Recently in On writing Category

Who's to blame? While amateur writers may, as Malaysians say, "spoil the market", they also have less leverage. An established writer like Ellison can tell Warner Bros to go jump in the lake because he's well-known enough that Warner Bros might actually turn around and try to negotiate in order to gain the rights to his work; and if not, somebody else who is willing to pay an appropriate fee will likely eventually come along.

But a little-known writer is bound to be excited when approached by such a company as Warner Bros, and he knows -- or at least, he thinks -- that if he doesn't grab this opportunity, another company of this stature might not come along for a long, looooong time. Put it down to a lack of faith in himself, a desire for a 'shortcut' to get his name out there quickly, or perhaps just a very human tendency to grab whatever you can for fear you may never get a better deal (a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, remember?). He may know he is being shortchanged, but he may choose to discount that due to the other factors mentioned above, and console himself with the thought that at least this will look impressive on his portfolio or resumé.

I once attended an interview at a publishing company where I was informed that the editorial staff frequently stay overnight in order to meet tight deadlines, and "Do you have any problem with that kind of schedule?" Then I discovered that they were not willing to pay above RM2,500. Leaving aside my four years of writing experience, the fact that the job would require such long hours -- even weekends might need to be sacrificed, I was told -- caused me to feel that the remuneration offered was inadequate.

But such things are so subjective; what I consider inadequate, another job applicant might consider acceptable, or even fair. Isn't this what a market-driven economy is all about?

There's something about reading a written work aloud that strips it of all pretense and lays it bare. I remember my mom wresting a romance novel from my hands when I was 15. She declaimed it as "trash" and, flipping through its pages, proceeded to read certain passages aloud to me in a most disparaging voice.

Somehow, words that had danced and sung on the page seemed tawdry and clumsy when read out loud. For that reason, I've never tried to read a romance novel out loud. Ever. They've never been about good writing anyway, only fairy-tale worlds. Why tarnish the illusion?

Other works can't get away with the same excuse, however. The best pieces ought to be able to weave a spell and still be well-written. And good writing is good writing, no matter what the medium -- print or audio.

Having attended the 'Readings' at Seksan's on Saturday (an event where writers -- both published and unpublished -- read their works to an audience), I think I finally understand why all the writing advice I've heard keeps telling me to use adjectives sparingly. Too many adjectives clutter the piece and lose me when I'm listening. They're okay on the page, because then the reader has the chance to read at his own pace, absorb the image that is being painted, go back and re-read the description to let it sink in. But when something is being read aloud, at some point a bunch of adjectives get to be too much information.

I remarked to Erna that pieces with action or dialogue are probably more suitable for reading aloud to an audience, but she disagreed with me. Maybe it's just the person I am -- I don't have a high attention span when listening to somebody read or lecture, but I'm always captured by flashes of insight, emotion, humour, whimsy, movement, rhythm and rhyme.

Funnily enough, it's been two years since I last wrote for a living, but I still call myself a writer.

Heck, I still think of myself as a writer.

And I'm seriously considering taking up writing again as a means of putting food on the table. Having tried other ways of making a living, I find that writing is the one thing I can do that seems least like hard work. Everything else takes a great deal of effort (which is not to say that I cannot do those other things, just that I find them HARDER to do!).

I've always subscribed to the Confucian saying that if you find a job you love, you'll never need to work a day in your life; so, well, maybe something to do with writing is the key. Although I don't love writing the way a friend of mine does:

Writing is so much more than putting your train of thought in words. When I write, I feel transported, a kid again, playing with my King Kong toy.

I never feel like that. For me, the lure is the desire to get my thoughts across to the reader, helping them to see what I see, making them understand what I think and how I feel about an issue. It's about presenting ideas clearly, producing what journalists call "clean copy" -- a piece that is tight, coherent, smooth-flowing, and comprehensive -- a piece requiring little or no editing. It's about telling a story so well that the reader gets caught up in the story and forgets that it is made up of words, because all he can see is the story.

When I manage to do that, I feel quietly satisfied, as if I've done what I was placed on earth to do. It's almost as if writing were my raison d'être.

I take back what I said last year. I am Nanowrimo-ing. Good grief.

Starting 12 days late, still with no plot, no characters and no novel inside me dying to be written, but who cares? I'm going to be completely silly and not worry about anything having to make sense. I'm going to worry about the word count least of all (famous last words from a person who didn't think she was competitive until she started playing Scrabble on Facebook!).

Erna was, of course, the influencing factor. She kept tempting me with mentions of dancing chimpanzees and such; it sounded too fun to miss out on.

Besides, it's been ages since I've allowed myself to let go in my writing. One of my school-going cousins let me read an essay of hers the other day and I realised that ever since I entered law school all my writing has been serious and fact-based. Of course, it didn't help that I became a journalist after graduating. I think I might have forgotten how to give free rein to my imagination. I'm such a control freak sometimes.

So I'm going to allow myself to be silly and write nonsense. I hope it'll be funny nonsense, then it'll at least have some redeeming value, but if not, well... c'est la vie!

I approached the newspaper this morning with some trepidation. Ever since Ee-Tan had told me that the article would be out today, I'd been working myself up into a froth of anxiety. I was sure I had given completely banal answers to all her questions. Why, oh why, couldn't I have been witter? Or come up with more original replies?

But when I read the article, I was amazed! Ee-Tan had taken all the various bits of info I had given to her, put them together, re-organised them, made them make sense, and written an article that 'flowed' beautifully. She even made me sound intelligent and articulate in the process. Suddenly I remembered something an interviewee once said to me: "Wow! You managed to write something like this out of all the random stuff I threw at you!"

I'd always taken it for granted -- the ability to produce a readable piece out of all the information in my hands. It never occurred to me that I was doing anything special. But this being the first time I've sat on the other side of the fence, I could finally see the whole process in reverse, as it were.

Now I'm left to marvel at Ee-Tan's skill. What an amazing thing it is to be a writer. To be able to write, and write well. To see connections where others don't, to weave bare facts into fascinating stories, to see through the jumble of words and hone in on the one element which will make the story memorable. It's a gift... and I am humbled.

A friend has just asked to interview me regarding this blog o' mine, so I figured I'd better resurrect it from its watery grave. Well, well, half a month has passed without me writing here! How did that happen?

A combination of things. Deciding you will only write on certain topics is definitely rather limiting, especially if you have other blogs on which you can dump all manner of random stuff. Life has been getting in the way -- work, uni assignments, church camp, illness. And I haven't bothered to make myself write.

Yes, we would love to think that writing must come naturally, but sometimes it is a discipline just like anything else, and I need to make myself write. If I'm unlucky, it'll come out sounding forced and fake, but if I'm lucky (or very good!), it'll come out sounding as if I meant to write all along.

I do have at least four drafts sitting in the queue, so it's not like I have nothing to write about. We'll see what happens, okay? As JS Peyton says, "Even if it’s for an audience of one, I’ll try to be faithful." (Hint: This is where all you readers come out of the woodwork and tell me I have more than an audience of one. Quick, before my ego gets crushed into the dust, never to recover!)

It's not always the writer's fault.

Where print media is concerned, readers only see the finished product and the author's name, and the author gets blamed for everything. Bad writing, poor grammar, incorrect spelling, misleading title/headline, obscure picture captions, misquoting sources, taking quotes out of context -- you name it, the writer's been accused of it. Sometimes it is our fault; at other times it's not.

I cringe when I hear people complain that reporters often get their facts wrong and take quotes out of context. When I was a journalist, I tried my utmost to get all my facts straight and my quotes correct. After all, I (and the paper) could be sued for misquoting someone. Aieeeee! I no money to hire lawyer to defend me, how???

Of course, there was that time I wrote that Ireland was part of the UK... *ducks to avoid rotten tomatoes*  My reasoning went like this: the IRA are fighting for Irish independence, right? So how can Ireland NOT be a part of the UK??

Unfortunately, this error occurred in the opening paragraph of the article (*cringes*) and, worse still, it was an article about the IMPAC Young Writers Award -- the winner gets to go to Dublin to attend the International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award (which was why I was talking about Ireland in the first place).

Needless to say, the Irish Ambassador was not pleased. *wince*

But... but! It wasn't always my fault. I remember the time my editor wanted me to approach a topic from a particular angle, which cast a rather negative light on the people involved. Imagine if you were to write about children (juveniles) who steal, and how they have no conscience about doing so and are even proud all the ways they have come up with to dodge detection and get away with it. Imagine if you were to write about this without touching on the fact that some have no choice but to steal food in order to survive, because their parents are drug addicts and cannot provide for them. That wouldn't be fair, right?

Not that this was my topic, but it's a good enough example. Well, my editor didn't want any of the mitigating factors, and cut out almost all the positive points I had managed to gather, leaving a very one-sided piece behind. The article went to print and you can imagine I had lots of very offended interviewees on my hands. They had been made to look bad, when I knew that they were not all bad. They had trusted me and I had let them down.

You know, the interesting thing about writers is -- we can't defend ourselves. Once the work is published, it's cast adrift on the seas of fortune, and we don't get the chance to explain why we chose to deal with the subject that way, why we took put that in or left that out, why we spoke with the people we spoke to, or didn't speak with others.

Of course, there are always author interviews, and letters to the newspaper editor, but by and large, you don't get a chance to justify your work. It has to sink or swim on its own merits. For good or ill... it's on its own now. And the reading public will judge you by it, errors and all.

I think the most important thing is for a writer to be able to he can live with himself, knowing that he gave his best, and be willing to learn from his mistakes. If it's not his fault, he has to be contented with the awareness that he, at least, knows it's not his fault. Never mind if the whole world is throwing brickbats at him; he knows the truth, and he can't let the criticisms get him down. All he can do is to faithfully go on writing.

 
**Suck it up: Slang. To cope with hardship or unpleasantness without complaining.
Definition from UrbanDictionary.com.

I am having fun with The Complete Plain Words by Sir Ernest Gowers. Let me give you a peek into his world:

It has been wisely said that the adjective is the enemy of the noun. If we make a habit of saying 'The true facts are these', we shall come under suspicion when we profess to tell merely 'the facts'. If a crisis is always acute and an emergency always grave, what is left for those words to do by themselves? If active constantly accompanies consideration, we shall think we are being fobbed off when we are promised bare consideration. If a decision is always qualified by definite, a decision by itself becomes a poor filleted thing. If conditions are customarily described as prerequisite or essential, we shall doubt whether a condition without an adjective is really a condition at all. An unfilled vacancy may leave us wondering whether a mere vacancy is really vacant. If a part is always an integral part or a component part there is nothing left for a mere part except to be a spare part.

Who knew a comic would have me scrambling for a dictionary?

Louche, adj.
Disreputable or dubious in a rakish or appealing way.
(Oxford English Dictionary)

When I was a child, whenever I asked my parents what a word meant, they'd say, "Look it up in the dictionary." Immensely aggravating, I can tell you. I admit that I wasn't always diligent; lots of times I'd just guess at the meaning from the context -- inimitable is a good example; I know the word but am not too sure what it means exactly.

But sometimes my curiosity would get the better of me. I have this indescribable desire to know, to discover, and I'd go get out our dictionary and look the word up, and breathe, "Ohhhh..." in a greatly enlightened tone of voice.

Today, I still happily look up the dictionary every time a word stumps me or looks particularly unfamiliar. With the Internet, this process has gotten even easier -- Dictionary.com is almost indispensible to me.

I'm fascinated by words and always enjoy discovering the more obscure ones, but I don't consciously use them to impress. Whenever I use a "big word", it's a case of my brain slotting in what it thinks is the most appropriate term to use rather than me choosing to favour a complex word over a simpler one. I think if you tend to slip in big words just because you can, it will tend to show in your writing; and I don't think it necessarily makes your writing any more impressive. Why say pulchritude, why not just say beauty? Using unnecessary big words can clutter up your piece, making it more difficult for readers to wade through the work. They distract readers and can hinder readers from grasping the overall message you are trying to convey.

Linguistics is the science of language, and, as in any other field, copious amounts of research is being carried out all the time. The results of that research are published in -- where else? -- linguistics journals.

One of my assignments is to delve into those journals and choose an article to review. I was reading through a few articles tonight when I came across one that discussed how using computers to write has affected the quality of students' essay-writing. For one thing, the student no longer has to worry about making sure his handwriting is legible!

Research apparently points to the fact that students produce better-quality essays when using a computer to write instead of writing by hand. As a writer, this is interesting to me because I used to compose everything in longhand, using pen and paper -- university assignments included. After all, if you're going to have to sit down and write for three hours during the final exam, you might as well get used to it rather than type and print out your assignments.

It was only when I became a journalist that I began to compose on the computer. The transition went without a hitch, and I thought nothing of it. Soon after starting work as a journalist, I began blogging, and that kind of completed my 'conversion'.

Since I never thought anything of making the switch from pen and paper to electronic media, I'm intrigued by the idea that using the computer can result in better essays. Of course the fact that you can move text around pretty easily really helps. I think that's what I love most about using word-processing programs -- no messy scratched-out words and extra words squeezed in the middle of horizontal lines of text. If I write a paragraph and later decide it belongs somewhere towards the end of the essay, I can move the whole thing without any fuss.

Studies have found that editing features provided by computer word-processing programs give students "a sense of liberation", making them feel that written texts are now "infinitely malleable and changeable". Things like grammar-checkers and spell-checkers also make it easier for students to revise what they've written. The result? Better-quality writing.

Moreover, there's some conjecture that the way the computer monitor only displays a limited block of text makes the writer more focussed on particular portions of his writing at any one time. It seems that since you keep staring at that one chunk of text, you tend to pick out mistakes much more easily or pay more attention to grammar, spelling and punctiation. I wouldn't know about this, since writers are usually admonished against writing and editing at the same time. If you start thinking about technicalities in the middle of writing, you tend to get tangled up and impede the creative process. Better to get out whatever you want to say first, and worry about having said it correctly or clearly later. That's what revision and rewriting are for.

Finally, researchers believe that today's students appear to prefer composing on computers due to their familiarity with the medium. They're already used to playing computer games, surfing the internet, chatting on instant messenger, blogging, and goodness knows what else. So the act of using a computer to write makes them feel more confident, because they're familiar with how the thing works and know what it can do. In other words, it helps them approach writing with a positive attitude (as compared to how someone of my parents' generation might be intimidated by the mere idea of going anywhere near a computer, never mind using it to actually write something!).

All this makes me wonder whether the quality of my writing would drop if I were to transfer back to writing the 'traditional' way. Heheh.