Blank Page Syndrome

                You’re staring at a page which glares back out you, it’s unmarked and dazzling white almost shining in the glow of your lamplight. It’s perfect, unmarred by any fault or flaw, and you can’t bring yourself to put pen to paper of finger to keyboard. Words march boldly from your mind and down your synapses but fall, defeated at the beachfront between your hand and the page before you. You rush out a few phrases, a creative charge of Cossack riders into the no-man’s land upon the page – you try to ignore the first misspelling but the second one stumbles you and it’s not long before the brief sally into narration is covered by a bombardment of scribbles and hatchings to hide its failure from the world.

                Now the page is ruined; a storm of ink is proof you tried and died, as have so many others. You’re just one of them, a hopeless hack – untalented and destined to pen something so formulaic it may as well be a text book. In a fit of rage and shame you tear the paper, once so pristine, and cast it towards the bin. Then you storm of to do something more productive or hide under a blanket and cry your insecurities away.

                This is a heavily dramatized example of what I call “Blank Page Syndrome”; the clinical inability to write anything down upon a blank page. Fear of poor quality, worries concerning longevity of story and suddenly having any idea of what you wanted to write about leave your brain via parachute are all causes of this. It affects fiction writers as well as non-fiction ones, and I think stems from an odd yet instinctive fear of making a permanent record of an idea of opinion. This is an odd fear to be instinctive, but I cannot think of any other reason that anyone who wants to write something worries about whether or not it will be good enough.

                Who cares? No one may ever read it! And if they did, who’s to say what their opinion will be? Even if your writing is terrible – and odds are it won’t be if you spend even a little thought on it – then what are they going to do? Laugh? Tell you never to write anything again? Admittedly these are fairly hard hitting and painful responses. However, if your ‘friends’ react like this rather than with some kind of measured and constructive criticism they probably aren’t your friends. You can usually turn round, however, and ask them what have they ever written or read to make them an expert. As a tip, ‘Harry Potter’, ‘Twilight’ and ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ are not answers that elevate a member of the public to the height of professional literary critic.

                I think for a large number of people the problem is they have not written before and so don’t know how to start. What is the correct etiquette? Is there one? How do stories start? To reassure any budding-but-panicked authors, there is no one hundred percent ‘right’ or ‘correct’ way to start a story, and as long as you begin then you’ll find it continues on. Yes, the quality may improve as you go and, yes, you may go back and hate how you started the piece but as mentioned before you can always change it. So start writing.

                Now, non-fiction writers might have a bone to pick here, especially as far as essays, dissertations and presentations go – “But my work is meant to be professional and will be scrutinized heavily!” Yes, you’re correct. However, putting some effort into writing something relevant has always been better than simply not writing anything at all. You do have to be in it to win it, and not writing anything basically guarantees failure. As mentioned, you can always redraft and edit you work so get something on the page so you have something to work with later.

                More experienced writers might argue they know how to start things and don’t want to have to compromise their writing quality by rushing into something. This is admirable but largely irrelevant; until you actually write something your talent and skill are both utterly wasted. Other experienced writers might point out they never have this problem, and never did. If that’s the case, great news for you! Why are you reading a blog entry titled ‘Blank Page Syndrome’?

                Once, a lifetime (seven years) of mistakes ago I was staying, alone, for a week with an ex-girlfriend who had cheated on me, subsequently ending our relationship. This was entirely because I could not afford to buy flights to hurry myself to where I needed to be for university and was an utterly unenjoyable experience. She was interested in playwriting, and I had always been to author. Inevitably, because writing doesn’t require you to talk to anyone else, we ended up writing and, because human’s are emotion and social animals to the point of self-destruction, we did it at the same table. I was dissatisfied but wrote as if I wanted to be absorbed into what I was writing while she could not begin. Stared at her page, occasionally glancing at me or at my writing filling my own page, and could not find a way to begin.

                Eventually she sighed and said, I fear in a misguided effort to compliment me or raise my  spirits, “I don’t know how you do it. I always struggle to start but you can just…write!” My response, given in a fairly anti-social tone which might have come out part-snarl and part-disdain (definitely related to the piece I was writing. I’m a very method-writer and the character just happened to be a very bitter one.), “I just write. I’m sure you’ve done it before.”

                While the sentiment may have been a little harsh perhaps, the message was honest – start. Write. Create. If you don’t, you’ll never get anywhere. And this is what happened to me when I wanted to restart this blog, hence this post. It might reiterate a few points from previous ones but hopefully puts it all together succinctly so I can link this page in future rather than repeating myself again. I hope it’s helpful – if not, write me back!

What Kitchen?

                Something has been annoying me about fiction recently – in films as well as books or comics – and it’s something that I feel should have annoyed me for a longer time than it has. It’s grown from a niggle at the back of my mind whenever I see it into a full-fledged eye-roll with a ‘forget that’ wiping across my mind. Part of what annoys me about it is that I get annoyed by it at all; more on this later. The other part is that it should, based on certain arguments, be something that affects approximately 50% of main characters and an equal percentage of supporting characters, including villains.

                What is this, you ask? It’s female characters.

                Not that they exist; I firmly believe they should – in fact, that they almost need to. Not that they do – or even don’t – conform to a stereotype. No, my problem is that I over analyse exactly how they have been used and look into how it could have been done better. This in turn takes me out of the story, usually through no fault of the writing, editing, acting or direction (as appropriate), preventing me from receiving fully immersed enjoyment of the fiction I’m reading or watching.

                This obviously stems from a lot of things going on at the moment. The biggest factor in making me address how I look at this element of writing is the public response. I have been utterly disappointed with critics, the public, some friends and even myself with my response to these events and so I had to address it. Now, because I am not (yet) the most important person in the world, or close to that position, I can’t go out and change things without risking my job and a couple of other things quite important to me. How I can make a change is looking at how I write female characters. Small, but something affected by how I think and approach the subject.

                I like to think that my female characters, for the most part, have been strong and ‘progressive’ (read: able to escape most, if not all, stereotypes of females in fiction). For NaNoWriMo (National November Writing Month) I am writing a fantasy piece in which the lead character is female but does not fall into a role of character traditionally represented by her character. What are these roles? Unfortunately I do not have a complete list BUT I do have a few of the negative examples given in a video by a woman who reviews games quite critically. I have noticed she doesn’t talk about the positive roles women have in games or the strong female characters in games but that’s not the point of her vlog, so I guess I can forgive that.

                First up is the damsel-in-distress. Princess Peach is my primary example but there are countless others which I’m sure you could name if you tried. This is also the case in fiction; brave knight saves terrified princess about to be sacrificed to giant sea beastie, for example. The entire role of this character is to give the male protagonist a reason to go on their adventure – to kick-start the plot as it were. Why is this bad? Analyzing it in summary; woman can’t fend for herself, overpowered by evil male character, only men can be heroes. The defining characteristic of the damsel is ‘weak’ and/or ‘helpless’. This is a very difficult basis for a strong character, especially if they make no attempt to escape of help themselves.  

                The second example I’ll name here is the Eve with an Apple. This character is there to tempt the protagonist – usually male – into doing something wrong, evil or questionable which causes the plot to proceed. The seductress, the succubus, the one who has already turned to evil. She looks to convert the main character to the bad side to excuse her own failure, to prove she wasn’t weak. The main character refusing her only proves that she was.

                Third and final role is woman-in-the-refrigerator. This is a new term for me and originates from a Green Lantern issue in which the (male) protagonist finds, you guessed it, his wife in his refrigerator! This gives the comic plot and is the only thing this ‘character’ provides. Now, when this or the damsel character appear the issue is not really that they’re female is the problem (although this can and probably will be argued); it is that they are the only female character, or their character is only constituted by this element, defined by weakness or failure and related strongly to their femininity.

                These are traditional or conventional roles for women in fiction – not the only ones by a long way, but as far as gender stereotyping goes they are the easiest ones to name. They’re also going to be the ones I advise you never, ever use in your fiction unless you flesh out the character a lot more. Of course you can have a damsel-in-distress, but think about why she is in distress. Ideally, give them something else they are good at. If she’s a princess, make her more than a beautiful object to be saved; make her good at running her country or have other abilities that make her worth abducting or threatening. She should be more than a title and female; this is a weak character.

                The same is true for the other two roles – if the woman-in-the-refrigerator has no back story beyond the protagonist’s lover or family member then they are effectively reduced to bait. The same is true for Eves-with-Apples; if all they do is try to coerce the protagonist into betraying something or someone and then they are thin characters at best. Again this is easily solved by fleshing out the characters.

                How can you do that? Well, back story is your finest weapon here. If they have a reason for doing what they’re doing and how they got there then the reader can get on board with their motives. Maybe they were born into it, maybe they had a religious epiphany, or maybe there were several factors that lead them to where they are in your story. Make it clear and make it understandable, or at least intelligible. An author’s ability to make their characters believable is roughly proportionate to how well the reader understands said character.

                So apart from fleshing out the character what else can you do to make your fictional females seem realistic and strong? Try juxtaposing them against weak male characters – this is definitely allowed. Part of the problem with women in fiction is that they seem to be required to portray weakness rather than strength; they are the comparable character for the hero’s positive elements. So have a weak male character – Sherlock Holmes and Watson are a good example. If you find a problem with having a weak male character, I suggest you reconsider whether or not you bring culturally pre-defined and possibly sexist views into your writing.

                The other thing you can do is not make gender define your character. Try writing a short story with a male protagonist and then changing all of their pronouns. Congratulations; you’ve just written a female character exactly as you would a male one. Men and women are both equally able to display the same behaviours and perform the same actions. Therefore the gender of a character should only influence their actions if there is a very good reason in your story for it doing so. A lot of writers I talk to say they have issues writing female characters. I cannot understand how this can be the case unless they bring pre-conceived ideas to their writing about ‘how women should behave’.

                And there’s the problem with women in fiction; their writers. Some are a product of their time or culture – it is a fact that societies and cultures influence their people – and some are a product of sexist writers. It might be an active opinion they hold, or something ingrained that they aren’t even aware of. If you’re worried about it take a step back and think about whether you wrote the character the way you wanted, or the way you thought they should be written. If you answer with option B, you may want to have another look at your ‘female character’, just in case she turns out to actually be a regurgitation of out-dated and negative imagery.

All Good Things

                   There’s nothing like having a goal, something to achieve – and knowing what you want to achieve as well. It gives you purpose, a dream, a drive! It lets you plan your journey to it, predict obstacles and prepare for everything that might come your way while you quest after it. You set yourself targets or goals in nearly every aspect of your life, or have them set for you – so why shouldn’t you do it with your writing?

                Today I’ll be talking about endings; very specifically about how to reach them and why they’re important. My last post talked about having a story board prepared for when you wrote short stories. Logically there must be a final panel; this is your goal. The others lead up to it – a charge or a creep towards an incredible crescendo (or a credible one, if you prefer) – and you might find you can almost write the story backwards. 

                I don’t mean to be awkward with that statement – I have always found it difficult to write a short story if I didn’t know where I wanted it to go, so much so that I’ve often abandoned pieces I’ve started or let the fall by the desk-side until I have more inspiration for them. My normal technique is to envision how I want something to progress – usually in the form of a story board – and then connect the panels I created in my mind. I usually do this backwards, working from the last panel back to the one before and figuring out how that journey forms before going back to the step before and doing the same again.

               Some people call this a ‘bad way to write’. Maybe for them it is; it works for me. Sometimes I just make a few notes to describe how these panels link – the tendons that bind the skeleton together, if I continue using last post’s analogy – before moving back. I can then build one these notes to literally flesh out the story, adding the characters in and around the rest of it to give it life and power it through its own story line. This is not to say, of course, things cannot be edited and changed later – this is always, always, always and option, as is a total rewrite or even abandonment if you actually think you can’t finish a piece. 

                As you can tell for me to make this process work the ending is very important to keep in my mind, to know where and what everything is building up to. It means I can drop in hints and twists that stay consistent with the rest of the story, or sometimes it’s vital I include them to maintain that consistency. Imagine a story where there can be next to zero risk of inconsistency, or risk of it, in the early chapters; this is achievable for me (or perhaps just in my mind) because you’ve already written the ending and you can tie in the beginning and middle straight away because you know what will happen. You can plan the twists and their results, you can choose ahead of time which characters will die/betray the heroes, and you can embroil the reader in mysteries knowing full well how they are resolved all with the confidence of knowing how it ends. 

                A story is certainly all about the journey, but without a target or goal it’s not journeying too anywhere – this will come across in your writing. If people finish it and say things like, “It’s good, I like it, but I don’t know where it’s going,” take a step back and ask yourself, “Do I know where it’s going?” Stories need to be going somewhere, they need to have a point they’re driving at or towards, otherwise they wander and meander and lose focus (much like some of my blog entries). So make sure where you’re going somewhere with your story, else you might find it goes nowhere.

                This doesn’t mean you have to know everything about the story to begin with, not by a long way. Imagine you’re making a puzzle; it has irregular sides and it’s got a lot of repeating patterns. Not having an ending in mind is the same as not having a picture to refer to while making a puzzle – you don’t know what your building up to, it’s difficult to make a start and even if you do you are not always sure what you’re doing is going to make sense later on. You might even have to start again and after doing that several times the idea of giving up seems like a really good one.

                Giving up will not get your piece finished. Just think about that for a little bit; it might be easier, but what does it achieve if you take the ‘easier’ route? It will not finish your short story. It will not finish your play or script. It will not finish your novel. Is it really the easier route to your goal or is it just less effort for you in the immediate future? Less effort, by its very nature as a practice, is unlikely to be more efficient in achieving your goal than putting more effort in – I think it is in fact a more difficult endeavour to finish a piece by not writing it than by actually getting on with it. By that token, the easier route or method to finishing your script/story/novel/masterpiece is definitely to sit down and write it. Not all in one sitting, but bit by bit, and never forgetting where you want it to end up.

                This doesn’t mean you have to know everything about the story from the start. It doesn’t mean the ending is set in stone. You can change the ending, sculpt it as your story evolves, make it the most perfect and dramatically appropriate ending you can as you find out more and more about your characters. But have an ending in mind. Remember, you can’t complete a quest without being told where to go and what to do. So set your goal and bring on The End.

Getting A Word In

     I, like most writers I know, have a couple of short stories lying around that I’m happy with but which aren’t ever going to grow into larger or longer pieces. Having read through a couple of them recently I decided I would try to get them published on one or several of the e-Bookstores that are around now. I have been singularly unsuccessful thus far.

                I’m using a particular site recommended by a friend for the service, pretty much because it is free. I’m trying to avoid paying for something I could do myself – as part of my belief it is far better to take the trouble to learn a skill rather than lose out by paying someone else to do it. I’ve got a little further than I have before through the process but have failed at the second hurdle. I’ll get there in the end, though, using the same drive and determination that allowed me to finish reading the Silmarillion and finish writing my university dissertation.

                Why am I telling you all that I’m slightly retarded when it comes to this self-publsihing process? To show that I am following my next BRILLIANT WRITING TIP of course! Which is to get yourself published, even if it is only on a small scale – or even if it’s just to get you more familiar with the process. Getting your name out there and having examples of your work, even if they are only short stories, can help a lot – especially if they’re well presented in a published format. Looking the part is not quite as important as playing the part but the former goes a long way to making people think you can do the latter. 

                So how should you publish your work? Well, I’m not a professional agent so can’t give you professional advice. The best I’ve got is anecdotal so I’ll pass that on. Firstly, having a printed, published and well turned out copy of your story/manuscript/work/piece/intellectual-love-child you can show or give to people immediately makes them think something along the lines of, “Hold the phone, this is actually real.” It provides substance to all the wild stories of how fantastic a writer you are – obviously if you’ve been published you’ve got to be pretty good, right? It also means you can show off to people as well and while this may seem a little self-indulgent you are trying to break into a media industry. This requires advertising and unless you have a substantial budget behind you, the best you’re likely to be able to manage is to do it yourself.

                I don’t necessarily mean you have to stand in the street handing out copies of your work for free (something I have considered) but asking your local bookstore to advertise it is a step in the right direction. Waterstones, Barnes&Noble and other large chains might take you up on it but since they are part of substantially vast corporations they usually have to get their advertising behaviours prescribed to them BUT smaller bookstores, charity bookstores, or libraries may be more open to putting a flier up somewhere – a flier you’ve designed yourself that is so amazing people won’t be able to resist going online to buy your work.

                Yes, I am very good at coming up with great-sounding results and not really describing the method. Again, I am not a professional agent. They cost money, and probably don’t write blogs online to advertise their services. Self-advertising is difficult because it requires time and sometimes money, so doing it is entirely up to you. For most people, it is an unrealistic goal. What you can do is get your work uploaded to e-stores or e-libraries, which is what I am trying to do at the moment. This gives you a massive potential audience and once you get a couple of pieces out there they work to advertise each other – if someone reads Piece A, they will look for others by you and will find Piece B, D and E, and will keep looking for C until they find it (if you can keep them interested). 

                I suggest short stories because they are quick to both write and edit. My current project of that type has got a little out of hand and I need to go back to basics. I’ve spent a lot of time scene-setting and character building, which would be great if I had more than four to five thousand words. Realistically, at about twelve hundred words in, I should be at a slightly more advanced stage. The pacing is too slow for the length of the piece and I have to re-evaluate where I want it to go. This is an example of comprise and structured editing; I know what the limits are and where I’ve made mistakes. As long as you keep your creative ambition under control you will be able to craft to story you want. Next week I’ll be writing in more detail about modelling/preparing short stories but for now – back to the subject.

                Getting published; this is the goal. Realistically, you’re not likely going to be the one that makes headlines, gets their book pasted across buses and billboards or be the next big thing. Depressing? Perhaps but I think it’s better to set achievable goals. I’m not saying you won’t be the next big thing; I’m just saying you’ll have to finish your story first and then get noticed somehow. Self-publishing can be free, it can be easy and it can be done from the comfort of your own home. So go for it, give it a try. See if you can beat me to it! Once you’ve got a couple of pieces in circulation it will be much easier to pitch a big project to a publisher. When they ask, “What else have you done?” it will sound much, much more impressive for you to be able to say, “I’ve got X, Y and J available here and here,” than the ever-expressive, “Um.”

Stylus at Dawn

                 I have been challenged! To write something, rather than an event as dramatic or enthralling as a duel, I should explain. I have been charged with writing a piece which is a scientifiction and demonstrates character growth or change within five thousand words. Some would argue that I could use five pictures, using a certain equation most are familiar with, but I have neither the talent nor the patience to hone it for that to be a viable choice. I am about six hundred words in, due to time constraints rather than lack of ideas (fortuitously) but I am not worried that the deadline of a week will pass to find me in failure.

                Now, I used a word in that paragraph that some people (and Microsoft Word) would say isn’t real, or perhaps that it is a misspelling. ‘Scientifiction’ is that word (I hope, or my editing skills need more work than I thought) and it is quite an old fashioned one. I suspect a large number of literacists (an actually made up word, a spoonerism of ‘literary artists’) might not be familiar with it. It is an interesting term that is used to describe a sub-section of the science-fiction genre. In my mind the great, bloated and vast genre encompasses a huge amount of writing and a similarly pronounced potential for the exploration of ideas in the future and because it is so big can sometimes lose meaning. To give an example; Alien, Man of Steel and The Time Machine are all science fiction but differ quite substantially in content. As with most works of fiction these fall into several categories, and as with most science fiction pieces that particular descriptor is unfortunately lacking in descriptive detail. This is why I use the term scientifiction.

                Scientifiction is another spoonerism, borrowed from a university lecturer in my first year of study, for ‘scientific fiction’. This is now a sub-genre of science-fiction, but was probably the original genre before fantasy and science fiction started overlapping to the stage of being close to indistinguishable in some areas. It describes a piece or story that is based around the idea of fictional science, and explores it. Sometimes very little else happens in the story – Flowers for Algernon is one of my favourite examples of this. It is a really touching story of the romance between two individuals, one of whom is a scientist and the other a (willing) test subject. I highly recommend it, and it is only a short story, and it is a good example of scientifiction. It explores the effects of a new (and entirely fictional) scientific discovery on the two main characters and how they react to it.

                How is this different from other science fiction – or indeed, other fiction in general? Firstly the story is about mostly character reaction to the discovery and their responses to each other’s reaction. Usually there is a more interactive element in stories that are so character driven, but the focus in Flowers is overwhelmingly how the discovery affects the characters. This is not to say there is no interactive elements – there definitely are – but the science is central to everything that happens. This focus drives the piece forward, which is a strength, but at the same time because there is an intensity to this central element stories tend to be shorter as it is harder to maintain that diamond-edged concentration on a single subject through an entire novel. I’m not saying it can’t be done, I’m just pointing out it is difficult. 

                Yes, other genres have a similar, concentrated focal point. Gothic horror is an example with many stories that keep the reader tightly bound on a single subject. One of my favourite stories of this genre is The Red Room by (author) which I read during my GCSEs (middle school finals). I remember reading it in class and feeling almost claustrophobic, like there was a pressure pulling on me as I lived through the narrator’s horror. It was my first foray into what a friend of mine calls entrapment-horror and for all the reasons he hates it, I love it; the feeling of inescapable, inevitable doom good Gothic and/or horror stories induce is a thrilling feeling for me, although I appreciate that in the same way not everybody enjoys skydiving this emotional state is not everybody’s idea of an enjoyable reading reaction.

                Returning to my point – I am aware that my writing (and my conversation) can be haunted by tangents – scientifiction looks at imaginary science. If you are familiar with the Star Trek series, you will know they have the ability to travel at ‘warp speeds’. The science behind this faster-than-light travel is often alluded to but as something everybody is familiar with, and it is never really explained in any detail. This is, obviously, partly due to the fact we don’t know how to travel faster than light so explaining such is pretty close to impossible. If the show had a scientifiction grounding, however, conversations about the process would be more common place. They would probably involve a lot of jargon or ideas that sound legitimate but are actually improbable at best as scientific theories. 

For example, a new element – Kirkium, for the sake of an example – could be invented (read: discovered on Jupiter) that reacted in a particular way with something like lead which is cheap, common and plentiful to create a clean form of energy that was easily convertible into electricity (as that is the most common and accepted form of energy we use currently) in vast amounts. Then, on one of Jupiter’s moons (probably Titan) another element is discovered which is super dense yet easily forms alloys with more common metals in small amounts, making a super-strong molecular compound that can resist every pressure it is put under and doesn’t become brittle at absolute zero temperature. This is how starships are powered and can be flung through the void at faster than light speeds without smooshing them into a small lump of variously composed mush.

The above scenario is possible, although improbable and very difficult to substantiate at the present time. However, because it is possible and potentially plausible people are more willing to accept it - or suspend their disbelief – because the result is both brilliant and believable as a theoretical concept: If we could produce enough electricity and if we had a sufficiently structurally-sound construction material then the result is possible. This is the conceit we are willing to accept, and science fiction expands slightly on what those ifs are. Scientifiction explores the discovery and application of those ifs, which is the difference.

Now, I appreciate that might not sound like the exciting, rip-roaring adrenaline ride that some people look for in literature and nor is it the emotionally moving epic other want, but for some the exploration of a theoretical concept is incredibly intriguing, and I am one of those. So the challenge that has been laid at my feet is one I face with relish, and the genre is one I am happy to discuss – and little known enough I thought some might find it interesting to learn about. It strays flirtatiously close to creative non-fiction in some cases and if you enjoy relaxing to an intellectual piece or the exploration of a concept (not necessarily scientific in nature) then it would be worth a look. 

BIG BAD WRITING TIP FOR THE WEEK:

Don’t procrastinate. I talked about making time last entry; don’t put off writing simply because you think you will have time later. Get some done, even a little, and sometimes it unleashes a torrent of creativity. Keep it dammed up and you may find your ideas dry out before you can bathe in their refreshing waters. I failed in that this week, writing blog entries and having a social life rather than writing under this misconception I would have some free time at work. I didn’t, so am behind on the above challenge. So if you’ve made time, use it!

Page One

Good morning, afternoon, evening, night; whatever time of day you’re reading this. Since my last post was written I’ve done approximately 300 words of writing, so massively off target. Which saddens me greatly, but I’m still trying to find the time to fit writing into my schedule. It battles with work, which I basically have to do, going to the gym, which I don’t have to do but it certainly helps my dieting, and having a social life, which is again not absolutely necessary but still important to me. Previously I would have done it in the time I now spend at the gym but since I can’t spare that I have had to find other times to do it.

So this entry is about making time! This is an area of scientific study that has not been wholly explored yet, so really what I mean is budgeting time. If we suppose you get seven days a week and twenty-four hours in each day, this gives you one hundred and sixty-eight hours a week to budget. In my case I work nine hours for five days a week and sleep an average of seven hours a day for seven days a week, which leaves me with a paltry seventy-four hours a week spare. Working into that an hours travel time for each work day to cover the journey there and back, my free time is whittled down even further to sixty-nine hours a week.

While this could be seen as an auspicious number, it is less than half of my weekly hour amount. I then spend an hour and a half in the gym four times a week, for a total of six hours which lowers my total to sixty-three. So I spend over one hundred hours a week on things I cannot really avoid. On the flip side, this leaves me with sixty-three hours a week in which I can do anything I want! And that is quite a long time, realistically – to put it into context, I could feasibly have another full time job, or double the length of time I spend asleep, and still have time left over. So what eats away at this considerable amount of free time?

Firstly, everyone needs time to themselves. Relaxation is a very important element of a person’s day-to-day wellbeing; if you don’t make time for yourself you’re not really living for you. So some of it is spent on that – an amount I cannot specify, unfortunately, since it can and will vary. I could do some writing in this time but I stand by my belief that if it feels like I’m forcing myself to write then I won’t enjoy it and, worse, the quality of my writing will suffer. Don’t let this stop you; write anyway. I have a friend who made himself write something, anything, on a Saturday morning between nine and eleven just so he was doing some. It didn’t matter what he wrote, whether it was for a main piece or not – it just mattered that he wrote.  Writing is like exercise – you might not want to do it to begin with but once you’re into the flow of the script you’ll find it pretty easy to continue.

Secondly, nearly everyone has friends and like any relationship friends need maintenance. Some less than others but the other fact to consider here is that nearly everyone enjoys spending time with their friends. Could this be included in relaxation time? Quite possibly, but as a self-confessed introvert I sometimes find it difficult to recharge and recuperate while in social situations. Either way it is fairly rude to begin writing while meeting up with friends unless that is what you’ve met up to do. Writing is usually an insular activity especially when you have a brilliant idea in mind and other people don’t accept the sheer amazing power of your vision – which sounds grand, but I think everyone has come up with an idea they think is absolutely perfect and any suggestion that it is less than that is both gutting and bitterness-inducing. After a particular experience like this I call these jellyfish-moments, which helps me diffuse my frustration with them. At some stage I will give examples of them to demonstrate.

                So, for the sake of the maths I’ve used here, I will slash my remaining free time by two thirds. This leaves me with twenty-one unassigned hours. Let’s put that in perspective: I write at fifty-two words a minute when I know what I’m writing. We’ll lower that to forty for the sake of bio-breaks and pauses for thought. Sixty minutes in an hour means that at three-thousand, one hundred and twenty words per hour without breaks or two-thousand four hundred words with breaks. So in my twenty-one unassigned hours a week, I could potential write a massive fifty-thousand, four hundred words a week – or, if I really pushed myself, a stupendous sixty-five thousand five hundred and twenty. That’s a whole book! Or the better part of a novel! And all it would require would be three hours a night spent writing.

                Obviously, this is sounds too good to be true – and, sadly, it is. If I enforced this regime it would make me a recluse, which is not something I want to be. Despite being an introvert I still like going out and seeing people; not all of us eschew human contact simple because we are not extroverted. So the above equation and plan is a bit of a jellyfish (BAM! Already an example). But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have merit as a theory. Could I not give one hour a day over for writing? Easily. I could even do some while I eat.

                This is because writing as an activity is not simply throwing words out on a page in a vaguely prose format. It can include brainstorming, note making, editing, doodling or even throwing out ideas and/or pages. It’s all part of the creative process and it all progresses you towards your ultimate goal: Fame and fortune through brilliant literary feats.

                So I am going to start today spending an hour a day focusing on my writing. It doesn’t even have to be all at once – snatches of time you get free at work can be used to scribble down some notes furiously while you’re manager isn’t looking and then a half hour once you have some time to yourself to collate them and make sure they are actually all helpful and remove anything that is too jellyfish like. I urge you to do the same, if you want to keep writing, start writing or even just dabble in it. It doesn’t have to be linked, it doesn’t have to be perfect; it just has to be written.

The First Word on the Page

                   Over New Year we all have little epiphanies and revelations about things we should do more, or less, or better, or worse. Mine came when I heard someone make the comment, “A writer who doesn’t write anything isn’t really a writer.” I am a writer who writes very little and my initial reaction was to go and defend myself, but a little voice in my head said very, very quietly that he had a point.

                This understandably troubled me; it challenged my assertions about who and what I am. Part of why I agreed with him was because I’ve been troubled by how little writing I am doing at the moment. I use the excuse that I’m pretty busy and don’t have a lot of time, but I’ve also recently been telling people that we make time for things we want to do, and how we spend our time defines what we want. By that precedent I am at best an occasional writer, which saddens me. Since I don’t like being in this emotional state I have decided upon the resolution to make more time for writing!

                Before we go any further, I have to highlight the fact I am not a published author. I am not a famous, successful hero of fiction or literature and neither have I made my fortune spinning tales (yet). This blog is about the struggle to achieve that goal, the journey to get there and the joy of what you discover on the way (and, sometimes, the pain found therein as well). So hold your snide remarks and instead aid that cause - post your opinions, experiences and questions below so everyone can benefit. That's right - COMMUNIST IDEALISM! I'm sure that's something we should strive for and, if science-fiction has taught me anything, be wary of giving to machines.

                So what am I doing writing a blog? Why spend time writing this rather spending it writing fiction? I have found that scheduling is actually really good for time management – shocking, right? – so I’ve started using a journal. This allows me to plan ahead a little and I’ve found that to be rather empowering. My aim with this blog is similar; by writing this regularly I will be thinking about writing regularly and, hopefully, writing more regularly too as a result.

                One of the things I’ll be doing is addressing elements and aspects of writing that can be or have been problematic for either myself of friends who write. The first of these is the most obvious, as it is where everyone starts; titles and beginnings. Some people say the hardest step is the first one – I personally don’t agree with this analogy, as I don’t think writing is always an uphill struggle, but even if I did I would argue it is only difficult to conquer this as a first obstacle because you make it one. 

                How can you avoid getting stuck in the mire of mentally-sapping mind-mud? Step one; don’t give it a title. By all means note down ideas but don’t get hung up on it. The issue with titles is that they are supposed to embody and encapsulate the entire book – or play, or manuscript, or whatever you are writing. How can you choose a title without having written most, if not all, of your work? How do you know what your book is about without going through the creative process? Any book evolves as it is written and if your book was written in a day it probably needs some work. So don’t limit yourself by calling your book something gripping or edgy like ‘Dead Clay’ and then stressing about how to make the sixteen chapters that seem to have no relevance to your title have relevance. Note ideas down but don’t fixate on them. Which is easier to change; several thousand words or your title which is made of maybe half a dozen?

                The next problem is another obvious one; starting your piece. The biggest shift in effort between any two points in an endeavour is between ready and running, having nothing on the page to beginning to fill it, going from thought to action. Like everything, writing is subject to inertia and entropy; it’s difficult to start because you haven’t started and it’s easy to stop because it takes less effort and time. There are also your subconscious fears to consider – what if I change my mind? What if what I write doesn’t make sense later? What if it is just poor quality? These questions seem reasonable but are fairly unimportant in reality; you are not carving the words in stone. You will be able to change, alter or scrap them entirely at a later date if you so please. If you’re not happy with what you write you can change it – you can unmake its imperfection and re-forge it into something golden.

                So just out pen to paper; let ink spill forth across the page as a mighty flood of creative invention. Not sure what to write about? It doesn’t matter. First person? Third? Narrative, descriptive, or biographical? It doesn’t matter. I find I rarely know exactly where a story is going but as a result of just adding words to it the story writes itself and grows. Of course I edit, of course I rewrite and yes, of course I scrap projects occasionally. You are a writer, not an architect or construction manager; the things you create are far easy to alter or even abandon. The chance of failure or abandoning your piece should not be a reason to abstain from or avoid writing. On the contrary; through finding the faults in a piece, and in yourself as a writer, by writing without a rigidly set plan you can improve thereby letting both your work and your writing ability grow.