? It’s on page 4. I applaud you, sir! That’s what writing is about!]). To me (and I could be off-base) the question implied why am I still doing this after eons of “nothing t’show fer it.”

So why do I continue doing it?

<Shrugging shoulders>

Because I have to.

Now, admittedly, lately, things have gotten crazy, and I haven’t been doing much of “it,” even outright questioning my continued ability to do so, because of the “weird Zen of it all” (and not in a good way), but the intent is still there. I’m thinking I’m simply way too stressed out to concentrate on those efforts right now, and actually don’t have much time to devote to it, given my day job is occupying the areas of space-time I devote to my fiction efforts…or there’s some gnarly metaphysical struggle going on inside me. Maybe the later is spawning the former. Yeah, this I believe, cause I’m paranormally metaphysical that way.

But I keep picking at things, if only for a half hour.

So, what is writing?

It is sitting down and pounding away at letters.

It is creation.

It is being true to the story.

It is heart and soul.

It is…whatever the writer wants it to be.

If you wanna follow rules—go ahead.

Write first person POV? Feel free.

Capture someone’s attention on page uno—by all frigging means, capture away!

But remember this: even the most poorly written works can be bestsellers. There’s no accounting for taste.

Write with soul. With heart. With all that you have and are. Believe in yourself—and your story.

That’s writing.

War and Peace

I read something the other week and again this morning which really got me to thinking about something I’ve often thought about: that humans are inherently violent. Evil.

Now, I have always taken issue with this statement from the very beginning and as far back as I can remember, which to me was my early 70s Star Trek watching days. Maybe it was from all the other reading I did, which was largely philosophical and metaphysical, but I never believed that statement–and still don’t.

What I recently read was a “letter” written by ex-Army Captain Paul K. Chappell. Chappell is also a West Point graduate, served seven years, and deployed to Baghdad. Look at this link and take a good look at his pictures.  He has a different look in his eyes, his face, his energy, from his Army days to civilian life.  Really look at the last photo, April 2005.  And check out this 10-minute YouTube video Mr. Chappell gave at American University, in Washington, D.C.

What Chappell wrote was that people are not inherently warfaring nor violent nor evil nor warmongering. We are the opposite to all this, because the basic nature of people is to FLEE violence or someone else trying to disembowel us or anything else heinous. If we were so inherently violent, we would not flee violence, not avoid war–but embrace it, run toward it. If we were so naturally violent and warlike, why does war mess up so many people? Why PTSD? Mr. Chappell says that 98% of soldiers who go to war experience some form of psychological trauma, but 2% do not. Why do these 2% not go “crazy,” as he puts it?

Because they were already that way.

One of the key things Mr. Chappell also discusses in the letter I read was how do governments get people to go to war? And this I’d learned over time on my own: by dehumanizing the “enemy.” By getting those fighting wars to feel they have to go to war to protect some element of their own, be it family or their own localized “band of brothers.” Then, Mr. Chappell says, people will fight and not flee.

I didn’t write this post to attack our government or give reasons for why we’re in war. I write this post to show others and clarify and corroborate–to myself, even–what I’ve always believed to be true: that humankind is inherently PEACEFUL.

Peaceful.

That’s all.

Living in a SAFE Universe?!

I found this next site’s link in an e-mail I get, and think it dovetails nicely into my Down the Rabbit Hole post. For all the Doom and Gloom (D&G) being perpetuated by you and me and everyone else, in that we ALL have a hand in the reality we’re creating (i.e., it’s never someone else’s fault, such as the government’s, or “Big Oil,” or the “Religious Right,” because we all have a hand in creating what ends up manifesting into our individual and mass realities), from Gulf oil spills, wars, and lack of individual successes and happiness, I like this link because Lynda Dahl, who created this link, gives some explanation to what she presents. Yes, it’s all about a Seth-based philosophy, yes its’ “weird” to the uninitiated, but also, yes, it’s an optimistic way of thinking, and yes it “gives” control of our lives to back to us (I quote “gives,” because it’s always been with us, according to this way of thinking, so there’s really nothing to “give” back, really). Now, that can be scary for some, a boon to many. And it’ll definitely go against the grain for others who believe other systems of beliefs, but I much prefer to believe in something that gives hope and control and no D&G than anything else that does. And I’m sure that last sentence evokes all kinds of “head-in-the-sand” arguments, but that, again, is part of another system of belief, to which I don’t subscribe.

And I ain’t perfect, lemme tell you!

I’m just like everyone else out there, trying to make my way through this life I’m living in the best way possible!

The philosophy will tell you that’s it’s just a matter of changing your beliefs and all is modified. It’s the “just” that’s the hard part, whether or not we make it hard. Not everyone can do it, or many can, but to varying degrees of success. But in any event, I much prefer this system of thought to anything else out there. All this is even discussed within its philosophy.

I digress.

I wanted to put this link out there as a counter, so to speak, to all the D&G. As my little part in helping show there’s another way to what we think there may be to living, breathing, and thinking life, and this way may help others in redirecting their thoughts to more useful, productive, and positive ends, as I talked about in my previous post and which was what Down the Rabbit Hole was all about.