Unusual Inspirations

Fiction

Fiction (Photo credit: Eat your greens!)

Sporadic posts for a few months, then – two in two days. What is wrong with me?

Here’s what’s wrong with me: I’m moving. My friend & roommate bought a townhouse and we are packing up 20 years of accumulated furniture, two lifetime’s worth of accumulated books (collected by two voracious readers!) and moving there by the end of the month.

Here’s what else is keeping me busy: I’m in the middle of proofreading/editing a book on how to build community – an essential topic in the era of Occupy – that the author and his friends/colleagues want to revise and publish in a new edition. This started out a job but as I “read” the book I’m getting intrigued by its ideas and theories. The original title was Genuine Dialogue and Real Partnership: Foundations of True Community.
Here’s what else has me too busy to blog: I just completed (well, nearly completed) a revision of the Fiction International website because the old one was looking dated.

Here’s my other “too busy to blog” excuse – and it’s a big one (though not as big as boxing books): I’m right in the middle of revising the look of David Brin’s website. In fact, the new look isn’t up yet, though it will be within a week or two weeks. He’s revising his site because he has a new science fiction novel coming out in June called Existence. (If you promise not to share it with anyone, here’s a sneak peek at his new look.)

You might think that this listing is designed to excuse my break in blogging. It’s not; it’s really about the importance of revising things other than drafts – already-published books, websites, a home. It’s also about learning something important about my writing habit:

The break in blogging occurred when I had almost nothing to do but write. Paradoxically, when I’m the busiest I’ve been in months I suddenly start blogging – and writing fiction – again. I think this teaches me something about myself: clearing time from my schedule to write is counter-productive.

Advertisements

Love Me Some Zombies

Intertitle from the AMC television program The...

Intertitle from the AMC television program The Walking Dead (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have to admit, I wasn’t a big fan of The Walking Dead, the teevee show, when it started. I watched it, of course, but I mostly watched the last five minutes when the characters stopped sitting around whining and did something. Then Glen Mazarra got promoted.

I hated the move at first, but that was because the studio suits had orchestrated the change in a particularly dickish manner. But after the end of Season 2 I was sold on Mazarra. He got rid of much of the sitting and whining and revealed the real threat – the zombified humans.

Now I really need to get around to reading the novels.

Three readers = three interpretations

I find it fascinating that a group of people can read the exact same text and each one can take a different meaning from it.

Take this interview, for instance: I was led to it by Seth Godin, who found in it a “right” and “wrong” interpretation of what an “author’s job” should be. Godin’s take was that he disagreed with Raab, who interpreted her job as being: “The most important thing an author can do is have his or her book in on time.” (At least that’s Raab’s belief according to the interviewer, Jeff Rivera, who is the original reader of Jamie Raab, publisher.)

But that’s not the interpretation I had when I read the interview. The first thing that caught my attention was that Ms. Raab had originally majored in something entirely unrelated to books – City Planning. It interested me because it’s an anomaly. One would expect a business or literature major to go into publishing, but a city planner? I’m now intrigued by how she ultimately became a publisher.

For me (a writer) Raab represents a mini-lesson in the “chaos” of character-building, because as a writer I find such anomalies make for a more interesting “character” – which is essential when creating a protagonist, skillful when creating secondary characters, and distracting when creating background characters.

But that wasn’t what interested the other two readers. For Mr. Godin (a philosopher) her major was irrelevant, because his focus was on a perceived anomaly in the job description (what’s “the most important thing a publisher can do”). His interpretation represented a mini-lesson in the “chaos” of the publishing industry in the midst of a transformation – a topic which also fascinates me.

And for Mr. Rivera, the interviewer (a reporter), the major was also irrelevant. It was an item on a list of background information. He didn’t ask a single question about it, for example (or at least not for publication), but focused on the business aspects of her job, on how successful publishers make money from authors and books.

Why care that three readers gleaned three insights for three reasons? Because of what it tells me about the differences between writers.

Mr. Rivera is paid to be interested in certain topics, and if that’s not what interests him as a person we aren’t supposed to know that. He’s a reporter: his product is an interview.

Mr. Godin is also paid to be interested, but his specialty is the philosophy of the internet. As a philosopher, what interests him is his product.

I am paid to create interesting characters and utilize their anomalies in fiction. I would never create a protagonist that’s a publisher (because in my world they are never protagonists!), but the anomalies in Ms. Raab’s character – how she started out on one career trajectory but wound up in a completely unrelated field – would work for any protagonist. A detective. Or a spy. Or a zombie.

And who knows? I might need an anomalous publisher-character as a secondary, and she may well be based on my interpretation of Ms. Raab.

“Not all who wander are lost.” – Gandalf