52 Novels

Every time I think about The Sunday Salon, Deb Hamel’s terrific group of reader blogs, I’m reminded of the bit in the movie Dances With Wolves when Timmons is driving John Dunbar out to his new post.

Along the way Timmons and Dunbar come across a picked-clean human carcass — presumably that of a post-war pioneer — with a broken arrow in its skull.

Timmons, never missing a thing, says, “I bet someone back east is askin, ‘Now why don’t he write?’”

Not that I’m a significant member of the group (I’m not), but my blog’s listed near the top of the list at The Sunday Salon. Again… it’s not because I’m anyone special. We’re presented alphabetically and those of us with numbers at the beginning of our blogs were put first.

“What does this have to do with anything,” you ask.

Fair question. It has everything to do with the fact that I get a decent amount of traffic from The Sunday Salon — if for no other reason than this joint’s third from the top of the list. As a result, I often wonder if I’m disappointing people who get here from there because there’s, you know, no salon-ness hap’nin when they walk in the 5 to-the 2.

Then again, I also wonder if I’m an arrogant prick for wondering that in the first place.

In any case, a member of a forum I help moderate recently asked the community for non-fiction recommendations.

Despite what you see here — fiction, fiction, and more fiction — I also read a lot of non-fiction over the course of the year. I don’t count those books in the 52 novels because, well, they’re not novels. I suppose if I wanted to pad the resume here, I could include them.

Alas, 52books dot com was already taken and there ain’t no way I’m gonna make the owner an offer for it.

Anyway… here’re a few recent non-fic reads:

THE HARDEST (WORKING) MAN IN SHOW BUSINESS

I picked this up more out of a desire to read Eric Spitznagel’s words than because of any overarching interest in porn. (Disclaimer: I’m a dude and I like porn about the same as the next guy.)

The fact is, Ron Jeremy’s a fascinating guy who’s led an intriguing life. He was a serious actor who stumbled in to porn. He’s legendary in the adult entertainment industry as much for his, you know, as he is for his tireless work ethic and networking. He’s as famous for the brand called “Ron Jeremy” as he is for the on-screen product.

Quite literally, Wayne Gretzgy is the Ron Jeremy of hockey.

Sadly, I didn’t care for this book as much as I’d hoped. It got to be more of the same after the first few chapters: “One time on the set of (movie title), I was (doing some sex act) with the beautiful (female porn star’s name), and (something humorous/serious/endearing) happened.

I will admit, though, that the stories about his family were often rather touching… and the reason I finished reading this one.

STEROID NATION

I really wanted to like this book… and I did like some of it.

But what left me feeling cheated was the way the author, ESPN The Magazine’s Shaun Assael, cobbled together the narrative. We got short vignettes of concurrent history and it made it difficult for me to understand the context. And as soon as I thought I was getting to meat of the vignette, it stopped and moved on to the next.

There’re better ways to tell concurrent histories — see any of Stephen Ambrose’s fine World War II books, for example.

Again, there was good stuff in the book: the changing political priorities and how they affect enforcement policies, how the International Olympic Committee used steroid testing as window dressing for many years, and how many, at the time, virtually unknown players — from Dan Duchaine to Patrick Arnold to Bill Phillips — were instrumental to bringing the drugs into the mainstream.

Still, what I didn’t know seemed far less than what I did know. Combine that with the format and it left me disappointed. Take that for what it’s worth… if you’re not so hip to steroid history, this’ll probably be an enlightening read.

Of course, this isn’t the limit to my non-fic reads in 2008. I’ve also read a number of books as novel-related research: finding missing people, con games, guns, the psychology of killing, and so on. I’ve also been learning a lot about modern American gangs — not for this book, but for maybe the next book. My current non-fic read is THE COMPLETE PERSEPOLIS… and it’s fantastic.

So how ’bout you… what non-fiction have you been reading? Drop a comment and let’s talk books about real people, places and things.

A couple of things I noticed yesterday around the Intarwebs:

First, Lynn Viehl of Paperback Writer posted her Novel Notebook template… including what a completed version looks like. In a nutshell, the book serves as her novel-writing blueprint and covers everything from cover art concepts to deep, deep character maps. She even gives her characters a birthday.

Girl knows what she’s doing, too. If you’re one of the three people who’ve never heard of her, she’s written thirty-eight novels in five genres over the last eight years. And she cracked the NYT in 2007. Plus, Lynn’s one of the most generous writers you’ll find anywhere on the Web.¹ Download The Novel Notebook for free.

Second, Sarah Weinman dropped a snippet about Japanese crime novelist Jiro Akagawa, who just published his five hundredth novel. Yes. That’s a five followed by two zeros. 500. Like the famous race in Indiana.

So, Lynn Viehl writes five books a year. Jiro Akagawa writes sixteen a year.

The question I have is, “The fuck you waiting for?”²

1. Which isn’t saying other writers aren’t generous. It’s just that Lynn’s in the top five… easy. [⇑]
2. And by “you” I mean me. And you. [⇑]

So far in this three-part series on “voice” we’ve talked about choosing your pronoun (I, you, he/she/it, we, they) and building rhythm. Now it’s time to really nail some Jello to the wall. Let’s take a look at the elusive characteristics of “style” and “attitude.”

In fact, these traits are so tough to describe, I’m not even going to try. Instead, I’m going to show by example.

Style

Just as skirt lengths can be long or short (or somewhere in between), so too your writing style can range from formal to casual. Notice how a writer’s word choice and point of view will affect your perception of his or her style.

Casual: “One of the popular girls came home with me after school one day, to spend the night. We found my parents rejoicing over the arrival of my dad’s new novel, the first copy off the press. We were all so thrilled and proud, and this girl seemed to think I had the coolest possible father: a writer. (Her father sold cars.)” (Bird by Bird. Anne Lamott.)

More formal: “The eyes of the pioneers were set on this corner of old Oregon, their gazes measuring the dusty distance to the Willamette Valley as their oxen clopped out the miles, day after day, one hoofbeat at a time along the trail leading to the far lonely edge of the continent.” (Oregon: An Explorer’s Guide. Mark Highberger.)

Most formal: “Good writers craft every element of their work, down to the joints between the words. During this meticulous process it’s nearly impossible to step back and experience the text as a new reader would.” (Telling True Stories. Mark Kramer and Wendy Call (eds).)

Attitude

If you thought style was hard to pin down, brace yourself for attitude — it’s even more evanescent. But I think it comes down to this: Where are you, the writer? Are you at once everywhere — a bit like the God of my grade 1 catechism? Or are you an opinionated so-and-so who wants to persuade or sell or render judgment? Or are you a clever combination of the two previous types — on the one hand, removed and superior, but on the other, itching to deliver a punchline? Let’s take a look and see:

Detached/neutral: “The founder of the Methodist Church, John Wesley, was born in 1703 in the Old Rectory, where his father, Samuel Wesley, was the rector. The house was rebuilt in 1709 after a fire, and contains furniture associated with the Wesley family. American Methodists financed much of the restoration.” (AA Illustrated Guide to Britain.)

Persuasive/judgmental: “Almost the first sound we hear in Joe Wright’s Atonement is the tap of typewriter keys. Soon, the tapping becomes regular, like drumbeats, and it sets the tempo for the music that comes surging in. Later in the film, it rings out as loudly as gunshots. The implication is clear, words can stir us and set us dancing, but they can also kill. That mysterious double power infused Ian McEwan’s novel, published in 2001, and it lingers in Christopher Hampton’s screenplay, which displays immense ingenuity in facing a basic human conundrum: how do you film a story about language and not leave it reeking of books?” (Movie review by Anthony Lane in the Dec. 10, 2007 New Yorker.)

Ironic/comedic: “The problem at Starbucks, the thing I call the Starbucks Paradox, is the assumption that we, the customers, have sophisticated enough palates to tell the difference between Aged Sumatra coffee (tenderly stored for five years in a warehouse in Singapore, shipped green and then roasted to perfection) and Columbia Narino El Tambo coffee (juicy, with intriguing floral notes, a citrus complexity and a chocolaty sweetness so rarely found in Narino region coffees) whilst simultaneously counting on us being unable to tell the difference between a piece of Italian biscotti and a biscuit-shaped wedge of drywall.” (Column by Tabatha Southey in the March 1, 2008 Globe & Mail.)

When you write, you can pick your attitude. Just make sure you chose wisely — selecting one that suits your own personality and the subject you’re covering.

This is the third, and final, part of a series from writing coach Daphne Gray-Grant. If you found this post this useful, go sign up for Daphne’s newsletter. You won’t regret it.

© 2008 by Daphne Gray-Grant

Like music, writing has rhythm. Think of Shakespeare. He wrote his plays in iambic pentameter: Da dum, da dum, da dum, da dum, da dum.

Okay, I know you’re not Shakespeare but you and your sales letter have rhythm too, whether you know it or not. The beat that exists behind your writing is a key part of what we call your writing voice. It makes your work unique and recognizable. It expresses your personality. It’s part of what makes you, you.

Some lucky people are born with an ear for good rhythm. Just as “born musicians” know when to slow down and when to speed up, “born writers” instinctively understand how to play with the rhythm of their words. Others need to learn. Here are five strategies to help you do better:

Vary your sentence length

When I teach writing workshops, I urge people to aim for an average sentence length of about fourteen words. According to studies by the American Press Institute, this is the best length for readability in today’s society. People sometimes roll their eyes at me, suggesting that I’m a proponent for dumbing-down the language.

This, I am convinced, is a misunderstanding. I am not suggesting you write only fourteen-word sentences. that, after all, would be boring. Instead, I’m urging you to aim for an average of fourteen words. There’s a key difference. Some sentences should be long — anywhere from twenty-five to forty words. Others should be short. Two or three words.

It’s the variety that matters, because this is what gives your writing rhythm. If you were to put your sentence length onto an Excel spreadsheet and then turn it into a bar graph (try this sometime!) you should see a highly uneven graph — one with lots of peaks and valleys.

Vary your word length

Just as your sentences shouldn’t all be the same length, so, too, your words should show variety. I’m all for short and basic Anglo-Saxon words: hills, fight, beaches, island. (Short, punchy words were Winston Churchill’s secret.)

But to make your writing flow, you also want to throw in the occasional three or four syllable word like, say, “occasional.” Again, it is the juxtaposition (hey, there’s a five-syllable one) of long and short that lends your writing its rhythm.

Read your work aloud

Musicians don’t practice in silence, nor should you. You will not truly understand the rhythm of your writing until you read it out loud. Do it quietly, if you wish. I won’t even complain if you whisper. Read it again and again to tweak your sentence length and adjust your word choice until the language flows and sounds musical to you.

Study the rhythms of other writers

Just as most teenagers think that pop/rock is the best kind of music because that’s all they hear, many adults think that marketing mumbo-jumbo or happy PR prattle is normal, because that’s the only type of reading they do. Please, don’t limit your reading to brochures, websites and your daily newspaper or you’ll risk developing a tin ear!

If you want to improve your rhythm, read widely and catholically. The science writer Lewis Thomas (LIVES OF A CELL) has a wonderful sense of rhythm. So do Malcolm Gladwell (THE TIPPING POINT) and Tom Wolfe (BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES), although they are very different. Study a wide range of writers and decide what you like. Many magazines also offer a terrific selection of writing that is strong in rhythm — Scientific American, Sports Illustrated, and the New Yorker, among them.

And, for bonus points, try a bit of poetry. (My all time favorite poet for rhythm is Dylan Thomas.)

Copy the work of writers you admire

When I say “copy,” I don’t mean “imitate” (although that’s a good idea too). I mean copy, literally, by typing passages from other writers into your computer or by handwriting the work onto paper. I know this sounds crazy but rhythm is something you feel rather than think. By copying the work of others, you will absorb their sense of rhythm. Did you know that this was how Benjamin Franklin taught himself to write?

This is not an intellectual exercise because, above all, rhythm comes from the heart.

Next week: Formality vs. Informality and Humor vs. Sincerity

This is the second of a multi-part series from writing coach Daphne Gray-Grant. If you found this post this useful, go sign up for Daphne’s newsletter. You won’t regret it.

© 2008 by Daphne Gray-Grant

Remember the days before RSS feeds and everyone and their uncle distributed content or newsletters via e-mail? I do.

You’re probably like me, and have long since unsubscribed to just about every single one. With the ease of content syndication, there’s really no need these days. In some ways, the e-mail newsletter feels, well, dated.

But there is a single hold out in my e-mail in-box. It’s Daphne Gray-Grant’s Power Writing newsletter… I can’t live without it and I can’t recommend it highly enough.

Each issue — delivered on Tuesdays — has something I can use. Or it reinforces something that I tend to sometimes forget. Even though her site and the newsletter’s geared toward corporate communication, she passes along awesome writing truisms that always give words — your words — a bit more than they had before.

Plus, her columns are super short and I usually get through them in just two or three minutes. When time is at a premium, what better value is there than a fully-loaded newsletter you can blow through in fewer than 180 seconds?

Exactly.

After you read her brilliant thoughts about finding your voice, go sign up for her newsletter. You won’t regret it.

That said, here’s the first from Daphne in a two multi-part series…

How to find your voice, Part 1 by Daphne Gray-Grant

When you speak or sing, you use your voice. And you do the same when you write. Only here “voice” is much more elusive. Getting your hands around the whole idea of writing voice is a bit like trying to grab a greased pig. It keeps wiggling and slipping away.

Over the next few weeks, I’d like to try to pin that pig down. What are the elements of voice? How can you find your own? And what mechanical tricks and tools can you use to help?

Let’s start today by looking at how you reveal yourself as a writer. In other words, I want to talk about point of view. If you’ll forgive me, we need to start with a teensy little trip to grammar-land. Let’s conjugate the verb “to write.”

First person singular: I write
First person plural: we write

Second person singular: you write
Second person plural: you write

Third person singular: he, she, or one writes
Third person plural: they write

Ok, that’s six different points of view. Which should you choose when you write? Let’s take a closer look.

The first person singular is passionate and opinionated. But if you use it too often (think of many blogs) it can seem self-indulgent and self-aggrandizing. No one wants to read text where the message is I-I-I-me-me-me all the time. Still the utter absence of first person can make it sound as though you’re reluctant (or maybe even too weak or uninformed) to give your opinion.

The first person plural is sympathetic and warm and helps show the writer as someone who is willing to put him or herself in the readers’ shoes. For example, consider the sentence:

“When we write, we’re often too quick to criticize our own work.”

By expressing the thought this way, the author is saying “hey, you’re not alone; I’m one of you!” But be aware that the “we” voice can also come across as patronizing (think of a nurse asking: “And how are we feeling today?”)

The second person (both singular and plural) is friendly and inclusive. It makes readers feel as though you are speaking directly to them. In the fourth sentence of this newsletter, I wanted to make the greased pig image come alive, so I used the word “you.” On the other hand, “you” can also come across as bossy: “You must sign up by March 30 if you want to receive the pension plan benefits.” And if overused it can sound aggressive — like a salesperson who repeats your name too many times.

The third person is more cool, measured and formal. The overall impact is much more authoritative — but this comes at the expense of friendliness. Here are some examples: “One can assume that the school board made a serious error.” Or: “The typical student receives inadequate instruction in mathematics in grades 9-12.” These types of statements are cut and dried and, often, a little bit intimidating.

So the question remains: how do you know which point of view to use? I recommend you start — as always — by considering your audience. A scientific, academic or formal business report probably requires the third person for a good part of the time. But web copy, e-zines, employee publications, memos and e-mail almost always benefit from the informality of the second person (”you”).

Remember that you are allowed some flexibility and you don’t have to stick slavishly to one point of view for the whole piece of writing. If you are recommending a product or action, for instance, you will want to slip into the first person from time to time — either singular or plural — and there’s nothing wrong with that. Just be aware that you’re doing this and strive to make the transition easy for your readers.

And one final footnote for corporate writers: I urge you to avoid locutions like, “XYZ Company is a 100-year-old firm and we pride ourselves on…” The problem is not so much the mix between the third person (”XYZ Company”) and first person (”we”) — it’s the overall impression that the company cares more about itself than its customers.

I’d rewrite focusing on the customer’s perspective: “Are you fed up with software that comes with no support? At XYZ Company, we’ve developed a way to ensure you get the answers you need promptly…” Now that’s a voice I want to hear!

Next week: Rhythm and voice

This article is © 2008 by Daphne Gray-Grant