10 Things I Hate (Not About You!) (Part 2)

In last week’s PTWS, I wrote about four things I hate and one thing that I fear so much that it counts as a hate. This comes from a Ray Bradbury talk where he said writers should make a list of 10 things that they love - and celebrate them in their writing - and 10 things they hate that they should kill.

Writing from these lists will make your writing both passionate and authentic. I’d add 10 Things You Fear and 10 Things You Hope For to your list as well.

So. Here are 5 more things that I hate. Although loathe is probably a more accurate verb.

This topic could support a complete book on its own.

Easily.

No-one is a ‘natural’ writer. Although big clue: those writers people think of as ‘natural writers’ come from families who read a lot. And where reading is encouraged. (Just as a lot of musicians come from musical families - did you know that if you are exposed to enough pitch training before the age of 6 you can develop perfect pitch?)

Here’s the thing though: even those who believe in ‘natural talent’ will also tell you that you have to practice to hone that natural talent.

And the writers who seem to be super talented - even naturally talented? When you scratch the surface you find someone who has written a lot. And practiced a lot. (And - very likely - read a lot).

Believing that their success owes to an innate natural talent gives a ready made excuse why you shouldn’t do the work to become a better writer. That’s why I hate this myth.

Because everyone can get better at writing - all it takes is practice. And you’d be suprised how far you’d go in three years if you only practiced an hour a day. (Which is just over 1000 hours of practice). And no, ‘writing’ doesn’t count as practice.

Learn how to identify what you need to practice to improve your writing. Learn how to actually practice that. And do the work.

That’s the main key to writing improvement. Not natural talent.

All of have influences. None of us are both - Athena like - with a full toolkit of writing and thinking tools (See also the myth of natural talent).

What makes us unique as a writer is that we all act as melting pots - combining influences and ideas into unique combinations.

When I read someone whose work I like, I want to know who their influences are because I might go back to the source, and my interpretation of that source might lead me in different directions. Plus I think it’s either dishonest or a little bit scummy to build on someone’s work and not cite the original. Or both.

Case in point: Storybrand by Donald Miller. The book is Ok. It’s basically a distillation of the Hero’s Journey applied to creating a brand story for a business. You know how many times either Joseph Campbell (The Hero With 1000 Faces) or Chris Vogler (The Writer’s Journey) is mentioned in Storybrand?

If you guessed none….you’d be 100% correct.

Personally, I think Miller’s book would be better if he made the correlation for the reader with The Hero’s Journey…and why he’s chosen to accentuate some elements of that and not others.

So for me….I know that I’ve been influenced by different teachers and mentors. And I’m quick to cite them. That’s why you’ll see references to Sean D’Souza in my writing (especially when connected to business). Or Gary Provost when I’m writing about writing. Or Anders Ericsson, Geoff Colvin and Daniel Coyle when I write about Deliberate Practice. And so on. Not only is it honest. And ethical. But it gives your readers the chance to go deeper on specific aspects of what you write about.

Going back to the Hero’s Journey….I’m currently working on a non-fiction book helping me to develop a fiction writing system that blends the Hero’s Journey with writing ideas that I found in the work of other writing teachers. Those writing teachers are acknowledged by name….but this book (if I ever finish the fucking thing) will be a unique system. Primarily it’s designed to help me. Hopefully other would be fictioners will read it, and develop it to suit themselves!

So wear your influences on your sleeve and don’t think that combining ideas from different sources is an issue. (It only is if you slavishly copy something and try to pass it off as your own!)

My opinion: the only validation a writer needs is from an audience of readers who are transformed in some way by your work.

I don’t give 50 fucks about traditional publishers. Especially when the ‘Big 4’ companies of traditional publishing companies are parts of multi industry conglomerate super companies who care more about spreadsheets and profits than about writers and readers.

If you’re getting good reviews, or emails from readers who have experienced some kind of transformation from your writing, what other validation do you need? (Yeah getting paid for it is a bonus. See below).

There’s nothing wrong (IMO) with the concept of tailoring your writing to commercially viable markets.

So my biggest mistake with my first 26 books is writing in a market that’s in the bottom 10% of categories on Amazon. I knew it was a small market when I started…had I realized quite how small maybe I would have pivoted away sooner that I am doing.

But.

There’s a strain of thought that you should find really commercial markets and write for those. Whether you’re intersted in those markets or not.

I don’t think that’s writing. That’s hack work.

It’s not for me.

Take fiction for example. The most lucrative niche is probably erotica. And you can churn out erotica books at 50K words….and (if you have all your dominos lined up) make a decent amount of money. I couldn’t write that. And have zero interest in writing in that genre.

There’s nothing wrong with earning money from your writing. In fact, there’s a strain of thought - h/t to Sean D’Souza (one of my primary influences) that if you want to get someone to take action on something you’ve written, the more they pay for it, the more likely they are to consume it.

But writing with the goal of making the most money possible? Which is writing to market taken to the nth degree. That’s not for me.

I’ve got two sons. One has been through University. The second is going through now.

The way that the higher Education System in the UK - which is from age 11 to end of University - is just a scandal. The purpose of good writing is to:

• Communicate the author’s intent to the reader…

• …clearly and effectively so your mssage is understood.

• To do the above in a way that engages and holds the reader's attention.

• If a happy byproduct of the above is to share knowledge or insights, or inspire the reader to action with an emotional connection….that’s gravy.

Students going through the higher education system - even the English students - aren’t taught to write like this. Verbosity is encouraged to pad word counts (which serves to disguise the author’s intent). Passion is discouraged. Use of the passive voice is high. Individual thought is stifled, especially in areas which go against establishment thinking.

Higher education should be about teaching students to think. Whatever subject they are reading. More time is spent on indoctrination and manipulation of language to support that. Orwell’s 1984 was scarily prescient in how language is weaponised to shape opinions.

So there you are. Five things I loathe.

As well as being a sub-section in a newsletter, each of those could be a 5 bullet tweet. Or a 1000 word article. Or a 5000 word essay. Or - especially (for me) #6 and #10 - a complete book

Identify what you love and what you hate.

Write about those topics.

That will make your writing interesting for those readers who resonate with those ideas. Take this concept for a spin and see where you get to. Next week I’ll list the first 5, of Things I love.