"Where do you get your ideas?" is one of the questions all writers and most artists hear at one point or another.
I was listening to an interesting podcast from ABC National Radio the other day called "Creativity and the mind" where writer Sue Woolfe and Professor Russell Meares delve into the mystical world of creative thinking. It's worth a listen if you have the time and the interest. Sue Woolfe starts her talk with an anecdote with her tax accountant. The accountant is helping her fill in her tax return, he notes she has made some money selling her book so is thus a writer. He asks her about how one goes about writing a novel. To which she replies (in short), very typically of anyone who is writing, it all comes in dribs and drabs and you don't really write it yourself the characters do that for you, you're just the person taking all of this down for them. Later she overhears the accountant having a good old laugh with his colleagues about this answer. His reaction is not so surprising because I imagine most accountants live their lives in the world of linear non-creative left-brain thinking and have all but forgotten what it's like to view the world differently.
Which brings up the other point, creative thinking and how this differs from the favoured thinking of the every day. Every day thinking is the logical conclusions one draws to go about their day to day business, such as getting to work, doing laundry etc etc. It's very functional and linear. People who are habitually creative recognise the "other way of thinking" it makes abstract connections, it's non-linear, almost unconscious and certainly meditative. I know once I get into a writing mind set I end up in a trance-like state not really thinking about what I am writing, just typing it all out then at the end of it re-reading it back and thinking "Where on earth did all of this come from?" It's the ability to tune into some sort of subconscious process. The minute the inner-critic or the inner-planner come into play your work is done for the day. If I try to go into my writing, or anything I am working on, with a plan or any idea at all it almost always ends up sounding totally forced, contrived, wooden and not at all authentic. If I go into what I am doing with a free mind and let the world around me recede I end up with something I never expected but totally authentic and often interesting. That's not to say I don't write a lot of crap sometimes. That's when the other way of thinking is useful, to filter out the bad from the good.
What is your experience On Creativity?
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Self-publishing
Anyone who knows me knows that in my spare time I write. Or I am reading. I'm a big fan of words. I hope to publish a book one day, maybe even the one I am working on currently. On the web I read a lot of other writer's blogs, from the "small time" writer who has published through smaller presses (or are dreaming to publish with any publisher at all) to the big-shots, like Neil Gaiman who has somehow managed to end up writing a Dr Who episode which is very cool I think.
On the matter of publication one question has arisen time and again amongst the not-yet-published set. Should one self-publish? Now if you're into the scene you'll know what I mean. For the less informed self-publishing isn't vanity press, wherein some dreamer of a writer pays a "publisher" lots of their own hard earn dollars in order for the "publisher" to print a few thousand copies of said writer's book. Writer is then surprised that no marketing will be done and in fact the book refuses to sell itself. On top of that the poor writer finds out that no one takes this vanity press style publishing seriously at all. Writer then falls into a despair and never writes again.
Self-publishing, on the other hand, requires no out-lay on the writers behalf. With such tools as Kindle and Lulu writers need only upload their polished and ready manuscripts to their servers. Interested buyers purchase the book, or e-book with one click of their mouse. A book is not printed unless sold. No marketing is done beyond what the writer does.
Amanda Hocking has notoriously done well out of the self-publishing business making squillions of dollars by selling her e-books for a mere 0.99 until finally a publisher sat up and took notice and now she's getting real books in real stories and even talk of film adaptations and all. Impressive yeah?
One problem with self-publishing that I can directly see is that you have to be able to market your own work. In fact I can imagine that most of your time will be spent dedicated to the art of marketing your e-book. If you're like most writers you write because you want to be a writer, not a publisher, not a marketeer.
Another problem is the loss-of-prestige. Self-publishing can cop a lot of flak because any man and his dog can do it. No editors are there to spare the reader terrible prose, wooden characters, lacklustre plots and spelling mistakes. Therein lies the problem, self-publishers need not only what they think is a polished manuscript but a good editor to go through it and shake it up a bit until it falls neatly into place.
I think every writer, when honest with themselves, would prefer the traditional means of publishing. But if we all wait for that magic day when an offer comes through will we wait forever? Why not self-publish, do the hard yards now, get a small audience going, get the attention of a publisher this way?
Don't bands do that same? We've all got mates who have a band, who've cut themselves an EP, spending thousands of their own hard earned cash on a producer and studio time, then spent countless hours sending out their demo to radio stations, managers, doing as many gigs as possible just to get a name for themselves and say "Hey we're here! Sign us to your magical record label!" My mate Luke has been doing this for years his band Brokencube has just released a "self-published" album on Amazon for all and sundry to download.
If bands also use the route of "self-publishing" and self promotion then why not writers? Why not try to get a publisher's attention this way? Why do we have to write query after query and sit on our hands hoping beyond miraculous hope that an agent will pull our dusty manuscript out of the slush pile and actually be wow-ed by it? Why not give your book the chance to see the light of day? Instead of hanging on one person's opinion about what is good writing, and what is marketable in two years time, give it directly to the audience. Then keep querying and writing your letters but you may be able to add in "I have an established fan base and make great sales on kindle" you'll get their attention, because at the end of the day publishing isn't about the art, it's about the sales. Yes?
What do you guys think?
On the matter of publication one question has arisen time and again amongst the not-yet-published set. Should one self-publish? Now if you're into the scene you'll know what I mean. For the less informed self-publishing isn't vanity press, wherein some dreamer of a writer pays a "publisher" lots of their own hard earn dollars in order for the "publisher" to print a few thousand copies of said writer's book. Writer is then surprised that no marketing will be done and in fact the book refuses to sell itself. On top of that the poor writer finds out that no one takes this vanity press style publishing seriously at all. Writer then falls into a despair and never writes again.
Self-publishing, on the other hand, requires no out-lay on the writers behalf. With such tools as Kindle and Lulu writers need only upload their polished and ready manuscripts to their servers. Interested buyers purchase the book, or e-book with one click of their mouse. A book is not printed unless sold. No marketing is done beyond what the writer does.
Amanda Hocking has notoriously done well out of the self-publishing business making squillions of dollars by selling her e-books for a mere 0.99 until finally a publisher sat up and took notice and now she's getting real books in real stories and even talk of film adaptations and all. Impressive yeah?
One problem with self-publishing that I can directly see is that you have to be able to market your own work. In fact I can imagine that most of your time will be spent dedicated to the art of marketing your e-book. If you're like most writers you write because you want to be a writer, not a publisher, not a marketeer.
Another problem is the loss-of-prestige. Self-publishing can cop a lot of flak because any man and his dog can do it. No editors are there to spare the reader terrible prose, wooden characters, lacklustre plots and spelling mistakes. Therein lies the problem, self-publishers need not only what they think is a polished manuscript but a good editor to go through it and shake it up a bit until it falls neatly into place.
I think every writer, when honest with themselves, would prefer the traditional means of publishing. But if we all wait for that magic day when an offer comes through will we wait forever? Why not self-publish, do the hard yards now, get a small audience going, get the attention of a publisher this way?
Don't bands do that same? We've all got mates who have a band, who've cut themselves an EP, spending thousands of their own hard earned cash on a producer and studio time, then spent countless hours sending out their demo to radio stations, managers, doing as many gigs as possible just to get a name for themselves and say "Hey we're here! Sign us to your magical record label!" My mate Luke has been doing this for years his band Brokencube has just released a "self-published" album on Amazon for all and sundry to download.
If bands also use the route of "self-publishing" and self promotion then why not writers? Why not try to get a publisher's attention this way? Why do we have to write query after query and sit on our hands hoping beyond miraculous hope that an agent will pull our dusty manuscript out of the slush pile and actually be wow-ed by it? Why not give your book the chance to see the light of day? Instead of hanging on one person's opinion about what is good writing, and what is marketable in two years time, give it directly to the audience. Then keep querying and writing your letters but you may be able to add in "I have an established fan base and make great sales on kindle" you'll get their attention, because at the end of the day publishing isn't about the art, it's about the sales. Yes?
What do you guys think?
Saturday, May 7, 2011
More human than human
One of my all time favourite movies is Blade Runner. In the movie the Nexus-6 series Replicant is an android designed by Tyrell corporation specifically for off-Earth work and slave labour. In order to curb the development of an individual emotional life they have a limited lifespan of about 4 years. This of course backfires and a rebellion occurs with some replicants escaping and trying to hunt down their creator. Their mission: "I want more life fucker." as one replicant eloquently said.
Two things that strike me, the idea that our technology can out strip us and the suggestion, although not played out in this film, that the post-human could perhaps be created by humans.
Stay with me I'm going somewhere with this. Humans tend to look at time in a very linear short-term fashion. Even the most horrifying doomsday theories place the apocalypse sometime in the next thousands years or so which completely negates deep time. Put it this way our sun is only 4.5 billion years old and has enough fuel to burn for another 6 billion. Now we're starting to talk time.
Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, said at his acceptance of the 2011 Templeton Prize “It won’t be humans who witness the sun’s demise: It will be entities as different from us as we are from a bug.”
What on earth could these entities be? And do we have anything to do with it?
Two scenarios I can think of; one is that humans will become extinct because of some cock up or another on our behalf due to the fact our technology far outstrips our intellectual or emotional capabilities (really whose brilliant idea was it to create weapons that could destroy all life on earth and place it in the hands of emotionally volatile creatures?) and these new entities evolve from some other life form.
or we get all Darwinist and start evolving at a speed that perhaps compliments our technology thus creating the post-human that might see the sun's demise. Not that I think seeing the sun's demise would be some sort of an accomplishment or anything, although the party will be bigger than in 1999. At any rate humans are by nature fragile creatures. Even our intellect, our biggest weapon against all and sundry, is often marred by our emotional responses. Our bodies are designed to decay and eventually perish despite or best efforts otherwise (and unlike the Nexus-6 replicants we can't meet our creator and demand more life). If we can overcome these trifles than perhaps we have a chance at long-term survival. Although not in a form that we would recognise.
So say that we found a way to upload our consciousness to the computer. I think I saw an X-Files episode about that once, but the idea is pretty interesting. we would then exist in a space where physical demise is no longer a threat. machines can be repaired; we could back up our minds a million times over, we could live forever in a virtual reality. Some people are attempting such a feat now by throwing their "real" lives away to focus on such pass times as Secondlife, although they have not been able to find a way around the fact a flesh and blood human needs to sit behind the screen in order for this life to have life.
But then what? Will our all-too-human emotional responses see our demise anyway? Will some virtual government develop a virtual nuclear bomb to virtually wipe out all virtual life? And if we do away with such things as "emotion" and all that come with it including art and entertainment and creativity will we cease to be human? Because aside from these flesh and bone bodies we haul ourselves around in it is our ability to reason, to create, to feel that make us the creatures we are.
Is the evolution away from what makes us us worth seeing the sun die?
Take it easy!
Two things that strike me, the idea that our technology can out strip us and the suggestion, although not played out in this film, that the post-human could perhaps be created by humans.
Stay with me I'm going somewhere with this. Humans tend to look at time in a very linear short-term fashion. Even the most horrifying doomsday theories place the apocalypse sometime in the next thousands years or so which completely negates deep time. Put it this way our sun is only 4.5 billion years old and has enough fuel to burn for another 6 billion. Now we're starting to talk time.
Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, said at his acceptance of the 2011 Templeton Prize “It won’t be humans who witness the sun’s demise: It will be entities as different from us as we are from a bug.”
What on earth could these entities be? And do we have anything to do with it?
Two scenarios I can think of; one is that humans will become extinct because of some cock up or another on our behalf due to the fact our technology far outstrips our intellectual or emotional capabilities (really whose brilliant idea was it to create weapons that could destroy all life on earth and place it in the hands of emotionally volatile creatures?) and these new entities evolve from some other life form.
or we get all Darwinist and start evolving at a speed that perhaps compliments our technology thus creating the post-human that might see the sun's demise. Not that I think seeing the sun's demise would be some sort of an accomplishment or anything, although the party will be bigger than in 1999. At any rate humans are by nature fragile creatures. Even our intellect, our biggest weapon against all and sundry, is often marred by our emotional responses. Our bodies are designed to decay and eventually perish despite or best efforts otherwise (and unlike the Nexus-6 replicants we can't meet our creator and demand more life). If we can overcome these trifles than perhaps we have a chance at long-term survival. Although not in a form that we would recognise.
So say that we found a way to upload our consciousness to the computer. I think I saw an X-Files episode about that once, but the idea is pretty interesting. we would then exist in a space where physical demise is no longer a threat. machines can be repaired; we could back up our minds a million times over, we could live forever in a virtual reality. Some people are attempting such a feat now by throwing their "real" lives away to focus on such pass times as Secondlife, although they have not been able to find a way around the fact a flesh and blood human needs to sit behind the screen in order for this life to have life.
But then what? Will our all-too-human emotional responses see our demise anyway? Will some virtual government develop a virtual nuclear bomb to virtually wipe out all virtual life? And if we do away with such things as "emotion" and all that come with it including art and entertainment and creativity will we cease to be human? Because aside from these flesh and bone bodies we haul ourselves around in it is our ability to reason, to create, to feel that make us the creatures we are.
Is the evolution away from what makes us us worth seeing the sun die?
Take it easy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)