The Danger of Gold Stars

Last week or the week before we discussed why we write. Mostly, it appears, we write for ourselves. It's something we'd do even if we knew we'd never get published (affirmed by a poll on Critique Circle a few months ago).

We're writers; we write.

We also write because we have something to say that we think is of value. I make no secret of the fact that I want my writing to be meaningful, even life-changing ('though to only a small degree is enough) - and yet I still don't understand why. Why do I want to make a difference, and how exactly do I think writing fiction will do that? It's something I'm still exploring, and for now I have no answers.

However, there was another reason that came up that I can discuss right now. It's writing for self-affirmation, or, as one reader put it, writing for gold stars.

Is there anything wrong with wanting public affirmation of your talent, your thoughts, and, inevitably in writing, your self?

No.

Is there anything wrong with that being the entire (or primary) reason you write?

Yes.

Materialism can cause low self-esteem, but here's a newsflash: so can relying on other people's opinions. In any course in life, but particularly in the writing business, putting all your hopes in gold stars can be dangerous. Writing is a brutal game, and if your self esteem is completely tied to your work, then even time someone rejects your work, you'll feel like they're rejecting you - and that can lead you to an unpleasant place.

A leadership/mentoring seminar I once attended described self esteem like this:

Self esteem = what you think people you respect think of you.

Read it again. It's what you think others that you respect think of you. If that's the case, then how do you have any control over it? Can you ever control your own self esteem, or are you doomed to dependence on those around you? If your work is one of the more important aspects of your self, and other reject it, how can you ever have a good self esteem?

Look at the equation closely. There is one aspect you can control.

Mostly, you can't control what you think other people think. You get that impression from their actions, their words, and their general attitude. Sure, sometimes we can get it wrong, but on the whole, it's pretty hard to convince yourself that someone likes you when they're making it obvious that they don't.

What you can control is found in the key phrase, 'who you respect'. People whom you have no respect for aren't important to you; their opinions don't matter. So how to you take control of your self esteem?

Choose carefully who you will respect.

Have standards. Require those whose input you receive to meet those standards (though don't be perfectionistically impossible, naturally!!). And don't make the mistake of thinking that because one person has respectable opinions in one area, they will in another: I can tell you what I think of your writing, but please don't ask me to tell you if you're a good basketball player or not.

Which brings us back to writing.

Although much of what you put into your writing comes from you, ultimately, it isn't you. When you ask people for criticism of your work - or when they give it to you anyway - you're not asking them to critique YOU. They're qualified to crit your work; they're not qualified (mostly) to crit you.

Learn to dissociate yourself from criticism - or writing for publication is going to be an arduous slog (which it is anyway) that will break you in the end.

Why We Must Have Fun

Two Fridays ago, I made a promise to you that I would be back this week to contradict myself. Well, ta da!, here I am B-) In said post, I discussed the concept of your legacy - your body of work - and the importance of ensuring that everything in your legacy is worthy of being there. I threw around a few ways to tell if the book you're writing is the book for you, and talked about the importance of having an aim, and streamlining all your work towards that.

Today, I'm going to talk about the opposite: the importance of having fun. But before I do that, I wanted to address something that Merc said in the comments of that original post. Having a legacy, having a body of work, and being aware that any book you write could be a reader's first introduction to you, does not mean that you must be restricted to one genre. It just means that, like any other aspect of your writing career, the concept must be duplicated. When you try to build a career across multiple genres, what you're actually doing is building multiple careers. I tried to track down some articles on this topic that I've read written by both prominent authors and by agents, but alack, they all elude me at this moment. So you'll just have to trust me.

You can create a legacy across multiple genres. But what you're doing is creating a family of legacies, held together by their relationship to you - not a single, unified body of work.

Now, fun.

If the entire point of writing is to create your body of work, and if, as I suggested last time, any work you do that won't directly contribute to said body of work is a waste of time, then why am I now suggesting that it's necessary to do so?

Because sometimes, wasting time is necessary.

Writing is both a creative and a rational process: the first draft is usually where the right brain (the creative brain, a la your muse) has the most say, and the final edit belongs to your left brain (inner editor, anyone?). Creating a working relationship between both halves of your brain is vital if you want to survive the writing process (and another reason why I adore the Think Sideways course, with its strong emphasis on creating this connection), and a working relationship has to be about give and take, and compromise.

In the first draft, you have to teach your left brain to compromise. The words will be rough, the ideas half-formed, and plot holes will abound to a greater or lesser extent. This irritates your left brain to no end, and can escalate to the death-grip of perfectionism that results in Isuckitis - that terrible feeling you get when you just 'know' that you can't write, that everything you write is terrible, and so on, and so forth. This process is, sadly, pretty much part and parcel with writing: the book you're writing can be the best book in the world, and you know what? Inevitably, you will still hate it. At some point. For some reason. You will.

It even happens to the pros, and it's for that reason that the gist of Neil Gaiman's pep talk for NaNoWriMo in 2007 is forever etched upon my heart. Even the pros melt down. Even the pros hate their work. It's okay. It's normal. You'll get through it.

Which is precisely why play is important: if Isuckitis is brought on by drifting too far into your left brain and allowing perfectionism to take charge, then it must be cured by restoring the balance between your brain halves. Which means you need to do some serious right-brain work.

Just so you know, those two words - 'right-brain' and 'work' - don't actually go together. Your left brain works. Your right brain plays.

So what is play?

Play is letting your non-verbal, creative, irrational, impulsive right brain take control for a while. It's sitting down and creating something for the sheer joy of creating, without deadlines or requirements or self-styled impositions that it Must Be Good. Play is having fun. It's letting the muse out of the bag and letting stretch its legs, writing purely and simply Because You Can.

So play is important, because it rebalances you - and it connects your brain halves back together. For those few non-writers who read this blog, let me assure you that this concept applies equally to anything you do in life. I firmly believe that humans are supposed to be both-brained; that is, we're designed to have a balance of both parts of ourselves: some rationality, some forethought and planning, and some impulse, creativity, and carefreeness.

Our society places a lot of emphasis on the left brain. But it's our job as writers to utilise both, and perhaps even remind people that balance is a good thing after all. So go. Play for a while, and reconnect with yourself.

:)

Book Review: For Women Only

Quick Stats
Genre - Non-fic, relationships
Length - ~180 pages
Author - Shaunti Feldhahn

Overview
For Women Only is for women only for a reason - because everything it contains, guys already know inside and out. This is a book on the psychology of men, born from the research Shaunti set out to conduct for one of her fiction novels. Backed up by professional surveys and statistical data, this books presents How Guys Think 101 written especially for women.

First Impressions
Wow. When I walked into the bookstore, I had absolutely zero intention of walking out with yet-another-book-on-relationships. But something about the cover of this one grabbed me, so I grabbed it - and flicking through the pages, I was immediately intrigued both by the author's clear, chatty voice, and the sheer wow-factor of the information she presents.

High Points
Er, everything? The book is broken down into six sections, touching on what Shaunti felt were the six most important attitudes and beliefs men have that women don't usually understand. It's a light, quick read in a chatty and informal style, but backed by rigourous statistical data at the same time. Shaunti provides contrasts and comparisons between male and female ways of thinking and approaching things that make it dead easy to comprehend.

Low Points
This is not a personal low point for me, but this is a Christian book. If you're not an easily-offended non-Christian, it should be fine: there's no theology, or prescriptive directives, or anything like that. Just the occasional mention, and an awareness that the writer herself is coming from a Christian point of view.

Rating
What sort of book is this one? I'd say a pocket-book :) because that's pretty much where it lived until I'd finished reading it.

Usefulness
High. Sure, I adore this book because of the impact it's already having on my personal relationships (and I only finished it this morning), but it is also the best resource I have so far come across to help women writers who struggle to get into the head of a male character. As an utter perfectionist, I would love to be able to write my characters so that readers couldn't tell whether I was male or female because both male and female characters were so real, so true, so convincing... And I believe this book is going to make a serious dent in the Things I Need To Learn in order to be able to write like that.