...but the question is, do you have a decent one?
Really?
Are you sure?
Most writers I've known have had pretty darn impressive vocabularies. In fact, many of us who write genre fiction have--more than once in the past--been asked to "dumb down" our verbiage. We've been told that the average genre book should be written to a sixth-grade reading level--which is still an interesting dilemma, considering that most of us weren't using any words that we didn't already know when we were in sixth grade. Nevertheless, we were told that "long" words would "put off" our readers; they wouldn't want to read with our novel in one hand and a dictionary in the other.
Unfortunately, we're reaping the results of that dumbing down now--in an unexpected place.
Our book editors.
Yes, we're told over and over again now that book editors don't "edit" much anymore. They're too busy doing non-editorial but book production-related tasks, having meetings with Marketing, etc., to go over books with a fine-toothed comb. So the books have to come in as darn near perfect as we can make them.
Which is a problem if we're also products of reading books that never made us reach beyond an arbitrarily-decided "sixth-grade reading level." Some of us were never forced to actually learn a vocabulary that goes into a high-school reading level, much less a college-educated one. That becomes a problem when we decide to write something ourselves.
But that becomes a class-A felony when we sit down to edit someone else's work. Because how can we edit a book properly, bring it up to snuff, correct its errors...if we don't know errors when we SEE them?
Books will always have errors, here and there. A few inevitably sneak through because of sheer time constraints. Even with several pairs of eyes looking at a proof, the mind will do a certain amount of compensation for what's not on the page--we've got all kinds of nifty little viral stuff circulating around online demonstrating just that. So in a time crunch, editors will read something over as quickly as they can. That's almost always a mistake, and it almost always lets mistakes get through. It happens.
Those mistakes, we can live with. But those aren't the kinds of mistakes I'm talking about--one or two in a full-length book.
I'm talking about finding seven or eight missteps in the first ten pages of something.
These are errors that can only be made by ignorant people--not in the punitive sense, but in the literal sense. Ignorant of grammar, ignorant of proper punctuation, ignorant of cultural references...but most embarrassingly, ignorant of words themselves. They just plain "don't know what they don't know"--and the results are just plain awful.
In other words, some of the worse errors I'm seeing of late are overwhelmingly in the "word usage" category of error. As in, the editor doesn't have enough of a vocabulary to know that the author just slipped up and put the wrong word in. Or worse yet...the author's proof started out right, and the editor's changed it to something wrong.
This kind of thing comes from editors who don't even have enough vocabulary and/or language training to know "lightning" from "lightening."
Or that it's "death throes," not "death throws."
Or that there's a difference between "subtly" and "subtlety."
There are more, of course. Cultural references that go bad--things like spelling the name "Hannibal Lector" or the always-popular misuse of the term "Immaculate Conception."
Or grammar things that are wrong--like, for instance, that you don't put a comma after words like "maybe" or "but" except in very specific circumstances.
The list goes on. And on. And on. Every single one of these things is cringeworthy.
The good news is, every single one of them would be fixable...
But the bad news is, apparently the editors don't know that they need fixing. So they don't get fixed.
And our books look really, embarrassingly illiterate.
But even worse, for the sake of readers and writers alike--is that in the end, the ultimate damage done by these missteps isn't an offense to "grammar gurus" but a disruption in the story itself. Miscommunication--saying "dependant" when you mean "dependent," "tenant" when you mean "tenet," or "death throws" when you mean "death throes"--stops the reader from getting what the writer truly intended in the text.
It stops the reader from truly getting the story in its best form.
In order to reverse this trend, there are some other trends we'll have to reverse. Like the dominant trend of insisting that our writing stay dumb and dumber.
We need to start teaching vocabulary again. And the grammar it comes in on. Because when we do want to fly with a word, we ought to at least be able to use the right one.
That's not a matter of snobbism or pedantics (or even semantics!), or perfectionism.
Our stories demand it.
Our writers deserve it.
And our editors simply must have it.
Otherwise, we've got a whole raft of people out there trying to jerry-rig the sculpting of raw manuscript into finished book...using the heel of a shoe and a sharp knife, when they really need a hammer and chisel.
Any workman knows you can't do the job right without the right tools.
Many, many, MANY of our editors apparently don't have those tools.
If they don't, the writers they support will never have them, either.
And the stories are the losers in that process.
Let's change it.
Thoughts?
Janny
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Monday, June 11, 2012
I Dunno About You, But I'm Really, REALLY Tired Of...
...the whole practice of labeling people "haters" in today's culture.
Mind you, nine times out of ten, the concept doesn't actually apply to anyone who DOES hate or is actually EXPRESSING hatred. Our culture is fond of referring to people with real LIVE hatred as having anything BUT that in their souls. They have "anger issues," or "inaccurate perceptions," or all kind of other nonsense instead of us just calling the spade a spade and being done with it.
But then, in turn, calling that spade a spade makes you a...hater.
Huh?
I posted the following on Facebook, just now.
A thought:
Merely pointing out a public figure's weaknesses, hypocrisies, failings, or outright lies doesn't constitute HATING, and it doesn't make anyone a "hater." In many cases, it's an honest attempt to assess a person's character and achievements without either rose-colored glasses or tinfoil. :-) And it especially doesn't apply merely because MY assessment of that public figure is different from YOURS. Or is that much nuance beyond the scope of people nowadays to understand?
...Maybe it's a hopeless cause. But maybe not. Maybe if enough of us start saying it, like Chinese water torture...it'll start wearing some grooves of sense back into someone's gray matter.
It's worth a shot.
At least maybe it'll force them to find another vocabulary word. :-)
Thoughts?
Janny
Mind you, nine times out of ten, the concept doesn't actually apply to anyone who DOES hate or is actually EXPRESSING hatred. Our culture is fond of referring to people with real LIVE hatred as having anything BUT that in their souls. They have "anger issues," or "inaccurate perceptions," or all kind of other nonsense instead of us just calling the spade a spade and being done with it.
But then, in turn, calling that spade a spade makes you a...hater.
Huh?
I posted the following on Facebook, just now.
A thought:
Merely pointing out a public figure's weaknesses, hypocrisies, failings, or outright lies doesn't constitute HATING, and it doesn't make anyone a "hater." In many cases, it's an honest attempt to assess a person's character and achievements without either rose-colored glasses or tinfoil. :-) And it especially doesn't apply merely because MY assessment of that public figure is different from YOURS. Or is that much nuance beyond the scope of people nowadays to understand?
...Maybe it's a hopeless cause. But maybe not. Maybe if enough of us start saying it, like Chinese water torture...it'll start wearing some grooves of sense back into someone's gray matter.
It's worth a shot.
At least maybe it'll force them to find another vocabulary word. :-)
Thoughts?
Janny
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Follow This Guy. You'll Thank Me Later. :-)
Because he's simply one of the best and most down-to-earth Catholic apologists out there...with all the Scriptural sensibilities you could possibly want. And he's a square dance caller and low-carb foodie as well. What's not to love?
Seriously, his audio/video links are especially worth the time and listening. You'll be educated and edified at the same time. Such a deal!
Janny
Seriously, his audio/video links are especially worth the time and listening. You'll be educated and edified at the same time. Such a deal!
Janny
Friday, June 08, 2012
Corn Time!
OK...for those who asked for this...(and you know who you are):
Simple way to do corn on the cob in the microwave.
Remove as much silk as you can from the ears, but keep the husks as intact as possible.
Place in microwave and heat on HIGH until corn is tender.
Simple, no?
Rule of thumb: for one ear, about 2.5 minutes seems to work.
Last night I did three, and it took 7 minutes.
Experiment around until you find the right combination that makes the corn done, but not mushy. Then bring out the butter, salt, whatever else you like to put on corn, and knock yourself out.
And, yeah, I suppose I need to put a caution in here--that when you take the corn out of the microwave, IT'S GONNA BE HOT. As in really, REALLY hot. So handle carefully.
There. The legal department should be happy now. :-)
Have a great cornfest this weekend, no matter what the weather is outside!
More in a bit,
Janny
Simple way to do corn on the cob in the microwave.
Remove as much silk as you can from the ears, but keep the husks as intact as possible.
Place in microwave and heat on HIGH until corn is tender.
Simple, no?
Rule of thumb: for one ear, about 2.5 minutes seems to work.
Last night I did three, and it took 7 minutes.
Experiment around until you find the right combination that makes the corn done, but not mushy. Then bring out the butter, salt, whatever else you like to put on corn, and knock yourself out.
And, yeah, I suppose I need to put a caution in here--that when you take the corn out of the microwave, IT'S GONNA BE HOT. As in really, REALLY hot. So handle carefully.
There. The legal department should be happy now. :-)
Have a great cornfest this weekend, no matter what the weather is outside!
More in a bit,
Janny
Tuesday, June 05, 2012
World's Best Pot Roast: Ai Mayd It
Had an AWESOME pot roast this evening...put together easily.
1 Angus beef pot roast, about 3 pounds
4 large carrots
3 large stalks celery
2 large potatoes, scrubbed
3 small white onions or 1 large yellow onion
2 large cloves garlic
1 c chicken stock
2 generous dashes Worcestershire sauce
1/4 c canned diced tomatoes with juice
1/2 c dry red wine
kosher salt, freshly ground pepper, Mrs. Dash original (yellow cap)
1 Tbsp fresh dill
1 Tbsp fresh parsley
2 tablespoons unsalted butter
1/3 c flour
Heat oven to 325 degrees.
In a large oven-safe Dutch oven or the like, brown the meat over high heat, seasoning generously with salt, pepper, & Mrs. Dash. While meat browns, chop vegetables in 1/2-inch chunks and coarsely chop garlic. Lift browned meat and place vegetables underneath it, saute all for 2 minutes. Off the heat, add Worcestershire sauce, tomatoes, chicken stock, wine, dill, and parsley. Cover and cook in oven for 2 hours, or until meat is fork-tender. Remove from oven, take meat from pot and trim off any excess fat. Cut butter into flour with fork or whisk. When butter and flour are thoroughly combined, add to pot with vegetables and broth and bring to a boil. Reduce heat and simmer for 2-3 minutes, stirring, until sauce thickens. Remove pot from heat, slice meat, and get the heck out of the way.
Serves 3-4 with leftovers for lunch!
(Measurements of salt, pepper, and Mrs. Dash are to taste; herb measurements and thickening roux measurements are approximate.)
Enjoy!
Janny the Foodie
1 Angus beef pot roast, about 3 pounds
4 large carrots
3 large stalks celery
2 large potatoes, scrubbed
3 small white onions or 1 large yellow onion
2 large cloves garlic
1 c chicken stock
2 generous dashes Worcestershire sauce
1/4 c canned diced tomatoes with juice
1/2 c dry red wine
kosher salt, freshly ground pepper, Mrs. Dash original (yellow cap)
1 Tbsp fresh dill
1 Tbsp fresh parsley
2 tablespoons unsalted butter
1/3 c flour
Heat oven to 325 degrees.
In a large oven-safe Dutch oven or the like, brown the meat over high heat, seasoning generously with salt, pepper, & Mrs. Dash. While meat browns, chop vegetables in 1/2-inch chunks and coarsely chop garlic. Lift browned meat and place vegetables underneath it, saute all for 2 minutes. Off the heat, add Worcestershire sauce, tomatoes, chicken stock, wine, dill, and parsley. Cover and cook in oven for 2 hours, or until meat is fork-tender. Remove from oven, take meat from pot and trim off any excess fat. Cut butter into flour with fork or whisk. When butter and flour are thoroughly combined, add to pot with vegetables and broth and bring to a boil. Reduce heat and simmer for 2-3 minutes, stirring, until sauce thickens. Remove pot from heat, slice meat, and get the heck out of the way.
Serves 3-4 with leftovers for lunch!
(Measurements of salt, pepper, and Mrs. Dash are to taste; herb measurements and thickening roux measurements are approximate.)
Enjoy!
Janny the Foodie
Monday, June 04, 2012
I Just Need to Kill More People. Honestly.
I recently submitted VOI for the Catholic Writers Guild Seal of Approval. It's a prerequisite for entering it in their Catholic Arts and Letters Award competition...which I did want to do.
Unfortunately, despite having Catholic characters who are unashamedly faithful....it didn't get approved.
Why?
It has a divorced character marrying in the Church at the end of the book, without my having mentioned that he got an annulment first.
So because I didn't tell the reader that Lachlan had an annulment from his previous marriage...I was not clearly showing/upholding the Catholic teaching on marriage. And in this culture, yatta, yatta, yatta...
Now, on the surface, doesn't that look legit? After all, the last thing the Catholic Writers Guild wants is to assure an audience that a book doesn't contradict Catholic teaching, only to have some irate soul write them letters--or worse yet, write her bishop or the like--and complain.
But that whole reasoning bothered me.
Frankly, I expected that if it'd be disapproved, it would have been for other things entirely.
For the visions the heroine sees and the voices she hears.
Even maybe because one of Lachlan's key phrases is "God in heaven."
For almost anything but the fact that the "a" word never makes an appearance before the happy ending.
Part of what bothers me about this is the seeming assumption that Catholic readers are dumb as rocks, and if you don't spell out in very clear Canon Law terms what the characters did or didn't do, they'll think "everything's OK and anything goes."
But it wasn't until I really thought about what was on the page, versus what was not, that I realized this disapproval, and the reasons for it, raise a whole swackload of interesting questions on their own.
Follow me on this, if you would.
In order to make the assumption that I was not upholding Church teaching by having my divorced hero remarrying at the end...a lot of other things also not spelled out here are, apparently, assumed by the committee.
Such as...
How did they know the first marriage was a church marriage? (Maybe it wasn't...in which case, if both parties were Catholic, it's invalid by form anyway and won't need an annulment.)
Or...how did they know either of the first-marriage partners was even Catholic at the time of that marriage? (Which would make the entire point moot. How did they know my lead wasn't a convert? They didn't. They assumed he was not.)
How did they know he didn't get an annulment? (Simply because it doesn't say so? It doesn't say that he married his first wife in the Church, nor whether he or she was Catholic at the time. But they had no trouble assuming those things were background facts. Why is that?)
I freely admit that an "annulment," in those terms, was not mentioned.
However, both my protagonists are clearly practicing Catholics in this book, and regular Mass attendees--the pastor knows them both by first name. (Does your pastor know you on sight? By your first name?)
At least one time, my hero is mentioned as receiving the sacrament of Penance.
When my heroine hears voices and sees visions, does she go to the paranormal expert on her campus? No...she goes to her parish priest for counsel. Even though she's a college teacher, and it'd be the most natural thing in the world for her to go to a psych expert, if not a paranormal one...academia being what it is. She does not. She goes for spiritual guidance.
Just between you and me and the local bishop, I'd be willing to assume that a woman who does that isn't going to marry a man who's not free to marry in the Church.
Thus, in every other aspect except the "a" word being spelled out, my characters were upholding Catholic behavior in pretty much everything they did from the point of their meeting on, if not before that.
Frankly, it could even be argued--and assumed--that Lachlan may have already been granted an annulment, considering his ex-wife entered into the marriage under false pretenses. But because the magic "a" word wasn't present...the book's "not Catholic enough." (My words, not theirs.)
This says to me, unfortunately, that the Seal of Approval committee was ready to make a whole lot of blanket assumptions except for one. That strikes me as odd, to say the least.
Disapprovals are not subject to renegotiation or reapplication, and I certainly didn't plan to write a Catholic treatise on marriage rules. But seriously, folks--in order to assume that my characters were somehow messing up on the Church teaching on marriage, it seems to me the committee had to assume a whole lot more about that previous marriage that was also never spelled out. How they could assume one set of things, yet ignore the many other clear actions that would lead a reader to believe that, of course, the couple had done everything necessary to marry in the Church, frankly, strikes me as splitting hairs--and awfully presumptive on the "error" side of the fence. As if they were looking for a reason to say NO, rather than to say YES.
Which is a shame. Because there are precious few good faithful Catholic characters in fiction nowadays. You'd think they'd have considered this a win, and gone with it.
Save for one pesky word.
However, I now realize where I made my mistake: sparing the ex-wife in the first place.
If Lachlan had been a widower, the thing probably would have gotten a seal so fast it'd make your head spin. (Unless then they really took the time to worry about the voices, and the visions, and the occasional swear word...but I digress.)
Silly me.
I clearly needed to kill more people in this book.That would have solved everything!
Next time...I'll do better.
Watch your back.:-)
Thoughts?
Janny
Unfortunately, despite having Catholic characters who are unashamedly faithful....it didn't get approved.
Why?
It has a divorced character marrying in the Church at the end of the book, without my having mentioned that he got an annulment first.
So because I didn't tell the reader that Lachlan had an annulment from his previous marriage...I was not clearly showing/upholding the Catholic teaching on marriage. And in this culture, yatta, yatta, yatta...
Now, on the surface, doesn't that look legit? After all, the last thing the Catholic Writers Guild wants is to assure an audience that a book doesn't contradict Catholic teaching, only to have some irate soul write them letters--or worse yet, write her bishop or the like--and complain.
But that whole reasoning bothered me.
Frankly, I expected that if it'd be disapproved, it would have been for other things entirely.
For the visions the heroine sees and the voices she hears.
Even maybe because one of Lachlan's key phrases is "God in heaven."
For almost anything but the fact that the "a" word never makes an appearance before the happy ending.
Part of what bothers me about this is the seeming assumption that Catholic readers are dumb as rocks, and if you don't spell out in very clear Canon Law terms what the characters did or didn't do, they'll think "everything's OK and anything goes."
But it wasn't until I really thought about what was on the page, versus what was not, that I realized this disapproval, and the reasons for it, raise a whole swackload of interesting questions on their own.
Follow me on this, if you would.
In order to make the assumption that I was not upholding Church teaching by having my divorced hero remarrying at the end...a lot of other things also not spelled out here are, apparently, assumed by the committee.
Such as...
How did they know the first marriage was a church marriage? (Maybe it wasn't...in which case, if both parties were Catholic, it's invalid by form anyway and won't need an annulment.)
Or...how did they know either of the first-marriage partners was even Catholic at the time of that marriage? (Which would make the entire point moot. How did they know my lead wasn't a convert? They didn't. They assumed he was not.)
How did they know he didn't get an annulment? (Simply because it doesn't say so? It doesn't say that he married his first wife in the Church, nor whether he or she was Catholic at the time. But they had no trouble assuming those things were background facts. Why is that?)
I freely admit that an "annulment," in those terms, was not mentioned.
However, both my protagonists are clearly practicing Catholics in this book, and regular Mass attendees--the pastor knows them both by first name. (Does your pastor know you on sight? By your first name?)
At least one time, my hero is mentioned as receiving the sacrament of Penance.
When my heroine hears voices and sees visions, does she go to the paranormal expert on her campus? No...she goes to her parish priest for counsel. Even though she's a college teacher, and it'd be the most natural thing in the world for her to go to a psych expert, if not a paranormal one...academia being what it is. She does not. She goes for spiritual guidance.
Just between you and me and the local bishop, I'd be willing to assume that a woman who does that isn't going to marry a man who's not free to marry in the Church.
Thus, in every other aspect except the "a" word being spelled out, my characters were upholding Catholic behavior in pretty much everything they did from the point of their meeting on, if not before that.
Frankly, it could even be argued--and assumed--that Lachlan may have already been granted an annulment, considering his ex-wife entered into the marriage under false pretenses. But because the magic "a" word wasn't present...the book's "not Catholic enough." (My words, not theirs.)
This says to me, unfortunately, that the Seal of Approval committee was ready to make a whole lot of blanket assumptions except for one. That strikes me as odd, to say the least.
Disapprovals are not subject to renegotiation or reapplication, and I certainly didn't plan to write a Catholic treatise on marriage rules. But seriously, folks--in order to assume that my characters were somehow messing up on the Church teaching on marriage, it seems to me the committee had to assume a whole lot more about that previous marriage that was also never spelled out. How they could assume one set of things, yet ignore the many other clear actions that would lead a reader to believe that, of course, the couple had done everything necessary to marry in the Church, frankly, strikes me as splitting hairs--and awfully presumptive on the "error" side of the fence. As if they were looking for a reason to say NO, rather than to say YES.
Which is a shame. Because there are precious few good faithful Catholic characters in fiction nowadays. You'd think they'd have considered this a win, and gone with it.
Save for one pesky word.
However, I now realize where I made my mistake: sparing the ex-wife in the first place.
If Lachlan had been a widower, the thing probably would have gotten a seal so fast it'd make your head spin. (Unless then they really took the time to worry about the voices, and the visions, and the occasional swear word...but I digress.)
Silly me.
I clearly needed to kill more people in this book.That would have solved everything!
Next time...I'll do better.
Watch your back.:-)
Thoughts?
Janny
Friday, June 01, 2012
Another Thought For Friday...
Never confuse the creature with the Creator.
That confusion is rampant in so much of today's society, it's worth pointing out as the mistake it is.
This way lies much of what's wrong with things like The Secret, with "the gospel according to Oprah," with New Age "crystal" influences, pyramidology, et al.
Yes, there are "natural" laws in the universe. All kinds of them.
But let's not forget...those laws were created by Someone who started it all.
Let's not confuse the two.
We are not ruled by a nameless, faceless "universe" of "cosmic energy."
We're created, loved, and ruled ultimately by a God who can be known, who can be loved, and who can fill us with Himself.
Don't mix up these two things.
Don't for a moment delude yourself that natural laws, forces, or energy fields, in themselves, have any power whatsoever. They're simply created things.
Just as it's a mistake to worship the Earth as "mother," when in reality, it's a created thing...
...and a mistake to direct one's life via stars or planets, when they, too, are all only created things...
...it's a mistake to imbue "natural laws" with power in and of themselves to do anything.
They, too, are only created things. And the Creator could change how those "laws" work any time He pleases.
Just so we're clear.
It's a good idea to keep that distinction straight.
And a bad idea to muddle it.
More later,
Janny
That confusion is rampant in so much of today's society, it's worth pointing out as the mistake it is.
This way lies much of what's wrong with things like The Secret, with "the gospel according to Oprah," with New Age "crystal" influences, pyramidology, et al.
Yes, there are "natural" laws in the universe. All kinds of them.
But let's not forget...those laws were created by Someone who started it all.
Let's not confuse the two.
We are not ruled by a nameless, faceless "universe" of "cosmic energy."
We're created, loved, and ruled ultimately by a God who can be known, who can be loved, and who can fill us with Himself.
Don't mix up these two things.
Don't for a moment delude yourself that natural laws, forces, or energy fields, in themselves, have any power whatsoever. They're simply created things.
Just as it's a mistake to worship the Earth as "mother," when in reality, it's a created thing...
...and a mistake to direct one's life via stars or planets, when they, too, are all only created things...
...it's a mistake to imbue "natural laws" with power in and of themselves to do anything.
They, too, are only created things. And the Creator could change how those "laws" work any time He pleases.
Just so we're clear.
It's a good idea to keep that distinction straight.
And a bad idea to muddle it.
More later,
Janny
Friday, May 25, 2012
A Thought for Friday...
Life is a lot simpler than most of us make it.
If you think about that for long enough, I bet you'll come up with what to do about that. :-)
More in a bit,
Janny
If you think about that for long enough, I bet you'll come up with what to do about that. :-)
More in a bit,
Janny
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Another Thing I Know. :-)
I am not St. Francis.
I may be a combination of a Proverbs 31 woman and the Little Red Hen, however.
"She planteth, she watereth, she weedeth...she gathereth strawberries from the garden to provide good fruits of the earth for her family."
Not, however, "to feed Brother Rabbit and Sister Squirrel."
Just sayin'.
A pint has already been picked. Strawberry shortcake is on the horizon!
More later,
Janny
I may be a combination of a Proverbs 31 woman and the Little Red Hen, however.
"She planteth, she watereth, she weedeth...she gathereth strawberries from the garden to provide good fruits of the earth for her family."
Not, however, "to feed Brother Rabbit and Sister Squirrel."
Just sayin'.
A pint has already been picked. Strawberry shortcake is on the horizon!
More later,
Janny
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Things I Know. First of Many.
I have these pithy thoughts that are sitting patiently at the back of my brain, waiting to be said out loud...some of which people like, some of which people hate.
But, hey, at least they're all mine. :-)
I was thinking of putting them up on Facebook...
...but Facebook isn't the best forum for this kind of thing, either.
So here they will be, for better or worse. In my sandbox, where I get to make the rules. :-)
They'll come along in no particular order. Except for the first one, which is foundational.
And that first one is...
Your belief of/in, or failure to believe of/in, something does not affect whether it's true.
Or, put another way...
There is such a thing as a "fact."
There is such a thing as truth.
Truth and facts are not flexible, either.
They're not dependent on what you think about them.
Your individual little brain is not the ultimate determinant of anything's validity, and your feelings certainly aren't.
Things aren't "true for you" and "not true for someone else." If something's true, it's true.
If you have gradations and shades of "truth," you don't have truth in the first place. You have opinion.
Opinion is great. Just don't mistake it for a solid foundation of fact.
You need to do more research, dig deeper, and find out whether your opinion is based on truth at all, or if it's nothing more than feeling.
One of these bases for action and belief is reliable. The other is not.
You can find this out, if you're brave enough to do so.
Some things to which this applies:
God.
Satan.
Ultimate good, and ultimate evil...and the difference.
Ultimate right, and ultimate wrong. And that they both do, in fact, exist.
All of these things are realities. Kind of like gravity.
You don't have to believe in gravity if you don't want to. You can spend your whole life not believing that gravity is real.
Just don't step out of any tenth-floor windows to defy it. You'll find out that, once you hit the sidewalk, your "belief" in gravity or "non-belief" in it won't determine whether you go splat at the end.
There are lots of other realities in the world, of course.
But the ones mentioned above are pretty much foundational.
You get your head wrapped around the concept that there is truth in the universe, and that it makes sense... and you'll be virtually unstoppable.
You spend too much time with your head wrapped around "relative truth" and trying to determine in every single instance of life what's "true" for you...and you'll die of exhaustion, confusion, and overwhelm before you accomplish anything of value.
Don't make the wrong choice.
And yes, there is a wrong one. Just like there's a right one.
You can absolutely, positively bank on it.
Let's be careful out there.
But let's be smart, too.
And the #1 step in being smart is in realizing that we are not the bosses here. Humanity is wonderful. Complex. Intelligent (at times). Funny. Tragic. Sometimes nasty, sometimes heartbreakingly tender.
But we ain't "all that and a bag of chips."
We aren't, ultimately, in charge of anything.
There's Someone Else ultimately in charge here. He's way bigger, smarter, and more powerful than all of us put together.
You don't have to believe in Him, either.
(Although you may not wish to gamble against going splat for all eternity on that notion. Just sayin'.)
Fortunately, it also doesn't affect that He believes in you...and has done (and will continue, all your life, to do) everything He can to make sure you don't go splat for all eternity.
There's a smart choice here. By now, I suspect you know what it is. :-)
So wrap your brain and heart around this for awhile...
There's more to come.
Thoughts?
Janny
But, hey, at least they're all mine. :-)
I was thinking of putting them up on Facebook...
...but Facebook isn't the best forum for this kind of thing, either.
So here they will be, for better or worse. In my sandbox, where I get to make the rules. :-)
They'll come along in no particular order. Except for the first one, which is foundational.
And that first one is...
Your belief of/in, or failure to believe of/in, something does not affect whether it's true.
Or, put another way...
There is such a thing as a "fact."
There is such a thing as truth.
Truth and facts are not flexible, either.
They're not dependent on what you think about them.
Your individual little brain is not the ultimate determinant of anything's validity, and your feelings certainly aren't.
Things aren't "true for you" and "not true for someone else." If something's true, it's true.
If you have gradations and shades of "truth," you don't have truth in the first place. You have opinion.
Opinion is great. Just don't mistake it for a solid foundation of fact.
You need to do more research, dig deeper, and find out whether your opinion is based on truth at all, or if it's nothing more than feeling.
One of these bases for action and belief is reliable. The other is not.
You can find this out, if you're brave enough to do so.
Some things to which this applies:
God.
Satan.
Ultimate good, and ultimate evil...and the difference.
Ultimate right, and ultimate wrong. And that they both do, in fact, exist.
All of these things are realities. Kind of like gravity.
You don't have to believe in gravity if you don't want to. You can spend your whole life not believing that gravity is real.
Just don't step out of any tenth-floor windows to defy it. You'll find out that, once you hit the sidewalk, your "belief" in gravity or "non-belief" in it won't determine whether you go splat at the end.
There are lots of other realities in the world, of course.
But the ones mentioned above are pretty much foundational.
You get your head wrapped around the concept that there is truth in the universe, and that it makes sense... and you'll be virtually unstoppable.
You spend too much time with your head wrapped around "relative truth" and trying to determine in every single instance of life what's "true" for you...and you'll die of exhaustion, confusion, and overwhelm before you accomplish anything of value.
Don't make the wrong choice.
And yes, there is a wrong one. Just like there's a right one.
You can absolutely, positively bank on it.
Let's be careful out there.
But let's be smart, too.
And the #1 step in being smart is in realizing that we are not the bosses here. Humanity is wonderful. Complex. Intelligent (at times). Funny. Tragic. Sometimes nasty, sometimes heartbreakingly tender.
But we ain't "all that and a bag of chips."
We aren't, ultimately, in charge of anything.
There's Someone Else ultimately in charge here. He's way bigger, smarter, and more powerful than all of us put together.
You don't have to believe in Him, either.
(Although you may not wish to gamble against going splat for all eternity on that notion. Just sayin'.)
Fortunately, it also doesn't affect that He believes in you...and has done (and will continue, all your life, to do) everything He can to make sure you don't go splat for all eternity.
There's a smart choice here. By now, I suspect you know what it is. :-)
So wrap your brain and heart around this for awhile...
There's more to come.
Thoughts?
Janny
Saturday, May 05, 2012
Climbing the Ladder of Success...Braced on the Wrong Building?
It wasn't a banner end of the week around CWC place.
Got a royalty statement recently that was...well...shall we say...less than what I'd hoped for.
The day after one of my freelance contracts dumped me for greener pastures. (Yes, they did pay me, and yes, they didn't damn me with faint praise--but it was a sudden, unexpected "dump" and left me without one of my key income producers of late.)
So instead of "flush with success," I was having one of those times when the writing just feels...flushed.
(You know what I mean.)
BUT...in steps my husband, knight in shining armor, light of my life, yatta, yatta. Smiles at me and says, "You're a working writer."
To which I said, quite suddenly, "I'm sick of being a working writer--I want to be a sitting-back-and-collecting-royalties-writer!"
Uh, yup.
Isn't it a kick when you finally discover your true calling!
Now, how can I make that jump? Preferably yesterday?
(sigh)
Janny
Got a royalty statement recently that was...well...shall we say...less than what I'd hoped for.
The day after one of my freelance contracts dumped me for greener pastures. (Yes, they did pay me, and yes, they didn't damn me with faint praise--but it was a sudden, unexpected "dump" and left me without one of my key income producers of late.)
So instead of "flush with success," I was having one of those times when the writing just feels...flushed.
(You know what I mean.)
BUT...in steps my husband, knight in shining armor, light of my life, yatta, yatta. Smiles at me and says, "You're a working writer."
To which I said, quite suddenly, "I'm sick of being a working writer--I want to be a sitting-back-and-collecting-royalties-writer!"
Uh, yup.
Isn't it a kick when you finally discover your true calling!
Now, how can I make that jump? Preferably yesterday?
(sigh)
Janny
Friday, May 04, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
The Unique Invitation of the Day...
...comes from a man named Thomas who does a religious journal in IRELAND.
Yep. You heard that right.
I took one look at some of the stuff and said, "OMW, these people actually know what the frack they're doing."
...and he wants me to contribute something.
(Gulp)
I do have a couple of thoughts. Now, to get them organized and write something up for the lovely man.
Which will probably lead to writing MORE for the lovely man.
And all he can pay me in is prayers. (!)
Ya don't suppose HE wants anything about Tebowing...?
Nah, I'm thinkin' probably not.
(LOL!)
Janny
Yep. You heard that right.
I took one look at some of the stuff and said, "OMW, these people actually know what the frack they're doing."
...and he wants me to contribute something.
(Gulp)
I do have a couple of thoughts. Now, to get them organized and write something up for the lovely man.
Which will probably lead to writing MORE for the lovely man.
And all he can pay me in is prayers. (!)
Ya don't suppose HE wants anything about Tebowing...?
Nah, I'm thinkin' probably not.
(LOL!)
Janny
It's Called GENUFLECTING, People.
This "Tebowing" stuff simply will not go away, will it?
Heard a story this morning on Christian radio that there's a site now up where people are posting pictures of themselves "Tebowing." Seems there's a good-natured sort of competition going to find the most unique places to do it in...
Yeah. And then Christians wonder why nonbelievers think we're IDIOTS.
You know what the most grating part of all of this is?
That as Catholics, many of us have been genuflecting--yanno, going down on one knee in honor of God?--for CENTURIES.
Yanno us Catholics. We're the ones who practice "empty ritual" and "dead liturgy."
Yeah. No faith in God in OUR place. Just ask almost any evangelical Protestant. They'll tell you all about it.
(Which is amazing, considering most of them who'll tell you what you believe have never been within 50 YARDS of the inside of a Catholic church.)
But now, some cute football player chooses to draw attention to himself for making a spectacle out of "worshipping" God on the football field...and he's a wonderful Christian witness.
Ohhhhh....kay.
Seems that mebbe a little 'splanation is in order here.
You see, when you GENUFLECT (which is what going down on one knee IS, Tim...sorry to bust your anti-Catholic bubble with the proper terminology)...the idea is, you're doing it in the presence of the LORD.
Yes. The Real Presence. Remember that?
The Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ...PHYSICALLY PRESENT in the Catholic church tabernacle.
THAT's why you genuflect, Tim. Because there's the King of Kings and Lord of Lords present.
Now, you don't have that in your Protestant church. You may have a lot of other wonderful, gooey, warm, fuzzy things...
but one thing you DON'T have is the Real Presence.
EVER.
And you certainly don't have it on the football field, unless some priest is there incognito with the Sacrament exalted in the end zone.
(Which is doubtful, to say the least.)
So what, pray tell, ARE you genuflecting to on the football field?
The crowd?
The goalpost?
The TV cameras?
Yes, I know that "God is everywhere." But bowing on one knee to "everywhere" isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about a specific gesture of reverence that was brought to you not by Tim Tebow and his tradition or his personal faith...but by something many people "Tebowing" consider to be "less than" what they're doing...
...when in reality, what they're doing is the "less than" part. And it will ALWAYS be "less than," until and unless they get into the Real Presence and do it right.
The sad part is, most people who are blindly following this mass-glorification of Tim Tebow don't even realize that much.
And he has never once bothered to correct them or tell them to stop it.
Which means, at its heart, none of this is--in the end--about GOD at all.
So, sorry, folks. No matter whether you like it or not, or believe it or not...it's GENUFLECTING that you're doing.
It's CATHOLIC.
And it's about damn time you learned what it's SUPPOSED to be for. Which is not for self-glorification, by the way. Just so we're clear.
But, hey, all is not lost. Jesus even talked about things like this. Said you already had your reward. Ain't that great? And it must be true. You, after all, have a picture of yourself genuflecting online...to PROVE how much you love God!
Yeah.
Can someone PLEASE make this stop?
Janny
Heard a story this morning on Christian radio that there's a site now up where people are posting pictures of themselves "Tebowing." Seems there's a good-natured sort of competition going to find the most unique places to do it in...
Yeah. And then Christians wonder why nonbelievers think we're IDIOTS.
You know what the most grating part of all of this is?
That as Catholics, many of us have been genuflecting--yanno, going down on one knee in honor of God?--for CENTURIES.
Yanno us Catholics. We're the ones who practice "empty ritual" and "dead liturgy."
Yeah. No faith in God in OUR place. Just ask almost any evangelical Protestant. They'll tell you all about it.
(Which is amazing, considering most of them who'll tell you what you believe have never been within 50 YARDS of the inside of a Catholic church.)
But now, some cute football player chooses to draw attention to himself for making a spectacle out of "worshipping" God on the football field...and he's a wonderful Christian witness.
Ohhhhh....kay.
Seems that mebbe a little 'splanation is in order here.
You see, when you GENUFLECT (which is what going down on one knee IS, Tim...sorry to bust your anti-Catholic bubble with the proper terminology)...the idea is, you're doing it in the presence of the LORD.
Yes. The Real Presence. Remember that?
The Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ...PHYSICALLY PRESENT in the Catholic church tabernacle.
THAT's why you genuflect, Tim. Because there's the King of Kings and Lord of Lords present.
Now, you don't have that in your Protestant church. You may have a lot of other wonderful, gooey, warm, fuzzy things...
but one thing you DON'T have is the Real Presence.
EVER.
And you certainly don't have it on the football field, unless some priest is there incognito with the Sacrament exalted in the end zone.
(Which is doubtful, to say the least.)
So what, pray tell, ARE you genuflecting to on the football field?
The crowd?
The goalpost?
The TV cameras?
Yes, I know that "God is everywhere." But bowing on one knee to "everywhere" isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about a specific gesture of reverence that was brought to you not by Tim Tebow and his tradition or his personal faith...but by something many people "Tebowing" consider to be "less than" what they're doing...
...when in reality, what they're doing is the "less than" part. And it will ALWAYS be "less than," until and unless they get into the Real Presence and do it right.
The sad part is, most people who are blindly following this mass-glorification of Tim Tebow don't even realize that much.
And he has never once bothered to correct them or tell them to stop it.
Which means, at its heart, none of this is--in the end--about GOD at all.
So, sorry, folks. No matter whether you like it or not, or believe it or not...it's GENUFLECTING that you're doing.
It's CATHOLIC.
And it's about damn time you learned what it's SUPPOSED to be for. Which is not for self-glorification, by the way. Just so we're clear.
But, hey, all is not lost. Jesus even talked about things like this. Said you already had your reward. Ain't that great? And it must be true. You, after all, have a picture of yourself genuflecting online...to PROVE how much you love God!
Yeah.
Can someone PLEASE make this stop?
Janny
Monday, March 19, 2012
Now That My Brackets Are Busted...
...and my Wolverines suddenly forgot how to play basketball when it counted...
I'm not heavily into the NCAA at this point. I'll no doubt get back in it if there's a "Cinderella" team of some sort everyone's loving up one side and down the other.
And it is wonderful that Duke is out of the mix. (Yesssss!)
But what am I gonna spend my time on now?
Can it be...possibly...
...talking about writing more?
(Gasp!)
Presently, I don't have much writing to talk about. Because I'm so busy working for other people.
Making their writing sing.
Yep, it's paying work, and that I sure need.
But it's not getting my novels written.
The best I can do tonight is talk out some of my ideas behind the wheel of a car, as I drive to and from getting to sing for the best damn choral conductor in Indiana, if not the best damn choral conductor I've ever worked with...period.
The jury's out on that.
The jury's not out on how I can s-q-u-e-e-z-e some "novel writing" around all these assignments.
Which are wonderful.
But which are taking my every waking hour. Or darn close to it.
And energy, to boot. (!)
Ideas, anybody?
Janny
I'm not heavily into the NCAA at this point. I'll no doubt get back in it if there's a "Cinderella" team of some sort everyone's loving up one side and down the other.
And it is wonderful that Duke is out of the mix. (Yesssss!)
But what am I gonna spend my time on now?
Can it be...possibly...
...talking about writing more?
(Gasp!)
Presently, I don't have much writing to talk about. Because I'm so busy working for other people.
Making their writing sing.
Yep, it's paying work, and that I sure need.
But it's not getting my novels written.
The best I can do tonight is talk out some of my ideas behind the wheel of a car, as I drive to and from getting to sing for the best damn choral conductor in Indiana, if not the best damn choral conductor I've ever worked with...period.
The jury's out on that.
The jury's not out on how I can s-q-u-e-e-z-e some "novel writing" around all these assignments.
Which are wonderful.
But which are taking my every waking hour. Or darn close to it.
And energy, to boot. (!)
Ideas, anybody?
Janny
Saturday, March 10, 2012
"They're Playin' Bas-ket-baaaalllll..." (redux)
NOTE: This is a repeat of a blog entry from three years ago...a moment of semi-inspired madness that I still get a kick out of every March. For those of you who missed in the first time, enjoy! Brackets, anyone?
==========
...and it came to pass, in the gray days of March, that the Lord looked down on his American people and said:
"Hey, word up, there's nothin' happenin' down there. This is neither spring, nor winter, neither hot nor cold. It is not good to have man living in these doldrums of halfway between.
"So let us shaketh things up a bit. Let us maketh of March a special time, that shall be henceforth known as 'Madness.'* At this time, men shall procure a roundball, made of leather, filled with the breath of the wind, and shall bring it to a 94-foot hardwood court. There, they shall string cotton beneath a wide orange cylinder of metal, one at each end of the court, at a height of ten feet from the floor. And groups of men shall band together, and shall make it a mission to launch the roundball through the cylinder, so that it makes a special music through the cotton cords. And yea, verily, when the roundball passeth through the cotton net, there shall be rejoicing and great jubilation in many lands.
"They shall do this in the city; they shall do this in the country. they shall do this in the small town, in the places time forgot. They shall do this in the Ivy League and in the Midwest Athletic Conference, on the Atlantic coast and in the heartlands; in the Mountain West and the Pacific lowlands; and the people shall behold it and marvel.
"And let us make this an annual feast, a time when small men can dream big dreams. Let us celebrate and rejoice, and make merry, when the Big Dancing begins. And let March be forever blessed with this glorious festival of team colors and cheerleaders, slammin' and jammin', 'diaper dandies' and buzzer-beaters...to bring joy and craziness to all my people."
And God saw it...and it was very good. (And it still is!)
Let there be Roundball!!!!!!!
Janny
(*Yes, we are aware that the IHSA claims that Illinois High School Basketball was the original "March Madness," and we have no doubt whatsoever that this is true, as we can remember this term from way before it was used for the NCAA Tournament. We have merely exercised a little poetic license here, and trust that the reader will be accommodating.)
"Hey, word up, there's nothin' happenin' down there. This is neither spring, nor winter, neither hot nor cold. It is not good to have man living in these doldrums of halfway between.
"So let us shaketh things up a bit. Let us maketh of March a special time, that shall be henceforth known as 'Madness.'* At this time, men shall procure a roundball, made of leather, filled with the breath of the wind, and shall bring it to a 94-foot hardwood court. There, they shall string cotton beneath a wide orange cylinder of metal, one at each end of the court, at a height of ten feet from the floor. And groups of men shall band together, and shall make it a mission to launch the roundball through the cylinder, so that it makes a special music through the cotton cords. And yea, verily, when the roundball passeth through the cotton net, there shall be rejoicing and great jubilation in many lands.
"They shall do this in the city; they shall do this in the country. they shall do this in the small town, in the places time forgot. They shall do this in the Ivy League and in the Midwest Athletic Conference, on the Atlantic coast and in the heartlands; in the Mountain West and the Pacific lowlands; and the people shall behold it and marvel.
"And let us make this an annual feast, a time when small men can dream big dreams. Let us celebrate and rejoice, and make merry, when the Big Dancing begins. And let March be forever blessed with this glorious festival of team colors and cheerleaders, slammin' and jammin', 'diaper dandies' and buzzer-beaters...to bring joy and craziness to all my people."
And God saw it...and it was very good. (And it still is!)
Let there be Roundball!!!!!!!
Janny
(*Yes, we are aware that the IHSA claims that Illinois High School Basketball was the original "March Madness," and we have no doubt whatsoever that this is true, as we can remember this term from way before it was used for the NCAA Tournament. We have merely exercised a little poetic license here, and trust that the reader will be accommodating.)
Thursday, March 08, 2012
Yanno Those "Expectations" I Talked About Earlier?
...We met them. In spades!
We kicked musical BUTT last night in Fort Wayne, and I believe we did, in fact, do this guy proud.
There is nothing better than singing a concert that goes well. I don't touch ground for hours afterward...if not days. This is one of those times.
Thank you, Dr. Mitchell--you are the BEST.
Cum Sancto Spiritu in gloria Dei Patris...
Amen!
Janny
We kicked musical BUTT last night in Fort Wayne, and I believe we did, in fact, do this guy proud.
There is nothing better than singing a concert that goes well. I don't touch ground for hours afterward...if not days. This is one of those times.
Thank you, Dr. Mitchell--you are the BEST.
Cum Sancto Spiritu in gloria Dei Patris...
Amen!
Janny
Monday, February 27, 2012
Slammed!
I do intend to get back into blogging daily, or at least every other day or so, on this site.
Really.
Truly.
But right now? I have enough jobs to do that if there were two of me, we'd just...about...cover it. :-P
More in a bit!
Janny
Really.
Truly.
But right now? I have enough jobs to do that if there were two of me, we'd just...about...cover it. :-P
More in a bit!
Janny
Monday, February 20, 2012
In Praise of Expectations
I came of age in an era in which things like this--named "the Gestalt prayer"--were actually considered profound:
I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I,
and if by chance we find each other, it's beautiful.
If not, it can't be helped.
Now, no offense to all Fritz Perls, who thought this thing up...but it's a crock.
It's always been a crock.
And somewhere in our soul of souls, I think everyone knows that it is.
Please understand...I'm not saying that we need to live our lives through, or for, others.
I'm not saying that others' demands need to stifle our own lives.
But we don't live our lives "by chance," either...not if we ever expect to do anything of consequence with them.
And the same goes for expectations.
There are two schools of thought on expectations.
One is, the unrealistic "attachment" view--the one that causes children untold anguish as they try to grow up and do "the family business" even though they hate it...or they try to become the children their parents "actually want" instead of the children they truly are...or they try to do any one of a number of things to earn someone's love, when love isn't supposed to be "earned" at all.
This is wrong on several levels--not the least of which is that without individual, personal autonomy, life is meaningless.
(That's why God gave us that pesky free will, incidentally. Because obedience to Him that was commanded, or willed, or manipulated, wouldn't be real obedience or love at all; it would simply be coercion.)
But equally unrealistic is the "detachment" view taught by so many New Age Western and old-age Eastern philosophies: the idea that you really have nothing that is "your own" on this earth. That you really have no "right" to expect anything of life...or of anyone else. That you are happiest, and you bring the most happiness, when you really expect nothing. You leave others completely free to be, or do, anything they like; you accept and embrace it all, it all rolls off your back and leaves your inner core pretty much untouched, and thus you sail through life serenely, and...
Needless to say, this doesn't work either. And it's not because we're not "evolved" enough yet to make it work...but because that's simply not the way human beings are wired.
Not if they're conscious and slugging it out in the trenches.
And I thank God that He wired us that way.
Because life is much, MUCH richer when one is expected to do great things.
I have that experience right now in my musical life.
I've spent a life in music. It's gratifying to realize that and say that out loud--because for a long time, I didn't believe or understand that that's exactly what I've done.
For a long time, I considered myself a failure at being a musician. I was a "talented amateur" who was well-trained, who occasionally was paid for a gig...but I wasn't full-time paid for it, I wasn't supporting my family with it, and I wasn't walking around with infinite letters behind my name and dignities all over the place connected with it. I never got my Master's, much less the doctorate I thought I was going to get.
Yet I still loved to sing. (Which was what I really loved about music in the first place.)
So I sang all the time, but most of the time I sang for free, in places where hardly anyone came to see or hear us, and sang music even my own family was hard put to understand. Needless to say, many times, I felt like a wannabe. A failure. Someone who never achieved what she was "gifted" to do.
Now, however, I know that's not true.
That has changed over the past two years, because a director has come into my life who has high, high expectations--and works harder than any of us to equip us to live up to them.
I haven't had that combination of a director who demands, who expects, and who will not let you get away with anything but your best--and makes the experience exhilarating--in a long, long time.
And I love it.
I love the meticulous care. The detail work. The repetition until it's as right as we can make it.
But the biggest blessing of all?
This man's approach, and his care for us as singers--not just as "chorus members" in a volunteer, community chorus, but as singers--is giving my voice a new lease on life as well.
This is no small thing.
I'm going to be 60 years old this August...and I'm still singing clear, and strong, and high. :-)
I cannot thank my voice teacher enough for the foundation that enables me to do this--but I also have to admit I've fallen into some bad habits. When you don't have regular voice lessons, it's easy to do so.
And when you're not treated as a real musician every step of the way...but only as an amateur, so much of the time...it's easy to forget that you are something more, and fail to give yourself permission to be so.
Under this director, I'm not only expected to be a musician...I'm permitted to be one.
A real one.
And I'm not a failure.
All because someone who is a brilliant musician himself--possibly the best musician I've ever had the pleasure of working with--expects me to succeed.
The power of expectation, in my case, gives me more than "obligation."
The power of expectation, in cases like this, gives you back gifts you already had...but you forgot you had. Or neglected to remind yourself that you had--until someone says, "Tap into this. I expect you to be this good. I know you can be."
He knows we can be this good.
He knows we can even surprise him, and exceed his own estimations--because we did it last spring. :-)
An immense amount of external expectation has also been placed on his shoulders, and a great deal of "reputation" is riding on our next performance.
It's important.
It matters.
We're expected to do well...and we need to live up to that expectation.
I can't wait to do this guy proud.
How can that kind of expectation possibly be a bad thing?
Answer? It's not.
Because being expected to be somebody and to do something of value is way, way better than "if by chance..." any day of the week.
Gestalt if you want to.
I'd rather be expected to be great.
That is living up to the autonomy God gave you...and cashing every bit of the body, mind, and spirit checkbook you've been given.
That's singing.
That's living.
That's being blessed.
And that's what's really profound...and beautiful.
Thoughts?
Janny
I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I,
and if by chance we find each other, it's beautiful.
If not, it can't be helped.
Now, no offense to all Fritz Perls, who thought this thing up...but it's a crock.
It's always been a crock.
And somewhere in our soul of souls, I think everyone knows that it is.
Please understand...I'm not saying that we need to live our lives through, or for, others.
I'm not saying that others' demands need to stifle our own lives.
But we don't live our lives "by chance," either...not if we ever expect to do anything of consequence with them.
And the same goes for expectations.
There are two schools of thought on expectations.
One is, the unrealistic "attachment" view--the one that causes children untold anguish as they try to grow up and do "the family business" even though they hate it...or they try to become the children their parents "actually want" instead of the children they truly are...or they try to do any one of a number of things to earn someone's love, when love isn't supposed to be "earned" at all.
This is wrong on several levels--not the least of which is that without individual, personal autonomy, life is meaningless.
(That's why God gave us that pesky free will, incidentally. Because obedience to Him that was commanded, or willed, or manipulated, wouldn't be real obedience or love at all; it would simply be coercion.)
But equally unrealistic is the "detachment" view taught by so many New Age Western and old-age Eastern philosophies: the idea that you really have nothing that is "your own" on this earth. That you really have no "right" to expect anything of life...or of anyone else. That you are happiest, and you bring the most happiness, when you really expect nothing. You leave others completely free to be, or do, anything they like; you accept and embrace it all, it all rolls off your back and leaves your inner core pretty much untouched, and thus you sail through life serenely, and...
Needless to say, this doesn't work either. And it's not because we're not "evolved" enough yet to make it work...but because that's simply not the way human beings are wired.
Not if they're conscious and slugging it out in the trenches.
And I thank God that He wired us that way.
Because life is much, MUCH richer when one is expected to do great things.
I have that experience right now in my musical life.
I've spent a life in music. It's gratifying to realize that and say that out loud--because for a long time, I didn't believe or understand that that's exactly what I've done.
For a long time, I considered myself a failure at being a musician. I was a "talented amateur" who was well-trained, who occasionally was paid for a gig...but I wasn't full-time paid for it, I wasn't supporting my family with it, and I wasn't walking around with infinite letters behind my name and dignities all over the place connected with it. I never got my Master's, much less the doctorate I thought I was going to get.
Yet I still loved to sing. (Which was what I really loved about music in the first place.)
So I sang all the time, but most of the time I sang for free, in places where hardly anyone came to see or hear us, and sang music even my own family was hard put to understand. Needless to say, many times, I felt like a wannabe. A failure. Someone who never achieved what she was "gifted" to do.
Now, however, I know that's not true.
That has changed over the past two years, because a director has come into my life who has high, high expectations--and works harder than any of us to equip us to live up to them.
I haven't had that combination of a director who demands, who expects, and who will not let you get away with anything but your best--and makes the experience exhilarating--in a long, long time.
And I love it.
I love the meticulous care. The detail work. The repetition until it's as right as we can make it.
But the biggest blessing of all?
This man's approach, and his care for us as singers--not just as "chorus members" in a volunteer, community chorus, but as singers--is giving my voice a new lease on life as well.
This is no small thing.
I'm going to be 60 years old this August...and I'm still singing clear, and strong, and high. :-)
I cannot thank my voice teacher enough for the foundation that enables me to do this--but I also have to admit I've fallen into some bad habits. When you don't have regular voice lessons, it's easy to do so.
And when you're not treated as a real musician every step of the way...but only as an amateur, so much of the time...it's easy to forget that you are something more, and fail to give yourself permission to be so.
Under this director, I'm not only expected to be a musician...I'm permitted to be one.
A real one.
And I'm not a failure.
All because someone who is a brilliant musician himself--possibly the best musician I've ever had the pleasure of working with--expects me to succeed.
The power of expectation, in my case, gives me more than "obligation."
The power of expectation, in cases like this, gives you back gifts you already had...but you forgot you had. Or neglected to remind yourself that you had--until someone says, "Tap into this. I expect you to be this good. I know you can be."
He knows we can be this good.
He knows we can even surprise him, and exceed his own estimations--because we did it last spring. :-)
An immense amount of external expectation has also been placed on his shoulders, and a great deal of "reputation" is riding on our next performance.
It's important.
It matters.
We're expected to do well...and we need to live up to that expectation.
I can't wait to do this guy proud.
How can that kind of expectation possibly be a bad thing?
Answer? It's not.
Because being expected to be somebody and to do something of value is way, way better than "if by chance..." any day of the week.
Gestalt if you want to.
I'd rather be expected to be great.
That is living up to the autonomy God gave you...and cashing every bit of the body, mind, and spirit checkbook you've been given.
That's singing.
That's living.
That's being blessed.
And that's what's really profound...and beautiful.
Thoughts?
Janny
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Five-Star Review!
VOICE OF INNOCENCE got its first five-star review on Amazon! Woot!
Of course, that "first" means I expect MORE of the same. (mwah hah haaahhhh)
More later when I've got more than three moments to breathe...
Janny
Of course, that "first" means I expect MORE of the same. (mwah hah haaahhhh)
More later when I've got more than three moments to breathe...
Janny
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
There Are Ads, and Then, There Are...
...really fun, really GOOD ads.
You know who I want to write ads for? Farmers Insurance.
Seriously.
"We are Farmers! Bom-da-bom-bom-bom-bom-bom."
(What's not to love?)
We all see a lot of incredibly stupid ads that want to be funny.
For instance, whoever thought up the "Caveman" bit for GEICO...needs to find a better line of work. That thing wasn't funny from the get-go, and it hasn't gotten any better.
But the Farmers ads?
Just the delivery of the lines makes 'em work, that's true. But the giant ball of lint? And the blowtorch?
And the line, "...where agents' minds are cultivated like a plump butternut squash."
And my all-time favorite...
(in a slide show)
"That's meat loaf, sir."
(next slide shows the artist Meat Loaf.)
"That's STILL Meat Loaf."
They're clever, even slapstick (an element that curiously works) without being dirty, suggestive, crude, or cruel. Which makes them already better than 99% of what's out there. But they're really, truly FUNNY to boot--and you remember the sponsor at the end of the ad, which is the whole point, after all.
Honorable mention? The new ads from Direct TV. I will never, ever in this lifetime get a satellite dish...but I do have to admit, the "grandson with a dog collar" and the "anger issues" and all...those ain't bad.
Farmers still wins, though. So if the agency that does Farmers Insurance is looking for a new writer...I can do that job. And have a ball doing it.
"Bom-da-bom-bom-bom-bom-bom!"
You know who I want to write ads for? Farmers Insurance.
Seriously.
"We are Farmers! Bom-da-bom-bom-bom-bom-bom."
(What's not to love?)
We all see a lot of incredibly stupid ads that want to be funny.
For instance, whoever thought up the "Caveman" bit for GEICO...needs to find a better line of work. That thing wasn't funny from the get-go, and it hasn't gotten any better.
But the Farmers ads?
Just the delivery of the lines makes 'em work, that's true. But the giant ball of lint? And the blowtorch?
And the line, "...where agents' minds are cultivated like a plump butternut squash."
And my all-time favorite...
(in a slide show)
"That's meat loaf, sir."
(next slide shows the artist Meat Loaf.)
"That's STILL Meat Loaf."
They're clever, even slapstick (an element that curiously works) without being dirty, suggestive, crude, or cruel. Which makes them already better than 99% of what's out there. But they're really, truly FUNNY to boot--and you remember the sponsor at the end of the ad, which is the whole point, after all.
Honorable mention? The new ads from Direct TV. I will never, ever in this lifetime get a satellite dish...but I do have to admit, the "grandson with a dog collar" and the "anger issues" and all...those ain't bad.
Farmers still wins, though. So if the agency that does Farmers Insurance is looking for a new writer...I can do that job. And have a ball doing it.
"Bom-da-bom-bom-bom-bom-bom!"
Monday, January 30, 2012
To Friend...Or To Unfriend? That Is the Question!
With great social networking freedom comes great responsibility...right?
Hmmm.
Maybe not so much. :-)
A thought on social networking today, who's a friend...and who gets to stay one.
We're all told we need to Be In As Many Places As Possible nowadays. Only problem is, it doesn't really work that way. In truth, we can all only devote so many hours in a day to "networking" of various kinds. (Unless we are vampires and never sleep, in which case we already have our own glittery network, I'm thinkin'.) Anyhow, I'm already active on Facebook, this blog has been going for years, and for business purposes, I've kept an oar in LinkedIn as well. Long ago, however, I trashed my Twitter account, as well as cleaning out a whole raft of Facebook "friends."
Some people would say that by doing that, I'm being a fool. I think not.
But how do you decide if you might need to pull the plug? Who gets to stay...and who has to go?
Well, first things first. If someone's comments or general posts are making you nervous in any way, unfriend 'em. Doesn't matter if you've known them for 40 years; people can change. Mental states can alter. Emotional stuff can make people do weird things. You may have known this person years ago in grade school, but in grade school he or she may not have discovered alcohol yet. :-) If this person is receptive to a private message discussing this problem, and if you can bring the subject up without feeling threatened, by all means do it...but overall, it's probably best to drop them quietly, without fanfare, and don't look back.
Same thing goes for people who irritate you. Again, sometimes these are long-time or old-time friends who've just happened to change in ways that don't jive with you anymore. Or they're people with whom you've got a couple of things in common, but overall--meh. You're on opposite ends of the political spectrum and they insist on posting stuff that makes your blood boil. Or you're diametrically opposed in your religious views, and they can't resist poking holes in things you hold sacred. If that happens, in reality, you're not "friends" anyway; you haven't got enough in common to enjoy each other's company without hitting upon some topic that gets one of you either defensive or disgusted. Let 'em go.
Yes, I know some people LIKE to have "different" types of friends on their rosters. They claim to like having people with whom they can vigorously, and sometimes acrimoniously, debate things, with the understanding that their friendship is still intact. Or at least they SAY it is. I personally have my doubts, however, as to whether you can continually clash with someone on basic, gut-wrenching issues and yet still consider yourselves "friends." Seems to me that beyond a certain point there become too many disagreements and/or someone gets hurt...which means the friendship doesn't survive anyway. To me, it's better to step away from the "friendship" that's more a debating society before a painful break makes it unavoidable.
Besides, call me provincial or narrow...but I find there are already tons and tons of STRANGERS willing to attack you for any stand you take on line anyway. Why you want to court this from so-called "friends" in addition to the constant potential for ambush from people you don't even know...frankly, is beyond me. Give me people with whom I share more than a surface couple of commonalities and/or an occupation. Give me people with whom I share at least part of the heart, and to me, that's a much more fitting example of a "friend" I want to keep around.
Sometimes--way more often, I suspect--the people with whom you have this kind of push-pull going are relatives, and you may feel you have no "right" to unfriend a relative. Nonsense. Of course you have the "right" to unfriend them, if they're basically doing little for you but making you want to talk to your silent computer screen and/or gnash your teeth. Dental bills are expensive, and mental health care even more so. Cut 'em loose.
If they get mad? If your action causes some kind of Major Family Explosion? Chances are it'll be a lot of storm and fury, and then it'll blow over and they'll move on to other stuff. If not, and they declare you persona non grata...well, that's not all bad. Think of all the duty visits you won't have to make anymore!
Finally, there's that wonderful (and large) category--people you don't really know, but who know people YOU know and therefore get "suggested" to you as friends. Therein lies a lot--a LOT--of waste of time and space. Not to mention infinite potential for linking up with people who become one of the previously mentioned trouble spots. Even if they're perfectly sweet folks, if you live in two different worlds that never touch...if they're constantly making inside jokes with their real friends that you neither get nor appreciate...what are they doing in your social network? They don't know who you are; you don't really know who they are...and you're not likely to meet in this lifetime and find any of that out. So do they even really belong in your virtual address book?
I'd say no. Not until or unless they come upon you and get interested in you THEMSELVES, through some other legitimate means upon which you can build some common ground. But merely both knowing a third party doesn't constitute that common ground, and in the meantime, these people you neither know nor care about can easily become folks who a) irritate you, b) post stuff that drives you nuts, or even c) start to sound threatening and/or "crazy" in ways you don't want to mess with. In this case, as Uncle Bobby used to say, "It's better to stay out than try to get out." If you've friended too many people whose real selves you have no clue about...start culling. They won't miss you. You won't miss them. And you really won't miss the clutter and/or guilt about "maybe I should reach out to these people and find out if we actually have anything in common..."
No, you shouldn't. Let 'em go. If an eventual connection is going to happen, it'll happen whether they're already on your "friend" list or not. And when it does happen, it'll be all the sweeter for them not having cluttered your life or said something you wanted to clobber them for earlier. :-)
Sounds harsh? Sounds too narrow? Too restrictive? It's not. It's self-care. It's mental health care. And it's choosing not to waste time at the computer arguing with people, trying to show them the error of their ways, or having them blast you for what they perceive as the errors of YOURS. I don't know about you, but the world jangles me enough already; I don't need to solicit more of it.
Bottom line, I say this as one who's slammed with more than enough to keep her busy: Life's too short to waste a moment of it on third-party conversations that mean nothing, endless YouTube forwards from people who clearly need a life, or folks who consistently show themselves to be schmucks (or who think YOU are one!). I don't need to spend my time on schmucks, and neither do you. Don't let anyone guilt or fear or intimidate you into keeping them around "just in case."
"Just in case" is never gonna come with some of these people, and the kindest thing you can do--both for yourself AND for them--is to click that lovely little "unfriend" button.
You'll be the lighter, and the happier, for it.
Thoughts?
Janny
Hmmm.
Maybe not so much. :-)
A thought on social networking today, who's a friend...and who gets to stay one.
We're all told we need to Be In As Many Places As Possible nowadays. Only problem is, it doesn't really work that way. In truth, we can all only devote so many hours in a day to "networking" of various kinds. (Unless we are vampires and never sleep, in which case we already have our own glittery network, I'm thinkin'.) Anyhow, I'm already active on Facebook, this blog has been going for years, and for business purposes, I've kept an oar in LinkedIn as well. Long ago, however, I trashed my Twitter account, as well as cleaning out a whole raft of Facebook "friends."
Some people would say that by doing that, I'm being a fool. I think not.
But how do you decide if you might need to pull the plug? Who gets to stay...and who has to go?
Well, first things first. If someone's comments or general posts are making you nervous in any way, unfriend 'em. Doesn't matter if you've known them for 40 years; people can change. Mental states can alter. Emotional stuff can make people do weird things. You may have known this person years ago in grade school, but in grade school he or she may not have discovered alcohol yet. :-) If this person is receptive to a private message discussing this problem, and if you can bring the subject up without feeling threatened, by all means do it...but overall, it's probably best to drop them quietly, without fanfare, and don't look back.
Same thing goes for people who irritate you. Again, sometimes these are long-time or old-time friends who've just happened to change in ways that don't jive with you anymore. Or they're people with whom you've got a couple of things in common, but overall--meh. You're on opposite ends of the political spectrum and they insist on posting stuff that makes your blood boil. Or you're diametrically opposed in your religious views, and they can't resist poking holes in things you hold sacred. If that happens, in reality, you're not "friends" anyway; you haven't got enough in common to enjoy each other's company without hitting upon some topic that gets one of you either defensive or disgusted. Let 'em go.
Yes, I know some people LIKE to have "different" types of friends on their rosters. They claim to like having people with whom they can vigorously, and sometimes acrimoniously, debate things, with the understanding that their friendship is still intact. Or at least they SAY it is. I personally have my doubts, however, as to whether you can continually clash with someone on basic, gut-wrenching issues and yet still consider yourselves "friends." Seems to me that beyond a certain point there become too many disagreements and/or someone gets hurt...which means the friendship doesn't survive anyway. To me, it's better to step away from the "friendship" that's more a debating society before a painful break makes it unavoidable.
Besides, call me provincial or narrow...but I find there are already tons and tons of STRANGERS willing to attack you for any stand you take on line anyway. Why you want to court this from so-called "friends" in addition to the constant potential for ambush from people you don't even know...frankly, is beyond me. Give me people with whom I share more than a surface couple of commonalities and/or an occupation. Give me people with whom I share at least part of the heart, and to me, that's a much more fitting example of a "friend" I want to keep around.
Sometimes--way more often, I suspect--the people with whom you have this kind of push-pull going are relatives, and you may feel you have no "right" to unfriend a relative. Nonsense. Of course you have the "right" to unfriend them, if they're basically doing little for you but making you want to talk to your silent computer screen and/or gnash your teeth. Dental bills are expensive, and mental health care even more so. Cut 'em loose.
If they get mad? If your action causes some kind of Major Family Explosion? Chances are it'll be a lot of storm and fury, and then it'll blow over and they'll move on to other stuff. If not, and they declare you persona non grata...well, that's not all bad. Think of all the duty visits you won't have to make anymore!
Finally, there's that wonderful (and large) category--people you don't really know, but who know people YOU know and therefore get "suggested" to you as friends. Therein lies a lot--a LOT--of waste of time and space. Not to mention infinite potential for linking up with people who become one of the previously mentioned trouble spots. Even if they're perfectly sweet folks, if you live in two different worlds that never touch...if they're constantly making inside jokes with their real friends that you neither get nor appreciate...what are they doing in your social network? They don't know who you are; you don't really know who they are...and you're not likely to meet in this lifetime and find any of that out. So do they even really belong in your virtual address book?
I'd say no. Not until or unless they come upon you and get interested in you THEMSELVES, through some other legitimate means upon which you can build some common ground. But merely both knowing a third party doesn't constitute that common ground, and in the meantime, these people you neither know nor care about can easily become folks who a) irritate you, b) post stuff that drives you nuts, or even c) start to sound threatening and/or "crazy" in ways you don't want to mess with. In this case, as Uncle Bobby used to say, "It's better to stay out than try to get out." If you've friended too many people whose real selves you have no clue about...start culling. They won't miss you. You won't miss them. And you really won't miss the clutter and/or guilt about "maybe I should reach out to these people and find out if we actually have anything in common..."
No, you shouldn't. Let 'em go. If an eventual connection is going to happen, it'll happen whether they're already on your "friend" list or not. And when it does happen, it'll be all the sweeter for them not having cluttered your life or said something you wanted to clobber them for earlier. :-)
Sounds harsh? Sounds too narrow? Too restrictive? It's not. It's self-care. It's mental health care. And it's choosing not to waste time at the computer arguing with people, trying to show them the error of their ways, or having them blast you for what they perceive as the errors of YOURS. I don't know about you, but the world jangles me enough already; I don't need to solicit more of it.
Bottom line, I say this as one who's slammed with more than enough to keep her busy: Life's too short to waste a moment of it on third-party conversations that mean nothing, endless YouTube forwards from people who clearly need a life, or folks who consistently show themselves to be schmucks (or who think YOU are one!). I don't need to spend my time on schmucks, and neither do you. Don't let anyone guilt or fear or intimidate you into keeping them around "just in case."
"Just in case" is never gonna come with some of these people, and the kindest thing you can do--both for yourself AND for them--is to click that lovely little "unfriend" button.
You'll be the lighter, and the happier, for it.
Thoughts?
Janny
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Put Weights In Your Shoes Today...
...or you'll end up in Kansas. It's that windy.
Of course, if you do end up in Kansas, say hello to Kim Vogel Sawyer for me! :-)
More to come,
Janny
Of course, if you do end up in Kansas, say hello to Kim Vogel Sawyer for me! :-)
More to come,
Janny
Friday, January 27, 2012
And the Winners Are...
Yes, there are two of them! Even though I know I sold more than 2 books (please God!), only two of you commented here on the blog...so we've decided to award BOTH commenters a yummy chocolate prize.
So, as they say on The Price is Right, Deb Kinnard and Janka Halcinova....come on down!
(Well, okay, you don't have to "come on down" to Indiana; I'll send your chocolate to you. :-))
NOW...your only dilemma is...dark or milk?
Let me know, and the DeBrand's Shopping Expedition will commence!
CONGRATULATIONS!
Janny
So, as they say on The Price is Right, Deb Kinnard and Janka Halcinova....come on down!
(Well, okay, you don't have to "come on down" to Indiana; I'll send your chocolate to you. :-))
NOW...your only dilemma is...dark or milk?
Let me know, and the DeBrand's Shopping Expedition will commence!
CONGRATULATIONS!
Janny
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Friday...
...is NATIONAL CHOCOLATE CAKE DAY!!
And speaking of chocolate...
We will announce the winners of the DE BRAND'S CHOCOLATE giveaway soon!
Stay tuned!
Janny
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Nope, Nope, and...Nope.
Every now and then, someone writes an article about how all novelists should "learn to write" by writing short stories. Some people even go so far as to say you shouldn't even consider yourself a writer until you've written and sold short stories...and that it's good preparation for novel writing. Saw another one of 'em referred to today, by a writer who ought to know better, and figured the time has come for someone to speak the other side.
Because that entire notion is BUNK.
People, people, people. This isn't like moving up in school, okay? You don't start with short, "small" things because they're manageable, and then gradually move on to bigger things until you're finally "grown up" enough to write a novel. If that's the case, then all poets should start with haiku and publish lots of that before they think in terms of free verse or even iambic pentameter. (I knew that lovely term would come in handy some day!) But take that notion to its logical conclusion: Imagine if someone had told Shakespeare (or, for you conspiracy theorists out there, whoever-really-wrote-Shakespeare's-stuff) that. (Of course, knowing Will, he would have had a much better comeback than "bunk," and it would have been unprintable in polite society.) Would we have some of the richest stuff in the English language today?
Probably not. And it isn't because haiku hadn't been invented yet.
It never ceases to amaze me how this mindset continues to spread and influence young writers. There are probably writers out there who would love to do novels, who have novels burning inside them waiting to get out, but they're forcing themselves to "do their apprenticeship" and write short stories.
Chances are, they'll never get out of that apprenticeship, either. Especially if that's where they're trying to start as newbies.
Why?
First of all, because it's much, much, MUCH harder to write "short" than it is to write long.
If you ever doubt this, try writing a bunch of those 200- to 300-word articles that content sites want so many of. There's a reason most of them are awful, and it's not just because they tend to be written by non-English speakers; it's because it's hard to condense a decent, solid amount of information into a small package and have it work well. Skilled writers can do it. But notice that word. SKILLED. As in, not newbies.
"So what?" say the purists. "That's good training. If you can't write your story in a couple thousand words, you don't know it well enough anyway. Get the thing concise. Get it focused. Then you're ready to actually write a book the way it should be written."
There is a whole host of things wrong with that attitude, not the least of which that it's snot-nosed arrogance. But the main thing wrong with it is the second reason that "write short stories first" is bad advice:
Because short stories and novels require two entirely different skill sets and approaches.
"That can't be," moan the pundits among us. "Good writing is good writing. You need to start small and gain command of the language first. You need to learn how to write short and sharp and..."
Yeah. Sure. Right. You betcha.
NOT.
If you're a columnist, that advice is spot-on. If you write for the Web, it's even spotter-onner. But what if what's burning to come out of you is a series of sprawling, multi-generational stories about a family with several children, inlaws, outlaws, sisters, cousins, and aunts?
No matter how skilled you are, telling that story's gonna take more than short story length. Yes, you could write some other "practice" pieces that are shorter, just to "get your feet wet." But why? Why waste your time, your creative juice, and your energy writing something just because someone told you you had to do it that way, when a story is stomping its way through your veins begging to get out?
There is no good reason to do this. No. Not one. NADA. EVER.
You need practice to become a good writer? Of course you do. So practice--but do it in the medium and the word count in which you plan to ultimately make your mark. You'll have plenty of opportunities to do so, and you will learn how to write just as well by focusing on what you love as by focusing on what you're gritting your teeth and telling yourself you have to "get through first" before you can do what you really want. In fact, you'll learn faster doing what you love, because you'll seek out guidance in how to do it properly. You'll hang with other people also wanting to learn how to be novelists. And you'll avoid the tragedy of waking up one morning discovering your writing "juice" is gone because you spent so much time becoming the writer equivalent of the best marathoner in the state...when all you really wanted to do was learn how to perfect the 400-meter hurdles.
Don't do it.
Unless you want to write short stories from day one, and you long for those short-story checks to come in, don't get trapped into thinking one length of story is a necessary prerequisite for the other. Not only is that not true; it can totally screw up your novel-writing learning curve, sometimes forever.
Which--it has to be said--may sometimes be the very point of some of these people telling you to do it in the first place: it removes competition for their novels, also sometimes forever.
Yes, it's mean. Yes, it's underhanded. But, yes, it also happens. Don't let 'em get away with it.
Write what you want to write, and learn as you do that. If in the course of writing novels, you also discover that you'd like to try your hand at another length, there's time enough to do so. But this isn't grammar school. You don't have to start with 100 words and "work your way up." That way lies madness, and you'll encounter enough madness in a regular writing career without volunteering for more.
Here's to telling the story in "as long as it takes."
Thoughts?
Janny
Because that entire notion is BUNK.
People, people, people. This isn't like moving up in school, okay? You don't start with short, "small" things because they're manageable, and then gradually move on to bigger things until you're finally "grown up" enough to write a novel. If that's the case, then all poets should start with haiku and publish lots of that before they think in terms of free verse or even iambic pentameter. (I knew that lovely term would come in handy some day!) But take that notion to its logical conclusion: Imagine if someone had told Shakespeare (or, for you conspiracy theorists out there, whoever-really-wrote-Shakespeare's-stuff) that. (Of course, knowing Will, he would have had a much better comeback than "bunk," and it would have been unprintable in polite society.) Would we have some of the richest stuff in the English language today?
Probably not. And it isn't because haiku hadn't been invented yet.
It never ceases to amaze me how this mindset continues to spread and influence young writers. There are probably writers out there who would love to do novels, who have novels burning inside them waiting to get out, but they're forcing themselves to "do their apprenticeship" and write short stories.
Chances are, they'll never get out of that apprenticeship, either. Especially if that's where they're trying to start as newbies.
Why?
First of all, because it's much, much, MUCH harder to write "short" than it is to write long.
If you ever doubt this, try writing a bunch of those 200- to 300-word articles that content sites want so many of. There's a reason most of them are awful, and it's not just because they tend to be written by non-English speakers; it's because it's hard to condense a decent, solid amount of information into a small package and have it work well. Skilled writers can do it. But notice that word. SKILLED. As in, not newbies.
"So what?" say the purists. "That's good training. If you can't write your story in a couple thousand words, you don't know it well enough anyway. Get the thing concise. Get it focused. Then you're ready to actually write a book the way it should be written."
There is a whole host of things wrong with that attitude, not the least of which that it's snot-nosed arrogance. But the main thing wrong with it is the second reason that "write short stories first" is bad advice:
Because short stories and novels require two entirely different skill sets and approaches.
"That can't be," moan the pundits among us. "Good writing is good writing. You need to start small and gain command of the language first. You need to learn how to write short and sharp and..."
Yeah. Sure. Right. You betcha.
NOT.
If you're a columnist, that advice is spot-on. If you write for the Web, it's even spotter-onner. But what if what's burning to come out of you is a series of sprawling, multi-generational stories about a family with several children, inlaws, outlaws, sisters, cousins, and aunts?
No matter how skilled you are, telling that story's gonna take more than short story length. Yes, you could write some other "practice" pieces that are shorter, just to "get your feet wet." But why? Why waste your time, your creative juice, and your energy writing something just because someone told you you had to do it that way, when a story is stomping its way through your veins begging to get out?
There is no good reason to do this. No. Not one. NADA. EVER.
You need practice to become a good writer? Of course you do. So practice--but do it in the medium and the word count in which you plan to ultimately make your mark. You'll have plenty of opportunities to do so, and you will learn how to write just as well by focusing on what you love as by focusing on what you're gritting your teeth and telling yourself you have to "get through first" before you can do what you really want. In fact, you'll learn faster doing what you love, because you'll seek out guidance in how to do it properly. You'll hang with other people also wanting to learn how to be novelists. And you'll avoid the tragedy of waking up one morning discovering your writing "juice" is gone because you spent so much time becoming the writer equivalent of the best marathoner in the state...when all you really wanted to do was learn how to perfect the 400-meter hurdles.
Don't do it.
Unless you want to write short stories from day one, and you long for those short-story checks to come in, don't get trapped into thinking one length of story is a necessary prerequisite for the other. Not only is that not true; it can totally screw up your novel-writing learning curve, sometimes forever.
Which--it has to be said--may sometimes be the very point of some of these people telling you to do it in the first place: it removes competition for their novels, also sometimes forever.
Yes, it's mean. Yes, it's underhanded. But, yes, it also happens. Don't let 'em get away with it.
Write what you want to write, and learn as you do that. If in the course of writing novels, you also discover that you'd like to try your hand at another length, there's time enough to do so. But this isn't grammar school. You don't have to start with 100 words and "work your way up." That way lies madness, and you'll encounter enough madness in a regular writing career without volunteering for more.
Here's to telling the story in "as long as it takes."
Thoughts?
Janny
Monday, January 23, 2012
Contest Over. (Sigh.) BUT...Good News on Book Options!
Okay...some of you will be chocolate-less for awhile, because I didn't see your combox entries come in for the DeBrand's drawing. I could extend it, but...nah. Ya snoozes, ya loses. :-)
The good news, however, is that Desert Breeze books will soon be available through the Google eBookstore!
How cool is that?
Added to that some additional venues overseas for the Christian/inspirational lines as well, and it's clear DBP is fast becoming the place to be for overseas and international sales!
Kudos to Gail Delaney for this hard work!
Janny
The good news, however, is that Desert Breeze books will soon be available through the Google eBookstore!
How cool is that?
Added to that some additional venues overseas for the Christian/inspirational lines as well, and it's clear DBP is fast becoming the place to be for overseas and international sales!
Kudos to Gail Delaney for this hard work!
Janny
Saturday, January 21, 2012
...And If You Don't Know This...
You can click on the neato Desert Breeze banner on top of this blog page and go right to the catalog! :-) So click, shop, read, enjoy...
(heh heh)
Janny
(heh heh)
Janny
Thursday, January 19, 2012
The Creative Process...Okay, Mine, Anyway
If you like insights into a writer's creative process on a novel, you might want to stop by Deb Kinnard's blog today and see our conversation about VOI. And then stick around her blog and read all the rest of it. That's an order. :-)
Seriously, stop by and enjoy. It's a pleasure to talk about the creative process, and I know it mystifies a lot of people outside the writing world. No mysteries here...just a few voices from beyond (heh heh) and a whole lot of work in between!
Thanks for reading!
Janny
Seriously, stop by and enjoy. It's a pleasure to talk about the creative process, and I know it mystifies a lot of people outside the writing world. No mysteries here...just a few voices from beyond (heh heh) and a whole lot of work in between!
Thanks for reading!
Janny
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
