I know that I am not the first person to say this, but I do believe that stand-up comedians are true modern-day philosophers. Watching stand-up is great because it's a fun time. You get entertained and you chuckle or even laugh out loud. But a really good comedian does more than that: good comedians make you think.
Consider the point of philosophy. I will grant that you can't get people to agree on the point of Philosophy, so I'm going to use my definition. The point of philosophy is to find things that are true. A philosopher says things that people know or understand, but had never looked at in a particular way. And according to this post I made, comedy is about doing the same thing. The things that are funniest to us are true, relatable, and make us think.
Comedians have to think about these things, things that cross people's minds, but are rarely pondered. They need to make connections and comparisons that other people don't make, but ring true the instant that people hear it.
Comedians are writers. Some may do a bit of freestyling, but they all have an act and bits that they plan out and practice. Although we do not read their writing, the fact that they plan it and write it down makes them writers.
If you are a writer, regardless of what form you write, you would do well to study stand-up comedians. See the jokes they tell, why good ones are funny, why bad ones fail, how they transition thoughts, what connections they make. Stand-up comedians are a very available resource and a wealth of information. Learn from these philosophers so your writing can have an interesting philosophy of its own.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
The Writer's Schedule
Paul Graham wrote an essay called Maker's Schedule, Manager's Schedule. In this essay, Graham talks about how computer programmers and managers run on different schedules, which can lead to strife between the two.
The manager's schedule is simple: one-hour blocks. If you need more time on a project, you can give it two blocks, but if you need to schedule a meeting, you can put off the things you're doing until the next block.
The maker's schedule is different. Programmers are needing to create, which is a longer process. These people don't just sit down and start creating. They need to see what they've been working on, think about what needs to be done, get an idea for how to do it, start working on it, and work into a groove. This usually means you have two sessions: a morning session and an afternoon session (or an afternoon/evening or an evening/late night depending on the kind of writer you are).
As a maker, every time you have to stop what you're doing, it throws you off your groove. When you get back to work, you have to start all over again. And if a manager schedules a meeting right in the middle of one of your sessions, you've basically lost that session. A meeting in between your first and second is fine, though, because it is a natural break.
Graham specifically mentions writers as one of the kinds of makers out there, but even without that mention, I found it amazing how similar the maker's schedule was to mine. I hate being interrupted because it ruins my pace and my thought processes.
However, not everybody agrees that writers work on this schedule. "Writers can write anywhere, at any time. You never know when inspiration or motivation will hit you. Since you are thinking about your work all the time, you are always working on your writing; sitting down is simply when you record your ideas."
To start with the first ideas, I will yield that you can write stuff down pretty much wherever and whenever. However, that is not the same thing as sitting down and writing. If you get an idea that you want to remember for later, jotting it down is a great way to not forget it. But you can only expand on the idea so much. If you write on paper, you will run out of room. If you write on a digital advice, it is usually a pain in the butt. Nobody has ever written a novel on their iPhone and for good reason.
As for inspiration, it is true that you may be visited by your muse at any given point, but we also know it is unreliable because of that. When you have work to do and deadlines to meet, you have to rely on yourself to get work done. Writers do not only work when inspired. That is why we need our sessions to look and think and create and warm-up and gather steam.
I will also grant that we are always working on our writing (mostly because I already said so), but nobody writes a novel in their head. The majority of our creation comes to us while we write. We can only hold a handful of ideas in our mind at most. That's why we need to sit down and write out all of our thoughts. We may be processing problems subconsciously, but we can only do so much while we are not in writing mode.
So if you want to get some serious writing done, rope off a block of time (more than an hour) to sit down and write without distractions. Warm up and keep on working. Work yourself into a groove and enjoy what comes from a solid writing session. See how much more you can get out of a three-hour block of writing instead of three one-hour blocks.
The manager's schedule is simple: one-hour blocks. If you need more time on a project, you can give it two blocks, but if you need to schedule a meeting, you can put off the things you're doing until the next block.
The maker's schedule is different. Programmers are needing to create, which is a longer process. These people don't just sit down and start creating. They need to see what they've been working on, think about what needs to be done, get an idea for how to do it, start working on it, and work into a groove. This usually means you have two sessions: a morning session and an afternoon session (or an afternoon/evening or an evening/late night depending on the kind of writer you are).
As a maker, every time you have to stop what you're doing, it throws you off your groove. When you get back to work, you have to start all over again. And if a manager schedules a meeting right in the middle of one of your sessions, you've basically lost that session. A meeting in between your first and second is fine, though, because it is a natural break.
Graham specifically mentions writers as one of the kinds of makers out there, but even without that mention, I found it amazing how similar the maker's schedule was to mine. I hate being interrupted because it ruins my pace and my thought processes.
However, not everybody agrees that writers work on this schedule. "Writers can write anywhere, at any time. You never know when inspiration or motivation will hit you. Since you are thinking about your work all the time, you are always working on your writing; sitting down is simply when you record your ideas."
To start with the first ideas, I will yield that you can write stuff down pretty much wherever and whenever. However, that is not the same thing as sitting down and writing. If you get an idea that you want to remember for later, jotting it down is a great way to not forget it. But you can only expand on the idea so much. If you write on paper, you will run out of room. If you write on a digital advice, it is usually a pain in the butt. Nobody has ever written a novel on their iPhone and for good reason.
As for inspiration, it is true that you may be visited by your muse at any given point, but we also know it is unreliable because of that. When you have work to do and deadlines to meet, you have to rely on yourself to get work done. Writers do not only work when inspired. That is why we need our sessions to look and think and create and warm-up and gather steam.
I will also grant that we are always working on our writing (mostly because I already said so), but nobody writes a novel in their head. The majority of our creation comes to us while we write. We can only hold a handful of ideas in our mind at most. That's why we need to sit down and write out all of our thoughts. We may be processing problems subconsciously, but we can only do so much while we are not in writing mode.
So if you want to get some serious writing done, rope off a block of time (more than an hour) to sit down and write without distractions. Warm up and keep on working. Work yourself into a groove and enjoy what comes from a solid writing session. See how much more you can get out of a three-hour block of writing instead of three one-hour blocks.
Monday, December 7, 2009
First Person vs. Third Person
Suppose you have an idea for a story. Good for you. Ideas are a nice start, but the more important question is execution. You know what you want to write about, but how are you going to tell it?
There are a great number of ways to tell a story. Most of them can be described as either first person or third person narration. Whenever I get a story idea, I ask myself if I should write it in first or third person. I usually go with third person because I prefer it. But that's not a good enough reason for me. We have these two different ways to tell a story; there should be reasons to use one over the other.
For starters, first person narration should always be used when talking about yourself and your own experiences. Referring to yourself in the third person is tacky beyond words (except for when you need to write a professional bio for yourself). But in a fictional work, either method can be used.
So what's the difference between the two? In third person, you can look anywhere at any time, so if you have several simultaneous storylines going on, third person may be the way to go. Of course, since these sections have natural breaks, they could each be told in frst person as long as there are clear indicators of who is talking, so it's not necessarily about location or focus.
The third person narrator is an observer. They tell you what people are saying, doing, how they look. A narrator can't tell you how a person is feeling or thinking. Well, technically, they can, but that is called bad writing (show, don't tell), so let's just assume they aren't mind readers.
A first person narrator is a character. They are living through the story itself. They will still tell you how other people looked, what they said, and what they did. They still can't read other people's minds, but they can read their own mind, and that is a key difference. Here, the narrator is going to be acting and thinking. We learn about this character specifically, see the world through his or her eyes, feel the same emotions, ponder the same questions.
So what kind of story are you trying to tell? If your story is more about the actions and interactions of people, third person is the way to go. If your story is more about thoughts and motivations, first person makes more sense.
There are a great number of ways to tell a story. Most of them can be described as either first person or third person narration. Whenever I get a story idea, I ask myself if I should write it in first or third person. I usually go with third person because I prefer it. But that's not a good enough reason for me. We have these two different ways to tell a story; there should be reasons to use one over the other.
For starters, first person narration should always be used when talking about yourself and your own experiences. Referring to yourself in the third person is tacky beyond words (except for when you need to write a professional bio for yourself). But in a fictional work, either method can be used.
So what's the difference between the two? In third person, you can look anywhere at any time, so if you have several simultaneous storylines going on, third person may be the way to go. Of course, since these sections have natural breaks, they could each be told in frst person as long as there are clear indicators of who is talking, so it's not necessarily about location or focus.
The third person narrator is an observer. They tell you what people are saying, doing, how they look. A narrator can't tell you how a person is feeling or thinking. Well, technically, they can, but that is called bad writing (show, don't tell), so let's just assume they aren't mind readers.
A first person narrator is a character. They are living through the story itself. They will still tell you how other people looked, what they said, and what they did. They still can't read other people's minds, but they can read their own mind, and that is a key difference. Here, the narrator is going to be acting and thinking. We learn about this character specifically, see the world through his or her eyes, feel the same emotions, ponder the same questions.
So what kind of story are you trying to tell? If your story is more about the actions and interactions of people, third person is the way to go. If your story is more about thoughts and motivations, first person makes more sense.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Making The Same Mistakes
There are a great number of lessons to learn on the road to becoming a better writer. Usually, we have an idea of how we want our writing to look and sound like. The lessons we learn and the effort we put in go toward turning our writing into a form we are happy with. Eventually, you will be able to do that. Then what?
I do not think I am the greatest writer in the world, but when I work on a project, my finished product is something I'm proud of. I have the ability to write a rough draft, then revise and edit it until all the little mistakes I made are gone. So what are my goals now in terms of writing ability?
In short, my goal is to not make those mistakes in the first place. It's largely impossible to write a perfect first draft, but at least I can work on not making the same mistakes that I make over and over again.
I don't worry about writing run-on sentences; they have never been much of a problem for me. However, I do have a problem with putting in useless words and phrases. A common one we're taught in school is to not use phrases like "I think" and "I believe". The idea is that if you are writing the paper, it is understood that we are reading your beliefs. But there are other words, words that we use in spoken language that just weigh down writing. Words like "probably" and "maybe" make you sound unsure and don't add anything to a sentence. They weaken writing.
As such, when I am writing, if I catch myself using weak language or just writing in a circuitous fashion, I will delete it and rewrite it in a clearer and stronger way. I know that if I edited my work, I would catch those mistakes and clean them up, but I just want to save myself from needing to fix anything in the first place.
Of course, this is something you can start right away. Even if you are still trying to figure out how to make your writing just the way you like it, if you notice yourself making the same mistakes, try to avoid them while you're writing the next thing.
I do not think I am the greatest writer in the world, but when I work on a project, my finished product is something I'm proud of. I have the ability to write a rough draft, then revise and edit it until all the little mistakes I made are gone. So what are my goals now in terms of writing ability?
In short, my goal is to not make those mistakes in the first place. It's largely impossible to write a perfect first draft, but at least I can work on not making the same mistakes that I make over and over again.
I don't worry about writing run-on sentences; they have never been much of a problem for me. However, I do have a problem with putting in useless words and phrases. A common one we're taught in school is to not use phrases like "I think" and "I believe". The idea is that if you are writing the paper, it is understood that we are reading your beliefs. But there are other words, words that we use in spoken language that just weigh down writing. Words like "probably" and "maybe" make you sound unsure and don't add anything to a sentence. They weaken writing.
As such, when I am writing, if I catch myself using weak language or just writing in a circuitous fashion, I will delete it and rewrite it in a clearer and stronger way. I know that if I edited my work, I would catch those mistakes and clean them up, but I just want to save myself from needing to fix anything in the first place.
Of course, this is something you can start right away. Even if you are still trying to figure out how to make your writing just the way you like it, if you notice yourself making the same mistakes, try to avoid them while you're writing the next thing.
Friday, December 4, 2009
140 Characters or Less: An Example
I've written earlier about how interesting Twitter and text messages are for writers. It can be a real chore expressing yourself in 140 characters or less. But in working within that restriction, it forces you to learn how to write as efficiently as possible. I am still fascinated by this and wanted to share an example.
I was talking with a friend through text messaging, so I had 128 characters to say what I want. A thought popped into my head that I wanted to ask. If I was in person, I would have said, "So, I was thinking, if you took a hamburger patty and cut it into two patties, then put cheese between them, would that technically be a double cheeseburger?"
That sentence is 157 characters. That doesn't sound a lot more than128, but if you don't know how to pare down a sentence, it will be difficult to trim down. So start at the beginning. We don't need to say "So". It's a verbal cue. It grabs a person's attention so they know to listen up. In a text message, the person knows they are being addressed, so you don't need to grab their attention.
The next thing to drop is "I was thinking". The very fact that you are asking a question indicates that you were thinking about it. When we say that we've been thinking about something, it means that we have been pondering it for a while as opposed to having it just pop into our heads (which we also announce if it is the case). Still, it is extraneous information, so cutting it out doesn't hurt you.
Our sentence is now down to, "If you took a hamburger patty and cut it into two patties, then put cheese between them, would that technically be a double cheeseburger?" This is 137 characters, so we are almost there. We've taken out the extraneous phrases, so let's tighten up the bulk of the sentence itself.
In the first phrase (If you took a hamburger patty and cut it into two patties), the redundancy of the word "patty" immediately stands out. In fact, since hamburger can mean the patty, you don't need it at all. You can also be more direct with the phrase and get the subject and verb out there sooner. By keeping it totally Spartan, we can turn it into "If you cut a burger in two".
The next phrase (then put cheese between them) is pretty good as it is, but if I change "between" to "on", then it indicates cheese on both patties (which is more traditional for a double cheeseburger anyway) and saves 5 characters.
At this point, we have "If you cut a burger in two, then put cheese on them, would that technically be a double cheeseburger?" This is 101 characters, so we've already reached the threshold, but we can still cut the last part down.
The last part of the sentence (would that technically be a double cheeseburger?) can be pared down easily. Turn "would. . .be" into "is", turn "that" into "it", and cut out "technically". Now you have, "is it a double cheeseburger?"
We now have the sentence, "If you cut a burger in two, then put cheese on them, is it a double cheeseburger?" This is 81 characters, well within our limit, and about as short as you can get without using abbreviations.
Truth be told, I don't like this sentence. It may be short, but it doesn't sound good. Efficiency isn't about making a sentence as short as it possibly can. It's about getting the most bang for your buck. I have 47 characters to play with. If I can add to those sentence and make it more effective, it is worth it.
I think "hamburger" works better than "burger". Also, since a hamburger can be either the patty or the whole thing with a bun and fixings, I want to put "patty" in there. Although the whole sentence implies that it is just a patty being cut in two, it is less confusing to specify that right away. Any normal person who hears that a hamburger is cut in two would assume that the circle would be cut into two half-circles, not that it would be cut into two thinner circles, so I want to clarify that, too.
Ultimately, I end up with the sentence, "If you cut a thick hamburger into two thinner patties and put cheese on each of them, would that be a double cheeseburger?" This is 122 characters. It is close to the limit, but it fits just fine. You may notice that I ended up putting back a number of things that I took out. The fact of the matter is that I liked them better. The way I said the sentence at the beginning is how I would have written it if I could. I cut it down because it didn't fit.
The reason I kept cutting more than necessary was that I needed to know how much space I had to work with while still keeping the heart of my idea. When I saw how much extra space I had, I decided to put in the words and phrases that sounded better, even though they were bigger.
The important thing to realize is that my original sentence and my final sentence are still different. I still have a lot of unnecessary phrases removed and I think it conveys my idea a little better. My original sentence sounds better when spoken, but my final sentence looks better in print.
This is why working within a limit is beneficial. It forces you to think about all of these aspects. It forces you to edit yourself. It forces you to ask yourself, can I do this better? I also think it's a fun game to play. But even if you don't enjoy doing this, you should still do it. Call it a writing exercise and tell yourself it is good for you and that's reason enough to do it. Because it's true. If you want to be a better writer and you don't have other people to help you or if you just don't know how to get better than you are, this will force you to develop the skills you need to become a better writer. If you do enjoy doing it, that's just gravy.
I was talking with a friend through text messaging, so I had 128 characters to say what I want. A thought popped into my head that I wanted to ask. If I was in person, I would have said, "So, I was thinking, if you took a hamburger patty and cut it into two patties, then put cheese between them, would that technically be a double cheeseburger?"
That sentence is 157 characters. That doesn't sound a lot more than128, but if you don't know how to pare down a sentence, it will be difficult to trim down. So start at the beginning. We don't need to say "So". It's a verbal cue. It grabs a person's attention so they know to listen up. In a text message, the person knows they are being addressed, so you don't need to grab their attention.
The next thing to drop is "I was thinking". The very fact that you are asking a question indicates that you were thinking about it. When we say that we've been thinking about something, it means that we have been pondering it for a while as opposed to having it just pop into our heads (which we also announce if it is the case). Still, it is extraneous information, so cutting it out doesn't hurt you.
Our sentence is now down to, "If you took a hamburger patty and cut it into two patties, then put cheese between them, would that technically be a double cheeseburger?" This is 137 characters, so we are almost there. We've taken out the extraneous phrases, so let's tighten up the bulk of the sentence itself.
In the first phrase (If you took a hamburger patty and cut it into two patties), the redundancy of the word "patty" immediately stands out. In fact, since hamburger can mean the patty, you don't need it at all. You can also be more direct with the phrase and get the subject and verb out there sooner. By keeping it totally Spartan, we can turn it into "If you cut a burger in two".
The next phrase (then put cheese between them) is pretty good as it is, but if I change "between" to "on", then it indicates cheese on both patties (which is more traditional for a double cheeseburger anyway) and saves 5 characters.
At this point, we have "If you cut a burger in two, then put cheese on them, would that technically be a double cheeseburger?" This is 101 characters, so we've already reached the threshold, but we can still cut the last part down.
The last part of the sentence (would that technically be a double cheeseburger?) can be pared down easily. Turn "would. . .be" into "is", turn "that" into "it", and cut out "technically". Now you have, "is it a double cheeseburger?"
We now have the sentence, "If you cut a burger in two, then put cheese on them, is it a double cheeseburger?" This is 81 characters, well within our limit, and about as short as you can get without using abbreviations.
Truth be told, I don't like this sentence. It may be short, but it doesn't sound good. Efficiency isn't about making a sentence as short as it possibly can. It's about getting the most bang for your buck. I have 47 characters to play with. If I can add to those sentence and make it more effective, it is worth it.
I think "hamburger" works better than "burger". Also, since a hamburger can be either the patty or the whole thing with a bun and fixings, I want to put "patty" in there. Although the whole sentence implies that it is just a patty being cut in two, it is less confusing to specify that right away. Any normal person who hears that a hamburger is cut in two would assume that the circle would be cut into two half-circles, not that it would be cut into two thinner circles, so I want to clarify that, too.
Ultimately, I end up with the sentence, "If you cut a thick hamburger into two thinner patties and put cheese on each of them, would that be a double cheeseburger?" This is 122 characters. It is close to the limit, but it fits just fine. You may notice that I ended up putting back a number of things that I took out. The fact of the matter is that I liked them better. The way I said the sentence at the beginning is how I would have written it if I could. I cut it down because it didn't fit.
The reason I kept cutting more than necessary was that I needed to know how much space I had to work with while still keeping the heart of my idea. When I saw how much extra space I had, I decided to put in the words and phrases that sounded better, even though they were bigger.
The important thing to realize is that my original sentence and my final sentence are still different. I still have a lot of unnecessary phrases removed and I think it conveys my idea a little better. My original sentence sounds better when spoken, but my final sentence looks better in print.
This is why working within a limit is beneficial. It forces you to think about all of these aspects. It forces you to edit yourself. It forces you to ask yourself, can I do this better? I also think it's a fun game to play. But even if you don't enjoy doing this, you should still do it. Call it a writing exercise and tell yourself it is good for you and that's reason enough to do it. Because it's true. If you want to be a better writer and you don't have other people to help you or if you just don't know how to get better than you are, this will force you to develop the skills you need to become a better writer. If you do enjoy doing it, that's just gravy.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
The Way You Tell It
I love watching stand-up comedians. They're usually funny and they're a great source to learn from. One thing I've noticed that most comedians do is tell a funny scenario, then act it out. I was watching Steve Byrnes do a bit where he says that he doesn't like to talk about his feelings. "Whenever somebody asks me how I'm feeling, I just turn into a robot." Then he proceeds to act out that scene, where first his girlfriend asks him how he feels, and then he replies in a robotic voice "It was nice to see you. I must be going."
When Steve set up the situation, saying that he turned into a robot, that got laughs. When he acted it out, he got more laughs. It's a pretty common technique, but it can backfire. If the set-up isn't that funny, acting it out only makes it worse. If the comedian doesn't have a good stage premise, either by being too lethargic or too loud, that doesn't do the joke justice.
I think it is amazing, though, that a comedian can be funny despite his jokes. You can turn a boring joke into a laugh riot if you give it the right energy and act it out. Sometimes it isn't the joke you tell so much as it is the way you tell it. But I don't know how well that works with non-visual writing.
If you aren't writing for a comedian, a TV show, a movie, a comic strip, or anything else with an audio or visual component, then your words have to tell everything all by themselves. That isn't always easy. You have fewer options for making an impact on your audience. With no other ways to distract an audience, you usually have to rely on having a good story. Of course, the way you tell your story still matters, even if all you have is silent words on a page. All of the levels of writing go into making your story effective.
The most important aspect to consider is telling a story that fits your medium. Robin Williams is funny as heck, but he needs to be listened to. Jim Carrey is funny, but he needs to be seen. If you are writing words on a page, then make sure what you are trying to describe can be told with words on a page.
When Steve set up the situation, saying that he turned into a robot, that got laughs. When he acted it out, he got more laughs. It's a pretty common technique, but it can backfire. If the set-up isn't that funny, acting it out only makes it worse. If the comedian doesn't have a good stage premise, either by being too lethargic or too loud, that doesn't do the joke justice.
I think it is amazing, though, that a comedian can be funny despite his jokes. You can turn a boring joke into a laugh riot if you give it the right energy and act it out. Sometimes it isn't the joke you tell so much as it is the way you tell it. But I don't know how well that works with non-visual writing.
If you aren't writing for a comedian, a TV show, a movie, a comic strip, or anything else with an audio or visual component, then your words have to tell everything all by themselves. That isn't always easy. You have fewer options for making an impact on your audience. With no other ways to distract an audience, you usually have to rely on having a good story. Of course, the way you tell your story still matters, even if all you have is silent words on a page. All of the levels of writing go into making your story effective.
The most important aspect to consider is telling a story that fits your medium. Robin Williams is funny as heck, but he needs to be listened to. Jim Carrey is funny, but he needs to be seen. If you are writing words on a page, then make sure what you are trying to describe can be told with words on a page.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
How Many Drafts Are Enough?
In college, my writing professors stressed writing and rewriting. Get out a draft, revise it, write another draft, and repeat it until your paper is ready. I, like most of my classmates, wrote a first draft the night before it was due and turned it in without even looking it over.
Of course, although I was being a bad boy, I was not getting bad grades. I got an A's on my papers more often than not. I was happy that I could get away with it, but I felt like I was cheating myself out of learning how to write drafts.
I always wondered, though, how many drafts do we really need to write? If my first draft was good enough for an A, do I really need to write a second draft? That depends on what I want to get out of my writing.
If my only goal is to please my teacher and get a good grade, then one draft is enough. If I want to create something that I am proud to have my name on, one is almost never enough. Even if I got the vast majority of what I wanted to do correct, I would still need to fix typos I missed, clean up sloppy sentences, and cut out useless words and phrases. I know that because they plague every first draft I write (probably including every entry in this blog).
I think that writers in schools should please their teachers. But writers out of school need to please themselves. If you can read every word of your manuscript and are happy with it, you are done. More importantly, if you can read every word of your manuscript and there are no changes you want to make, then you are done.
Of course, although I was being a bad boy, I was not getting bad grades. I got an A's on my papers more often than not. I was happy that I could get away with it, but I felt like I was cheating myself out of learning how to write drafts.
I always wondered, though, how many drafts do we really need to write? If my first draft was good enough for an A, do I really need to write a second draft? That depends on what I want to get out of my writing.
If my only goal is to please my teacher and get a good grade, then one draft is enough. If I want to create something that I am proud to have my name on, one is almost never enough. Even if I got the vast majority of what I wanted to do correct, I would still need to fix typos I missed, clean up sloppy sentences, and cut out useless words and phrases. I know that because they plague every first draft I write (probably including every entry in this blog).
I think that writers in schools should please their teachers. But writers out of school need to please themselves. If you can read every word of your manuscript and are happy with it, you are done. More importantly, if you can read every word of your manuscript and there are no changes you want to make, then you are done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
