MARCH 10 2014: BRAIN PICKINGS—A TOTALLY AWESOME WEBSITE FOR CREATIVES—OR ANYONE WHO APPRECIATES CREATIVITY—OR WHO JUST WANTS TO REVEL IN THE FINER ASPECTS OF THE HUMAN CONDITION

“When you open a novel — and I mean of course the real thing — you enter into a state of intimacy with its writer. You hear a voice or, more significantly, an individual tone under the words. This tone you, the reader, will identify not so much by a name, the name of the author, as by a distinct and unique human quality. It seems to issue from the bosom, from a place beneath the breastbone. It is more musical than verbal, and it is the characteristic signature of a person, of a soul. Such a writer has power over distraction and fragmentation, and out of distressing unrest, even from the edge of chaos, he [or she] can bring unity and carry us into a state of intransitive attention. People hunger for this.”

Saul Bellow

---

Brainpickings.org–written and edited by Maria Popova—is such a good website that I lack the talent to do its justice. It is extraordinarily insightful regarding creativity in all its aspects, intellectually provocative, and visually stunning.

Illustration Gabriela Giandelli from the book Monsters and Legends.

Go look and wonder.

MARCH 9 2014: A TRULY INSIGHTFUL ARTICLE ON CREATIVITY

It is in the compelling zest of high adventure and of victory, and in creative action, that man finds his supreme joys.

Antoine de Saint-Exupery

---

I am an absolute believer in the proven power and untapped potential of creativity—and deplore the way our current culture represses it. It’s an extraordinary force—eminently capable of transforming our society for the better—and yet we constrain it, dissipate it, trivialize it, confine it, and misuse it.

Above all, we don’t understand it—which may well be why we fear it. It’s a force that tends to take us out of our comfort zones and it’s the antithesis of corporatism—and most of us live in a corporate world and accept its mindset.

Truly creative people do not. We challenge it—largely because we question everything. It is endemic to our natures.

Creativity does not make for an easy life—just a fascinating one.

Carolyn Gregoire of the Huffington Post has written an important article on creativity which absolutely resonates with me., It is entitled: 18 Things Highly Creative People Do Differently—and its on the money where I am concerned.

In fact, it’s almost creepily accurate—yet I have never encountered Ms. Gregoire before.

How does she know this stuff?

The following is an extract.

And psychologically speaking, creative personality types are difficult to pin down, largely because they're complex, paradoxical and tend to avoid habit or routine. And it's not just a stereotype of the "tortured artist" -- artists really may be more complicated people. Research has suggested that creativity involves the coming together of a multitude of traits, behaviors and social influences in a single person.

"It's actually hard for creative people to know themselves because the creative self is more complex than the non-creative self," Scott Barry Kaufman, a psychologist at New York University who has spent years researching creativity, told The Huffington Post. "The things that stand out the most are the paradoxes of the creative self ... Imaginative people have messier minds."

While there's no "typical" creative type, there are some tell-tale characteristics and behaviors of highly creative people. Here are 18 things they do differently.

• They daydream.
• They observe everything.
• They work the hours that work for them.
• They take time for solitude.
• They turn life's obstacles around.
• They seek out new experiences.
• They "fail up."
• They ask the big questions.
• They people-watch.
• They take risks.
• They view all of life as an opportunity for self-expression.
• They follow their true passions.
• They get out of their own heads.
• They lose track of the time.
• They surround themselves with beauty.
• They connect the dots.
• They constantly shake things up.
• They make time for mindfulness.

---

WHAT MY READERS THINK

In the meantime, we found that several of our friends also loved your books and are waiting for your next one. And we find we continue to compare other writers to you. We've read adventure stories and we say "he not as good a writer as Victor O'reilly. The truth is, in our opinion that you have attained a special status as a writer. It is that rare position where your ability is so outstanding that one tends to measure the quality of writing and enjoyability of other books to the pleasure received from yours. At least that's what happens in our house.

Warmest regards,
Pete and Lee Crundall

MARCH 8 2014: CREATIVITY, CULTURE & COURAGE

“If at first you don’t succeed… so much for skydiving.”

Henry Youngman

---

Contrary to what some of us creative artists might like to think, creativity is not the monopoly of the creative arts. It exists in virtually all walks of life and—at least in my opinion—the world would be a better place if we encouraged it more. Vastly more.

But could we? Surely we need social order for society to function—and social order demands predictability and conformity to function—and is innately resistant to change. Further, those in charge of social order tend to be authoritarian and well equipped with the necessary policies, laws, rules, regulations, and prejudices needed to keep us from stepping out of line—or to keep creativity to an acceptable minimum (which in fact is how society tends to operate).

Society doesn’t so much kill creativity as distract, delay and exhaust it—or otherwise channel it into an area where it will be minimally socially disruptive. The creative arts comprise just such a sector. It’s not a foolproof solution—because every so often some free thinker comes up with an idea that changes the world profoundly (Karl Marx being an example) but mostly it is effective. After all, if creative talent is channeled into something like commercial TV, the movers and shakers are not only less likely to be questioned, but gain a powerful tool to keep society in line.

If Marx had been kept busy writing TV drama, communism might never have happened. We’ll ignore the fact that not only was communism originally a Christian concept, but practiced with some success for while.

It’s my belief that creativity should not be ghettoized—but applied to society’s ills and opportunities as a completely normal practice. After all there are very few problems which cannot be resolved if you have a creative brain, an open mind, perspective, and the courage to look.

I would argue that creativity—even if misdirected—is not in short supply. Open minds, perspective, and intellectual courage definitely are.

The good news: These issues are cultural and can be changed. After all, we’ve had the Renaissance and The Age of Enlightenment. It’s now time for The Age of Creativity.

But how?

That’s an interesting creative problem—and a solvable one.

---

WHAT MY READERS THINK

Dear Mr. O'Reilly
I am huge fan and constantly scour the Net trying to see if any additional works of yours have been published.
How fortunate I feel that I came across your website, now I can ask you directly about any upcoming projects that I can expect to see from you in the near future.
I own Games, Rules and Footprint and have turned so many people on to these amazing novels. Can you tell me if you have anything in the works and are there any other books that you have published that I can purchase? If so, where?
Thanks in advance.
Thank you,
Ben Milano
Long Island, NY

MARCH 7 2014: AIRSHIPS—EVER THE PROMISED, NEVER THE BRIDE (SO FAR)

It may be hard for an egg to turn into a bird: it would be a jolly sight harder for it to learn to fly while remaining an egg. We are like eggs at present. And you cannot go on indefinitely being just an ordinary, decent egg. We must be hatched or go bad.

C. S. Lewis

---

 

Airships show great promise for certain tasks—such as long-term surveillance or heavy lifting, but keep on being pipped at the post by some other technology. For instance, drones look like grabbing the within-the-atmosphere surveillance market (with satellites having a near monopoly of space).

Heavy lifting is another matter. You can move big heavy things around on roads up to a point—but only at great inconvenience to conventional road users. Besides, you need roads—and reasonably good ones at that. Aircraft can do the job—but only at enormous cost (both to buy and to operate), and you still need long runways at either end.

Hybrid airships can lift from, and delivery to, just about anywhere—without the need for much supporting infrastructure. With modification, they can even land on water.

All of this represents healthy technological competition, of course, but it frustrates the hell out of me because I love airships and have the feeling that—if we would give them enough backing—they would live up to their promise. True, they are large and slow—but they have tremendous endurance, can lift enormous loads, and are much less expensive to purchase and operate than jet aircraft of comparable lifting performance. And they pollute significantly less and are quieter.

They are green—and they define cool.

The U.S. Army had an airship program, but abandoned it after one flight—and not for technical reasons. Maddening! Then again, the Army has a long history of abandoning perfectly good ideas to the point where you would wonder why they are not running around with clubs.

But—I digress.

The good news is that the UK’s Hybrid Air Vehicles have bought the Army’s vehicle at scrap value and plan to have it flying again by the year’s end. They plan to use it for demonstrations, and eventually to build a heavy-life aircraft which will carry 50 tons—and 60-70 tons in the colder Canadian North.

The planned Airlander 50 is 390 ft. long, with a 3.64-million-cu.-ft. envelope (filled with inert helium), cruise speed of 105 kt., range of 2,000 nm., flight endurance of four days with two pilots and a payload capacity of up to 132,300 lb. (60 metric tons).

An  airship is lighter than air. A hybrid airship is not. It gets part of its lift from its shape in the same aerodynamic way as a wing. This makes it more easy to maneuver in the air—and much easier to land.

I’m rooting for it.

---

WHAT MY READERS THINK

Dear Mr. O' Reilly:
First of all I would just like to congratulate you on your wonderful novel that is ranked on the top of my list of all-time favorite books. It kept me intrigued until the end and made me buy the trilogy of Hugo Fitzduane. Secondly, I was interested to know if your novel would ever see the light of day on
the big screen since I believe it would do extraordinary well and will be a very interesting and suspenseful movie to see. Is there any chance of that happening or any plans started for the big screen?
Well thank you very much for your great work and hope to see some wonderful things from you in the
future.
Sincerely,
Fernando Acuna Jr.

MARCH 6 2014: BEING SOCIAL ON SOCIAL MEDIA VIA LINKEDIN

Do not fear mistakes. You will know failure. Continue to reach out.

Benjamin Franklin

---

I heard an interesting discussion recently between two fairly successful authors. One said he thought a great deal about his audience when writing—and tailored what he wrote to their needs.

The other said he though very little about his readers while he was actually writing. He focused entirely on the story.

I’m in the latter’s story-driven camp. I tend to focus entirely on the story when writing—if only because my fictional world is real to me while I write, and as such, is utterly absorbing. Yes, I know intellectually that my characters are not real when I’m away from the keyboard—(or so I pretend) though they remain a very strong presence.

That said, even though I consciously don’t tailor my stories for my readers while engaged in the process (who knows what my subconscious gets up to) I do think a great deal about my readers at other times, hope they/you will enjoy what I write; and love corresponding with you.

You enrich my life. You give me faith. You sustain me. I now know—and like—more than a few of you personally.

That apart, you may well be a villainous bunch—but I am strongly biased in your favor.

E-mail and blogging apart, it has taken me some time to get comfortable with social media—and it remains a work in progress. Nonetheless, recently I have been making a serious effort to reach out through Linkedin—and have been much moved by the reaction; and agreeably surprised by my own feelings. Because solitude goes with the disciplines of book writing, I have tended to think of myself as fairly self-contained—and not really needing as much human interaction as many—but instead I find myself much engaged by the lives of those I am corresponding with. In fact, all in all, I’m finding it a heart-warming experience.

You would think you would know yourself after nearly 70 years of life—but evidently I’m fonder of my fellow humans than I realized.

I’ll try and keep it a secret.

---

WHAT MY READERS THINK

Glad to see you back in the “area.” Your books have been fun for myself, sons, daughter, and friends. I hope all
is well or at least settled so you may once again enjoy life and write . . . we who can not write as you do read/live
vicariously through your books.
Fred Ruggles

MARCH 5 2014: THE SECRET OF SUCCESS IS BEING WILLING TO FAIL—AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN—AND GETTING BACK UP EVERY TIME. AND NO, IT IS NOT EASY. IT IS MERELY NECESSARY.

“Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything - all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure - these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important.

Steve Jobs

---

I have written before that writers live in a state of permanent failure—both because financial success is comparatively rare—and because you rarely write quite as well as you want to.

If you do, you raise the bar. The challenge is the thing—and writing itself is just plain wonderful. In essence I am saying that failure in writing is arguably a more enjoyable way of life—at least for some of us—than success in another field. And money is not how we measure success (though we need it as much as anyone else).

What counts, above all, is the writing—the extraordinary process of converting thought into words in a manner that will win over the reader.

Does it hook?

Does it flow?

Is it clear?

Does it entertain?

Does it touch?

Is it compelling?

Does it offer surprise?

Does it illuminate the human condition?

Does it amuse?

Are my written words consistent with what I am really trying to say—or has something been lost in the transition from mind to written word?

It was in this spirit that I encountered a short but highly relevant article by CATHERINE CLIFFORD in Entrepreneur Magazine

Even the most successful people have failed at some point or another. Actually, scratch that -- especially the most successful people have failed at some point or another. (And probably a whole lot more than you might imagine.)

The biggest difference between successful people and less accomplished individuals is that successful people don’t let being rejected keep them down. Successful entrepreneurs have the emotional tools to manage disappointment and not let it derail them for too long; they’re resilient and determined. 

Rejected: Entrepreneurs: Your Irrational Optimism Is Necessary

Alex Fauske, The Doodle Video Guy, put together this animation illustrating the surprising records of failure for some folks who are now pretty legendary success stories with data from San Francisco-based startup organization Funders and Founders. Teaser: Sylvester Stallone was rejected 1,500 times when he tried selling his script, with himself as the lead actor, for the now legendary movie Rocky.

---

WHAT MY READERS THINK

As a woman I would have thought it would have
been "not my cup of tea" however I found myself thoroughly enthralled and did not want to leave it
down until I had it finished. I also found your research tapes incredible.
After finding your site I am now going to try and get a copy of your books and re-read Games of the
Hangman and hopefully get a chance to read the others too. I am amazed like your other readers that
you are not more prominent, especially here in Ireland.
Keep up the great work

Imelda Masterson

---

APPARENTLY IT IS NOT JUST MY IMPRESSION—RESEARCH CONFIRMS THAT WOMEN REALLY DO MAKE BETTER LEADERS THAN MEN

It has long been my belief  that our most neglected resource is human potential—but that our social structures seem more concerned with enforcing conformity than encouraging creativity. In short, we are not very good at drawing out talent; and clearly some of us don’t want to.

Talent has a disconcerting habit of questioning the status quo—and those who are in power, and otherwise entrenched in their comfort zones—don’t like that. Talent is troublesome.

God knows, schools are bad enough with their emphasis on socialization, but then one—most probably—enters the corporate/government/military world where independent thought has little chance of surviving. And after a while—a very little while—you accept this as being normal. You have to if you want to keep your job—let alone advance your career.

This relentless pressure to conform has a great deal to do with social control—which brings me on to the question of leadership. If I’m going to be controlled, I would like to be well controlled. Recently, I commented on how wrong it is that women are not paid the same for equal work—and that led me to the thought that women are generally more effective than men, and might make better leaders.

So far, we are only talking my opinion—but serendipity being what it is, this morning I stumbled across an article in Business Insider which quoted research by Zenger Folkman that confirmed just that. Their findings are based upon a substantial sample and over a long period of time. They have credibility.

For more than a decade, our organization has been collecting 360° feedback data from leading organizations worldwide. We now have 450,000 feedback instruments pertaining to about 45,000 leaders, covering a wide variety of industries. The studies that follow include our most current data collected in 2011 and 2012. The sample we have used includes just under 16,000 leaders of whom two-thirds were male and one-third female. Each participant had on average 13 respondents, including their manager, their direct reports and their peers.

The data are very clear. Women make better leaders—yet we males don’t give them much of a chance.  

I’m pretty sure we would all have a better quality of life if we did.

Photo at top is of GM CEO, Mary Barra. As matters stand, she is being paid slightly less than half of what her male predecessor received.