Reading time: About 1 minute

This is my weekly installment of “writing about writing,” in which I scan the world for material to help other writers. Today I discuss a video about the inflatable man…

Writer and blogger Austin Kleon is deeply creative. In a recent 51-second video, he explores the reality of the inflatable man.

I’m sure you’ve seen this guy, somewhere. Also known as a tubeman, a skydancer, an air dancer, and the Noodle Guy, he’s an inflatable stick figure made of fabric tubing attached to a fan. As the fan blows air through it, the tubing moves in a dancing or flailing motion.

The inflatable man draws the attention of drivers and is usually used to advertise retail businesses. But he’s also used within agricultural industries to keep birds away.

Peter Minshall, an artist from Trinidad and Tobago, came up with the concept, and it was developed by a team that included Israeli artist Doron Gazit and Arieh Dranger for the 1996 Summer Olympics.

In Kleon’s charming YouTube video, the inflatable man is an unworthy attention stealer. “He’s all over the place, but he ain’t going nowhere,” Kleon’s script says. “He’s got no spine, nothing holding him up.

I wanted to see the 114-word, 51-second script as a critique of social media. The punchline says: “All he wants is your attention, but when you give it to him, you realize there’s nothing there. He’s empty inside. Nothing but hot air. Take a minute of your life to watch it now.

Reading time: Just over 1 minute

This is my weekly installment of “writing about writing,” in which I scan the world to find websites, books and articles to help other writers. Today I discuss a blog post about the writing habits of Daniel Levitin…

Like many writers, I love reading about the habits of ultra-successful writers.

Perhaps I can learn trick or two, I think. Maybe the strategy that Margaret Atwood/Stephen King/Zadie Smith uses will work for me.

The concept of imitating the masters is smart, I think. Even though it tends to negate the reality that we’ll all different people and each of us has unique motivators.

Still even if we don’t learn anything useful, it’s always good entertaining to read about how others deal with their own writing habits.

A website called Writing Routines offers a once-a-week look at the lives and habits of writers. They once visited with Daniel Levitin (pictured above), a musician, neuroscientist and writer who is well known for his bestselling book This is Your Brain on Music.

I particularly liked the way he answered the opening question of the post — about the when and where of his writing. Here is what he said:

My routine is that I get up early, usually around 5:30 am, take a shower, and then I go right to my writing—wherever I am. Whatever I’m working on, I need to allow myself to become fully immersed in it. I can’t put too fine a point on it, but even minor distraction is the enemy of productivity and creativity for me.

I’ve learned not even to open my email until I’ve written for at least two hours straight first thing in the morning. By the way that shower is a great idea generator—the hot water spraying my head, the solitary and comforting space—I usually solve some kind of creative problem during my morning shower and then get right to it.

Like many successful writers, Daniel Levitin writes at one end of the daytime spectrum (early morning or late at night) and he has also discovered the creative benefits of the very hot shower.

An earlier version of this post first appeared on my blog on Nov. 9/20.

[Photo credit: Cropped. licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.]

Reading time: About 1 minute

This is my weekly installment of “writing about writing,” in which I scan the world for material to help other writers. Today I discuss a blog post about wake up time…

I have been a morning lark for the last 20 years. This means I wake up between 5:30 and 6 am without an alarm. (And I go to bed between 10:30 and 11 pm.)

But I wasn’t born that way. In fact, until I hit my 40s, I was a dedicated night owl. I typically went to bed at 2 am and woke up (highly reluctantly with the aid of a loud alarm) around 8 am.

Note that I didn’t try to change my wake up time. It just happened. (Doctors tell me the shift was probably the result of hormonal changes.)

And following this dramatic change, I noticed how much our society favours morning larks. Work usually starts at 9 am if not earlier. School starts at 8:30 am, if not earlier. And we look kindly on expressions like: “The early bird catches the worm.”

But I was interested to learn in a recent post by productivity expert Chris Bailey, that research shows no benefit to early risers. Here’s how he puts it:

“Research highlighted by circadian neuroscientist Russell Foster (including in his great TED Talk) has found that the time we wake up has no bearing on our socioeconomic status. In other words, those of us who wake up at 5 a.m. are just as successful in life as those of us who wake up at noon. (There’s no need to feel guilty if you wake up a bit later.)

“This makes sense when you think about it. Imagine two identical days, one of which begins at 7 am and the other that begins at 10 am. What matters far more than when we wake up is what we do with our time after we get up. How deliberately we act matters far more than what time we happen to get up at.

“You can rest easy if you like to rise late, early, or somewhere in between. When it comes to your productivity level and how well you do, how deliberate your days are matters far more than what time you get up at.”

So, if you’re not a morning lark, don’t worry about it!

Reading time: About 1 minute

This is my weekly installment of “writing about writing,” in which I scan the world for material to help other writers. Today I discuss why you shouldn’t be too quick to listen to agents….

In a recent column, publishing expert Jane Friedman tells the heartbreaking story of an author who made the mistake of listening to her agent…

Yes, you read that correctly.

The agent for writer Bella DePaulo was not enthusiastic about the author’s project-in-progress relating to the power and freedom of living single. Instead, the agent convinced DePaulo to write a different book, one the agent thought would be “big.”

Unfortunately, even though that book was published, it was not successful.

DePaulo was an expert on the topic of single people, had a solid platform (including a TED talk), and had plenty of connections and opportunities to spread the word about the book. She consulted Jane to see if she should look for a new agent, or consider self-publishing, and Jane recommended sticking with traditional publishing (in part, because that was the author’s preference.)

But here’s where things went sideways. Even though DePaulo found a terrific new agent, she was still weighed down by the poor sales of her previous book. The agent made pitches to more than 30 publishers. One even said it was the best proposal he had seen in a long time, but he just couldn’t take a chance because of the sales of DePaulo’s last book.

Eventually, the new agent helped find an offer, but it had no advance and the author had to hire her own publicist.

The story illustrates how finding an agent is no guarantee of success. Just as there are bad doctors, bad plumbers and bad salespeople, there are also bad agents — who think they know more than they really do, and who can create no end of havoc for you down the road.

As animal husbandry expert John Fitzherbert said in 1523: Caveat emptor. Buyer beware.

Reading time: About 1 minute

This is my weekly installment of “writing about writing,” in which I scan the world for material. Today I discuss the concept of a numbers game for writers…

Are you familiar with the writer Steven Pressfield? He is perhaps best known for his views on “resistance” — the beliefs we hold and the things we do to ourselves to stop ourselves from writing. (He’s also known as the author of the 1995 novel The Legend of Bagger Vance and wonderful 2002 nonfiction book The War of Art.)

In a recent blog post, Pressfield highly recommends a book called The Game of Numbers, written by his friend Nick Murray and aimed at financial planners.

So, why is he recommending such a book for writers? 

Well, the Game of Numbers focuses on cold calling — where planners have to pick up the phone and pitch themselves to potential clients — a task that many planners intensely dislike.

Murray’s advice to planners is this:

• Make three calls a day, no matter what.
• Take no notice of your success rate.
• Keep making those calls, no matter how much you hate it.

And here is what Pressfield says about the numbers game for writers:

• Keep grinding. Keep showing up. Keep putting in the work.
• Take no notice of how “good” your stuff is at the end of each day. Just get up the next day and keep striving, keep hammering, keep working.
• The Muse is watching. When she sees the numbers pile up day after day, she smiles. Ah, she thinks, this gal or guy is for real.

I have often noticed how often you can reduce a writing problem to a simple mathematical conundrums: How much time do you have to write a piece? How many words does it need to be? How many words can you write per minute? How much time will you need for editing?

Yes, there is a numbers game for writers and if you want to win at it, you need to put in the time and achieve those numbers.

Reading time: Less than 1 minute

This is my weekly installment of “writing about writing,” in which I scan the world to find websites, books and articles to help other writers. Today I discuss a blog post about how to find comparable books….

If you’re an aspiring book author who’s looking for a publisher or an agent, you’ve probably heard of the phrase “comparable books” or “comps.”

Here, as part of your pitch or book proposal, you’re expected to name other, already published titles that can compare to your book.

This exercise gives publishers (or agents) an instant understanding of what you’re trying to achieve with your work.

Some general rules:

• Look for books that have been published in the last two to three years (nothing much older than that.)
• Don’t pick titles that haven’t sold well; on the other hand, don’t name mega-bestsellers like Harry Potter. (The publisher/agent will think you’re full of yourself, or deluded.)
• If you are researching books on Amazon, scroll down to the “also bought” part of the list for some additional ideas.

In my experience, many people scratch their heads at the demand for comps and don’t have a clue how to choose the books for their own mini list. If you’re facing this problem, a recent post from agent Rachelle Gardner will probably help you.

Here’s how Gardner phrases her advice:

Ask yourself, “Who are my readers? What are they reading right now?” Those are your comparable books. You can use that line in a proposal, then follow it with the comparable books, and for each one, a brief explanation of why your book would appeal to those same readers. This approach frees you from trying to decipher what an agent is looking for, and instead, use those comps to identify your audience.

An earlier version of this post first appeared on my blog on Nov. 2/20.

Reading time: Just over 1 minute

This is my weekly installment of “writing about writing,” in which I scan the world to find websites, books and posts to help other writers. Today I discuss a blog post about how to shorten copy that’s too long…..

Do you habitually write too long? My problem is usually the reverse — I often write too short, which creates its own set of frustrating challenges.

But I’ve found most people have the opposite problem — they write too many words. I offer some advice for this conundrum in a post on the topic, under the headline, “How to write more concisely.”

And, recently, I discovered a terrific post on Jane Friedman’s blog, by Leslie Vedder (@leslievedder). Her topic? “3 Tips for Cutting Your Word Count (Without Giving Your Whole Story the Ax)”

The tip I found the most useful was one related to cutting sentences, although, of course it will work only for long pieces of writing (as in books, most of which hit the 70,000-word range).

Vedder advised: Remove one word from every sentence or paragraph. Here’s what she said about the idea:

Cutting thousands of words from a manuscript is daunting, however you slice it. But think for a moment about removing a single word out of every sentence in your book. An 80,000-word book could easily have upward of 7,000 sentences, and some sentences have extra fluff in them, like “a little” or “very.” Obviously, some lines of dialogue or short action sentences might be as short as they can ever get. But even if you can only cut a word from every other line, or every paragraph, it’ll add up in a hurry.

And, she continued:

[This approach] really streamlines your writing. Like pruning extra leaves or branches, sharper and tighter prose makes the details you keep stand out. And any time you cut word count, you make your book a faster read.

An earlier version of this post first appeared on my blog on Oct. 26/20.

Reading time: Just over 1 minute

This is my weekly installment of “writing about writing,” in which I scan the world to find websites, books and articles to help other writers. Today I discuss a blog post about how to fact check your own writing….

When I worked in daily newspapers 30 years ago (when newspapers were still a viable business proposition), we didn’t have fact checkers.

I learned about fact checkers when I wrote my first piece for a national magazine. A fact checker was a person who painstakingly verified the accuracy of everything you had written. This meant that — besides checking all the factual information — they also re-interviewed every person you’d interviewed to confirm the accuracy of all your quotes.

I didn’t hear how they did it (they kept the writer at arm’s length from the process) but one time I experienced fact-checking myself. I’d been interviewed for an article for a national magazine and someone called me to confirm what I’d said. I found having the tables turned on me in that way to be a deeply fascinating process!

But, the bottom line? Most publications don’t have fact checkers any more. It’s too expensive. So if you want your article (or post) fact-checked, you’re going to have to do it yourself.

In a recent post on the Write Life Blog, headlined, “How to Fact-Check an Article You Wrote — Like a Pro,” writer Carson Kohler gives a succinct five-point plan for being your own best fact checker. She suggests that you:

1. Step away from the keyboard and put some space between you and the article
2. Print your article and highlight all proper nouns, facts and numbers
3. Verify facts and claims
4. Keep a close eye on age, numbers, superlatives and conclusions
5. Do a gut check (when in doubt, throw it out)

On the surface, her tips might sound a bit nebulous but if you follow them you’ll find they will help add a far more professional patina to your writing. As Kohler says, “Sure, it’ll take time, but fact-checking your own work will make you a better, more credible writer, freelancer and blogger — and your editors will love you.”

An earlier version of this post first appeared on my blog on Oct. 19/20.

Reading time: About 1 minute

This is my weekly installment of “writing about writing,” in which I scan the world for material to help other writers. Today I discuss a blog post about procrastinating, framed as a story about moving pianos…

Many writers I work with tell me they don’t have enough TIME for writing.

But a recent post on Steven Pressfield’s blog, suggests a reason why they might be lacking the time. They are moving pianos rather than writing.

Here’s how the story goes:

A friend of Steven’s once had the opportunity to work with Frank Sinatra and, after watching the singer for several days, he noticed something important:

“Frank Sinatra does not move pianos.

“Frank does two things and two things only: he sings and he prepares to sing.”

While Frank might have needed a piano for singing, he knew it wasn’t his responsibility to move it. In fact, it would be crazy if he were to do something like that because not only might he injure himself, but it clearly wasn’t where his talent lay.

Similarly, as a writer, you need to protect your time for writing.

If you’re procrastinating, examine what you do and figure out what you can delegate to other people. Could you hire a researcher to help you? Get someone to make your meals? Have someone else do your books?

I frequently remind myself, Daphne not only doesn’t move pianos, she doesn’t write about anything except writing. This mantra helps keep me focused on what I do and where my talents lie. Allowing myself to focus on anything else would be a mistake.

What pianos are you moving? Who else could move them on your behalf?

Reading time: Less than 1 minute

This is my weekly installment of “writing about writing,” in which I scan the world to find websites, books and articles to help other writers. Today I discuss a blog post about grammar myths…

When I was in high school, I learned how to crank out essays that could earn me an A, no problem. In fact, the very traditional school I attended — Convent of the Sacred Heart — was so tough that I found the first three years of my university degree to be substantially easier than high school.

Still, the nuns who taught me laboured under a number of grammar myths that irritated me profoundly.

For this reason, I was thrilled to see a recent post under the headline “4 Grammar Myths You Can Ignore” appear in the Write Practice blog. In it, writer Joslyn Chase identified four misleading directives. They include:

1. Never start a sentence with a conjunction.
2. Never end a sentence with a preposition
3. Never split infinitives
4. Never use double negatives

The first one, about conjunctions is the one that really gets to me!

I have battled this myth for decades now, and people often express shock that it’s okay to begin a sentence with and or but. Not only is it okay, it’s done in the Bible! (And then there was light.) I still don’t understand why the nuns at my school failed to notice that.

For formal writing, I can be slightly more sympathetic to rule #2, about not ending sentences with prepositions. Still, I buy the notion that it makes no sense to use such formality in dialogue (people just don’t speak that way).

As for rules 3 and 4, I mostly ignore them, too.

An earlier version of this post first appeared on my blog on Oct. 5/20.