Friday, August 22, 2014

August 22 2014. Death is not the problem. Its timing is.

"Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear - not absence of fear."

Mark Twain

"Success is how high you bounce when you hit the bottom."

General George S. Patton


One of the most frustrating things about life is that just when you begin to be able to cope with it—or, at least, to know how to (not the same thing)—you die. Enlightenment has a tendency to come late. You don’t become a wise old owl until you are old.

It helps to start by being an owl. Damnably difficult to transition otherwise.

For instance, I have spent a great deal of life eating badly. True, I was brought up in an environment that paid scant attention to the quality of what was eaten, but you would have thought I would have educated myself on this rather important subject subsequently. After all—I have been gifted with a good brain, I’m intellectually curious, and I read voraciously.

No so. My diet certainly wasn’t disastrous, but it is only recently that I have really come to terms with something near optimum (and the consequences have been remarkable). Up until then, if I was hungry I had a tendency to make a cheese sandwich (or something equally unsuitable)—and to go on reading or writing. And I have never really learned to cook (properly) even though intellectually I know I should.

I can cook a handful of dishes fairly well—and even make an acceptable omelet, but that is not the point. The fact that I can bluff does not mean I can cook.

Cooking demands a depth of understanding I can but aspire to.

For self-evident reasons, I hold cooking to be a universally required skill. Regrettably, I don’t always live up to my own standards. The good news is that I don’t pretend otherwise.

I haven’t been quite as bad where exercise is concerned—I have always attached great importance to walking—but I still feel I could have done much better, and am endeavoring to do so.

Fortunately, I have not neglected my brain. I have deliberately exercised that for as long as I can remember—both because I have wanted to, and because I have had to. You can’t write without a cooperative brain (though some appear to think otherwise). And your brain won’t cooperate unless it receives a great deal of attention. It’s a needy kind of thing. Not only does it need to be fed and exercised, but it needs to be stressed intellectually. One effective way to do that is to question your own prejudices and beliefs. I do that regularly, particularly where religion and politics are concerned to the point where I find myself changing my mind. For instance, though I am naturally of a liberal disposition, I devote considerable attention to conservative arguments. One advantage of doing this is that many truths are counter-intuitive.

My conclusions about life—which are subject to change—have surprised me.

  • Life, in essence, is very simple.
  • We need less than we think.
  • Simplicity is a good thing.
  • Minimalism is a good thing.
  • Materialism is a bad thing.
  • Ideology is a bad thing.
  • Organized religion has a tendency to be a business—and is a thoroughly debatable thing.
  • Spirituality is a good thing.
  • Racism is ridiculous—and wrong.
  • Babies are the best thing—and very cuddly
  • Women are nearly as cuddly..
  • Greed may be the worst thing.
  • Creativity is a truly wonderful thing.
  • Reading is a wonderful thing.
  • Happiness does exist. It is also called writing.
  • Being in love is a wonderful thing—and agonizing.
  • Love is a many splendored thing—but mostly conditional (whatever people say).
  • Sex is pretty damn good too—both with and without love. Works best where affection (as a minimum) is involved.
  • Cuddling someone you love is a wondrous thing.
  • When a loved one dies, grief doesn’t pass. At best, you come to terms with it. The people I have loved best—my grandmother, my first love, Bunny, and my friend, Niall, are all dead. I grieve daily. It makes no sense, but it’s the only way I know to keep them alive.
  • There are solution to most problems if you care to look. Looking takes not just effort, but nerve.  
  • Other people are rarely the problem (though sometimes mostly). I would have been dead decades ago if it was not for other people. They come in handy at times.
  • Another person is very useful when it comes to sex. Two or more changes the category—though is not without appeal.
  • Solitude (while writing) is a good thing—and much misunderstood. The ability to hack solitude—as we writers do—should not be confused with reclusiveness.
  • People are pretty good at looking after their own immediate interests—bad at going beyond that.
  • We don’t think nearly enough. We think rationally even less.
  • We are conditioned and manipulated way more than we acknowledge.
  • Consumerism is a bad thing.
  • The natural environment is a good thing.
  • What we are doing to the environment is unspeakable, unforgivable, and senseless. We are destroying our own habitat.
  • We still don’t know how to educate our children. We kill their creativity in the interests of socialization.
  • We both elect and promote the wrong people—not always, but mostly.
  • Leadership is important.
  • Great leaders are rare.
  • We should all do yoga and meditate
  • Doing almost anything worthwhile is harder than you would think—even yoga.
  • No one accomplishes anything worthwhile alone.
  • We all need help.
  • The finest human quality is decency.
  • Friendship is a wonderful thing.
  • Women are smarter than men—except where it comes to men.
  • The Scandinavian approach to capitalism is far superior to the American.
  • Corporatism is nearly as bad as Soviet communism.
  • Financialization is a bad and dangerous thing.
  • Selling cutting edge U.S. weapons such as M1A2 Abrams tanks and Apache AH64 attack helicopters for our enemies—such as ISIS to capture—is a bad thing. In fact, it’s a damnably stupid thing. 
  • Reform of the U.S. Constitution is a necessary thing.
  • Economics is fun—and a sociological thing.
  • All decisions are based upon imperfect information.
  • Risk is normal.
  • Adventures, good, bad, delightful, dangerous, demanding, and disastrous—are a fine and necessary thing. We writers call them material.  
  • The most important quality a human can possess is the ability to manage one’s fears. Nothing else comes close.

Thursday, August 21, 2014

August 21 2014. It’s a pity that, “All that matters is what you leave on the page,” is too long to be a title. It says it all! From blog into book—time to start structuring my book on writing. Time to reach out and help, also. Every writer needs help the first time around—and it rarely stops there. And it shouldn’t.

Don’t romanticize your ‘vocation.' You can either write good sentences or you can’t. There is no ‘writer’s lifestyle.' All that matters is what you leave on the page.

Zadie Smith

A writer, like an athlete, must 'train' every day. What did I do today to keep in 'form'?

Susan Sontag

Every sentence must do one of two things — reveal character or advance the action.

Kurt Vonnegut

Writing is not a serious business. It’s a joy and a celebration. You should be having fun with it... It’s not work. If it’s work, stop and do something else.

George Orwell


The one thing I don’t like about blogging is that the very structure of a blog website tends to focus on the current blog to the detriment of earlier blogs. That’s a good and necessary thing—but perhaps too much of one. Yes, you can drill down, but it is not quite as easy as it should be to read through all the blogs on one subject. Besides, they are not necessarily written to develop concepts in a coherent, linked, fashion.

I tend to think of my blogs as a bunch of extended haiku. No, they are not literally haiku, of course, but I try and write them in the spirit of one insight—written with skill, vigor and speed—and not necessarily connected (though I do follow themes).

It’s an image that appeals to me.

Do I always achieve that?

I doubt it very much—though I have become much faster—but such is what I have in mind.

All of this a long-winded way of saying that I have decided to assemble my thoughts on writing into book form. That is not a new thought—I had previously written fairly extensively on writing for my old web site (where it built up quite a following). The difference now is that I have a much clearer idea of my target audience and how I can best be of use.

I’m particularly concerned to discuss the very nature of wring itself. On the one hand, we all know what writing is—or think we do—but I’m far from sure we really appreciate its significance. If we did, we might be tempted to stay with it longer.

My primary concern is to help writers to keep going. In particular, there is a phase you reach before you are published when you are not yet as good as you need to be—and you know it—and your book is not yet as advanced as it needs to be. At that point, it is extremely tempting to think you have over-reached—and just drop the whole thing.

In truth, you probably have over-reached—and your writing may still be mediocre. But that’s not the point. The real thing you fail to understand is that it is only by over-reaching that you get better—and practically every writer goes through such a phase.

KEEP WRITING—AND YOU WILL GET BETTER! Not enough people believe that.

That grim phase is roughly akin to the notorious Wall that Marathon runners encounter after 18 miles or so. However, it is much harder to get through because you don’t have a bunch of other runners around you—explicitly or implicitly encouraging you to continue (let alone cheering onlookers)—and a marathon lasts only hours whereas writing a book may take years. It also has a clear-cut finishing line—whereas a book does not.

“Art is never finished, only abandoned,” sums it up. The man who said that knew what he was talking about. His name was Leonardo da Vinci. He designed weapons—and painted a bit. Do you know he designed the first tank? True story.

It’s helpful to have a mentor throughout the writing of your first book—but at this point—when you are flagging—your are in particular need of a helping hand.

I want to help you get it.

I’ve been though just such a scenario as described—so I am entirely sympathetic.

I’m also hatching some specific ideas on how to do this. They will be in the book.

By the way, I already have a title. Books are not babies. A book needs to be named as fast as possible after conception. Hard to focus on the thing otherwise.


Wednesday, August 20, 2014

August 20 2014. If writing is the art of converting thoughts into entertainingly written words—is it possible to radically improve how we think, and thus write? Apparently it is. Just plug yourself in. And why stop there?

We are dying from overthinking. We are slowly killing ourselves by thinking about everything. Think. Think. Think. You can never trust the human mind anyway. It's a death trap.

Anthony Hopkins

The most merciful thing in the world... is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents.

H. P. Lovecraft


SELPHIE OF THE AUTHOR 2025

The question of how we think—and fail to think—is one I contemplate regularly. My primary interest stems from the fundamental importance of cognition where writing is concerned. The mind drives the process. If you don’t think clearly, you won’t write with clarity—not to mention entertainingly. Wit isn’t a product of your feet. It’s a quality of your mind (well, of some minds).

My secondary interest is more general. I’m fascinated by the power of the mind, how we mostly fail to harness that power, and by the fact that no one really knows—in a direct sense—how another thinks. Yes, we know what people say, we read body language, and we know what people actually do—but that’s not the same as having full access to another’s thoughts. And then there is the detail that people can be deceptive—in fact we even deceive ourselves.

I was going to say that the one exception where mind-reading is involved refers to a writer’s fictional characters. After all, if you create a character, surely you must know exactly how they think? The author is God in that context.

Well, you do—at first—but fictional characters have the intriguing habit of seeming to go their own way after a while. They develop minds of their own.

Impossible?

Go write a book—and you’ll see for yourself. If it is an illusion—which logic tells me it must be—it’s a powerful one.

But the matter at hand is whether the mind can be improved or not. The answer, as we all know, is that it can. Introduce a good education, read widely and well, travel, fall in and out of love, have plenty of good sex, have extensive experience of life—and write daily for a few decades—and modest wonders can be achieved.

But isn’t there a faster way—drugs apart?

It turns out that there just might be. DARPA have just sponsored an investigation into transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS)—stimulating the brain with electric current (little more than nine-volt batteries hooked up to sponges embedded with metal and taped to a person’s scalp)—and the results have been impressive. Let me quote from The Atlantic Magazine’s excellent piece.

Under certain conditions, subjects receiving the full dose of current outperformed the others by a factor of two. And they performed especially well on tests administered an hour after training, indicating that what they’d learned was sticking. Simply put, running positive electrical current to the scalp was making people learn faster.

Dozens of other studies have turned up additional evidence that brain stimulation can improve performance on specific tasks. In some cases, the gains are small—maybe 10 or 20 percent—and in others they are large, as in theDARPA study. Vince Clark, a University of New Mexico psychology professor who was involved with the DARPA work, told me that he’d tried every data-crunching tactic he could think of to explain away the effect of tDCS. “But it’s all there. It’s all real,” Clark said. “I keep trying to get rid of it, and it doesn’t go away.”

Now the intelligence-agency version of DARPA, known as IARPA, has created a program that will look at whether brain stimulation might be combined with exercise, nutrition, and games to even more dramatically enhance human performance. As Raja Parasuraman, a George Mason University psychology professor who is advising an IARPA team, puts it, “The end goal is to improve fluid intelligence—that is, to make people smarter.”

Whether or not IARPA finds a way to make spies smarter, the field of brain stimulation stands to shift our understanding of the neural structures and processes that underpin intelligence.

True, they haven’t yet got to the stage of proving that tDCS helps you write better—as such—but you can you can see the direction where things are heading.

It’s going to give the expression, “wired,” a whole new meaning. On the one hand, robots are being given human capabilities and characteristics at amazing speed. On the other hand, we humans are clearly heading towards becoming bionic—equipped with replaceable parts—and permanently connected to the internet. Comcast will control us all.

Between you, me, and the gatepost, I find all of this vaguely creepy—nearly as creepy as Facebook.

I’d write more on the subject—but my battery is going flat.


Tuesday, August 19, 2014

August 19 2014 The AHRLAC, Africa’s first home grown military aircraft, has just made its maiden flight. It reminds me eerily of the Edgley Optica—which I flew in (we did crazily dangerous things in it) and featured in my first book GAMES OF THE HANGMAN.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

President Dwight D Eisenhower


AHRLAC is being touted as Africa’s first home-grown military aircraft

TOP AIRCRAFT: THE EDGELEY OPTICA

BOTTOM AIRCRAFT: THE NEW SOUTH AFRICAN AHRLAC

Conventional military aircraft are incredibly expensive to both buy and operate. For instance a modern fighter costs around $100 million and perhaps $20,000 an hour to fly. These figures can vary up or down (mostly up where the F-35 is concerned), but they will give you an idea. If you add in the overhead costs of, for instance, an aircraft-carrier, the true costs per flying hour and per sortie are up in the stratosphere.

It costs the U.S. a mind-boggling amount to drop one single bomb. We specialize in Five Star killing.

Need it? Sometimes—yes. Mostly—probably not. 

Helicopters—and rotary aircraft in general—are not quite as pricey, but they are still remarkably costly. For instance the V-22 Osprey had a flyaway cost of around $70 million in 2012 (and if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you). An Apache AH-64 Longbow can be yours for $52-$61 million (or thereabouts). The optional extras drive the price up.

Yes, I have flown in an Apache—and it was an honor—and one of the great experiences of my life.

There are some who have been arguing for years that many missions can be quite adequately performed by significantly simpler and lower cost aircraft. Both the above come into that category—with the main focus of these two being:

  • Reconnaissance—hence the helicopter-like high visibility cockpits and pusher propeller (which means it is at the rear—giving totally uninterrupted vision ahead).
  • Patrolling—the AHRLAC can stay airborne for 7.5 hours and has a low stall speed. Top speed is  roughly 300mph. It can get to the fight fairly fast—and then hang around for hours. Someone to watch over you. Most useful.
  • Light attack—the AHRLAC can carry a weapons payload of nearly 2,000lbs in addition to its crew and fuel.
  • Short take-off 1,800 feet fully loaded.
  • Range 1,100 nautical miles.

I have no information about the costs as yet, but you can assume something like 10 percent of their higher priced relations.  Maybe a little more because military stuff is always over=priced.

Personally, I think this approach makes a great deal of sense—and will appeal to many countries who need such capabilities, but don’t have large budgets. In fact, we would do the same thing if we had any sense. Top of the range military aircraft are needed for some missions—but mostly they are not. But we have a long established tendency in the U.S.—where the military are concerned—to opt for the most expensive solution. It makes the most money for the MICC—Military Industrial Congressional Complex.

The South Africans have quite a tradition of developing their own excellent military equipment (sometimes with unacknowledged outside help—sometimes without). Since they were subject to both embargoes and sanctions during apartheid, they really had to.

Two examples come to mind.

They produced ultra-long range artillery to counter the Soviet backed Cubans, with the aid of George Bull (who got sent to prison in the U.S. for doing what the CIA had asked him to do). 

You’d forgotten the Cubans were in Africa? They were indeed—and in strength. Think the Seventies and Angola in particular. Worth looking up.

Secondly, they came up with mine resistant vehicles to counter their home grown mine/IED threat.

The Casspir, with its V-shaped underside being probably the best known example). It was awesomely effective. It could handle two or more anti-tank mines at once. that’s a serious amount of explosive to cope with—over 25lbs of TNT for two (the Russian TM-46, for instance).

Blown-off wheels and similar damage could normally be fixed in a couple of hours. This vehicle was thought through.

All of this predated the U.S. Army’s decision to buy the flat-bottomed Stryker by more than two decades—but, inexplicably and disastrously, the South African experience was ignored. And it was far from unique.  Mines and IEDs were becoming the norm in asymmetric warfare. Such threats  were entirely predictable—and yet, they were ignored.

A friend of mine—a senior Army officer and a decorated combat veteran—was prone to comment. “The trouble with our general officers is that they don’t  study and know their own profession. We have created a go-along –to-get-along culture—not a professional one.”

Well, we do have some exceptional generals—and the Army excels in some areas—but the evidence is that his broad point is true.

Back to the AHRLAC. If it performs as promised, it should do well.. However, common sense is less than common where the procurement of military equipment is concerned. There is a tendency to ignore required functionality and opt for the latest, greatest, and fastest—even where the country concerned really doesn’t have the money. Buying adequate does not seem to cut it. I tend to think of this as the trophy wife factor. Having cool  weapons—bought on credit through such organizations as the Ex-Im bank—tends to make the heads of small nations feel virile.

Does that make any sense? Absolutely none.

That apart, the AHRLAC’s greatest competition is likely to come from drones—and high resolution satellites. Optica are out of business (a murky story). There are other militarized civilian aircraft, but the purpose built AHRLAC should have the edge there.

A closing point. When evaluating the capabilities of a particular weapons system it is helpful to separate platform from add-on equipment.  You could, for instance, mount Hellfire missiles on a low cost AHRLAC. You don’t have to have an Apache. The same applies to surveillance equipment. That means you can obtain 80 percent of the capability for, perhaps 10-20 percent of the cost.

The military love acronyms. AHRLAC comes from something like Advanced High-Performance Reconnaissance Light-Attack Craft.

Just rolls off the tongue.


 

 

Monday, August 18, 2014

August 18 2014. The fire-hose factor—too much information, too little focus, superficial comprehension, inadequate analysis, minimal depth, superficial conclusions. As for the written word, the well crafted paragraph seems to be joining the dodo. Wht 2 do is ?

Marketing is no longer about the stuff that you make, but the stories you tell.

Seth Godin,


I grew up—without TV—and became fascinated by photojournalism—and by combat photography in particular. I went as far as doing some assignments—the French Foreign Legion being the most fun—but, in the end, tried business—because it seemed to pay considerably better—before being summoned to do what I was meant to do—write. I didn’t really have much say in the matter. It was an imperative. Best decision I ever made (not that I really made it).

In fact, my main protagonist, HUGO FITZDUANE is a soldier turned combat photographer who morphs into counterterrorism. He features in four books to date—the latest being THE BLOOD OF GENERATIONS. He will feature again.

The balance of a judicious number of truly striking photographs—sometimes just a single image—well displayed, plus text, on the printed page, seemed to be to be a highly effective way of getting a story across.

I still hold to that view. This approach was implemented to the highest standards by magazines such as LIFE and PARIS MATCH. Some of the most impressive work was in black and white. Still is. It adds a particular aesthetic.

This morning I heard Kenneth Jarecke—the photographer who took the grim photo shown above—comment that we had lost the art of such focus and selectivity, and that today a particularly striking image would—as like as not—be displayed as one of a dozen, and thus be lost in the crowd. It would not have the same impact. It would, in essence, be trivialized.

He has a point. In fact, a current common technique, where lead stories is concerned, is for the images to rotate thus covering more topics. It also de-emphasizes the impact of any one story. It’s a technique I understand—but dislike. More is not necessarily better.

The supreme irony of all this information is that you can make a very good case that it is fostering ignorance because most of us don’t know enough to be selective—and lack the self-discipline to focus. We also don’t take the time—or perhaps lack the ability—to write clearly and cogently. In fact, a common technique on social sites is to select from a list of pre-written phrases.

Good grief! Have we sunk that low? Are we that lazy?

Since I believe that the very process of writing promotes clarity, and thus real communication, I find these developments somewhat depressing. Mind you, people probably said that about the telephone. (and they may well have been right). Those who were literate tended to write remarkably well before the phone came on the scene. It was expected. It was a cultural requirement. Other than face to face, writing was the only way people could communicate at a distance—other than by way of an act of war. Better to write well and avoid such misunderstandings.

Am I right that our information age is promoting ignorance? I don’t know for sure. I’m not quoting from any research. Doubtless, there are areas where is doing just the opposite. However, where social issues are concerned, for instance—are people better informed today than they were 25 years ago? I think not—even though highly relevant information on most topics is now much easier—and certainly faster—to find. Since a healthy democracy is dependent upon a well informed public, that is concerning.

For my part, I find adapting to the information age damnably difficult. I grew up in a world of books, letters and telephones—where the volume was manageable. Now, unless one is highly disciplined, the sheer scale can become excessive all too easily. In fact, it is downright frightening. It is also rife with deception and fraud.

I get a great deal of work done with the aid of the internet, and have become fairly adept in some ways. However, when it comes to e-mail and social media—though I have made considerable progress over the last six months in particular—the jury is still out.

I sometimes think that I would do better in social media if I wasn’t a writer. A well written paragraph is all too often seen as intimidating (something I have been told a number of times). To write at length—even if amusingly and with brio—can be seen as downright discourteous, because it is taken to imply that the recipient should reply to the same standard (I harbor no such expectations or illusions).

So my main strength may be my main weakness.

Intimidating! Who knew!

Who said the gods don’t have a sense of humor!


 

 

 

Sunday, August 17, 2014

August 17 2014. Who was my writing mentor? Strangely enough—no one. I have a Masters, but where writing—as such—is concerned, primarily I am self-taught. Do I wish it had been otherwise? You know I am not sure that I do. However, if I was not mentored in writing, I was well supported psychologically by a few really good friends. I still am. Let me tell you, that makes all the difference. We writers need our friends.

Humans aren't as good as we should be in our capacity to empathize with feelings and thoughts of others, be they humans or other animals on Earth. So maybe part of our formal education should be training in empathy. Imagine how different the world would be if, in fact, that were 'reading, writing, arithmetic, empathy.'

Neil deGrasse Tyson

Writing, to me, is simply thinking through my fingers.

Isaac Asimov

Writing means sharing. It's part of the human condition to want to share things - thoughts, ideas, opinions.

Paulo Coelho

The most important thing is to read as much as you can, like I did. It will give you an understanding of what makes good writing and it will enlarge your vocabulary.

J. K. Rowling

I'm writing a book. I've got the page numbers done.

Steven Wright


MY UNIVERSITY: TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN.

IT WAS FOUNDED WHEN ELIZABETH I WAS QUEEN (1592) AND DINASAURS RULED THE EARTH. THEY STILL DID WHEN I WAS THERE 1960-64.

When I was at university—I have a Masters—I studied Economics, English, and History. Economics was my main subject, but I took English as well because I hoped it would help me to write better.

It did nothing of the sort.

Its focus was on studying literature—analyzing books in excruciating detail—not on writing. I learned what eminent critics thought about famous books, but never had a single lecture on how to structure a story. To do well required remembering the words of wisdom of numerous critics verbatim—plus being able to quote from the books in question—something which did not play to my strengths.

As I have said elsewhere, I suffer from a form of dyslexia and have never been good at learning by rote. I tend to remember by association—and am quite good at that. I also have excellent recall of mood and circumstance. The odd phrase apart, I am a klutz when it comes to remembering anything verbatim.

I grew to dislike the subject, did the minimum to pass, and focused on Economics and History—both subjects I loved (and still do). In fact, I wrote at much greater length about Economics and History than I ever did about literature.

As I have explained elsewhere, there is a great deal more to writing than merely knowing how to write. In particular, you need:

  • Extensive experience of life (so you have something to write about).
  • To have read widely and well (and to continue to do so).
  • How to research (including interviewing—which requires a range of interpersonal skills in itself).
  • How to manage large quantities of data (No small issue as far as I am concerned. I am a data pack-rat).
  • To have knowledge of, and be committed to, the lifestyle. (sitting alone in front of a computer all day strikes many people as somewhere between weird and unnatural)
  • The fortitude to endure decades of failure and severe financial stress. (Failure in the sense that you will rarely write as well as you want. Financial stress because you don’t get a regular predictable paycheck—though some us do well).
  • Considerable knowledge of the book business. (This is more difficult to come by than you might think. Agents and traditional publishers like to keep their authors ignorant—because an ignorant author tends to be less demanding. ).

Nonetheless, if you want to write a book, it helps to know certain specifics.

  • How to plot and structure a story—including writing an outline. (I used to hate plotting. Now I love it. I still hate outlines.)
  • How to pace a story. (A reader should never get bored).
  • How to build in suspense. (This is technique—but important).
  • Character development. (If you get your characters right, they practically write the story).
  • Exposition. (Editors hate exposition because they feel it slows the story down. Speaking as a reader, I rather like it because I learn more of what is going on)
  • How to make your book entertaining. (This is THE most important thing). 

I didn’t learn any of these things consciously. Perhaps I should have—but the truth is that I have learned almost everything I know about writing through reading—though osmosis if you will.

If you read (and comprehend) enough, you cannot help but absorb a great deal—and if what you read is well written, your own writing will improve accordingly. It helps greatly to be well informed because you will gain more from a book if you know the context. The more you know, the more you will learn. The process builds upon itself, but benefits from a foundation of knowledge. Re-read a book years later and you will learn much that was hidden the first time around.

The secrets of writing are hidden in plain sight. They just require prodigious dedication to tap into. Successful reading takes time and effort—and a certain quality of mind. In fact, reading—and comprehending—in itself is a skill (typically one that is under-appreciated).

In my favor, let me say that I read prodigiously—typically about three books a week—and across a wide range of subjects—and I read with some intensity. In fact, I tend to become deeply involved in whatever I read—assuming it is of reasonable standard. As for ensuring that, I became an expert book browser at an early age—and am rarely disappointed with what books I pick—even if I am unfamiliar with the author.

It really is quite uncanny—and I’m not quite sure how I do it. I scarcely rely on book reviews at all. Typically, what guides me is subject matter and skimming a few pages. If the writing strikes the right note, I’m off to the races.

I did buy a number of books on how to write—but, to be frank, found them boring so never gave them the attention they probably deserved. Shame on me. Instead I would revert to a novel—or some non-fiction work about a topic that interested me. I prefer to be entertained as I learn.

If I didn’t read ‘How to Write’ books, I did read a great many books about writers—together with every interview I could lay may hands on. I found such reading inspirational and fascinating.

Writers, like movie directors, generally talk well, and are entertaining. That should scarcely be a surprise. Most are worldly, intelligent, and thoughtful—and, if you want to stay sane in the writing game, you need a sense of humor. They also tend to be both empathetic and observant.

Though I didn’t have a writing mentor as such—in the sense of an experienced writer who would teach me the craft—I did have a very good writer friend who I would talk my thoughts through with.

He was Niall Fallon, a deputy editor of Ireland’s newspaper of record, the Irish Times, and a non-fiction writer of some distinction in his own right.

Niall was a wonderful man, with an acerbic sense of humor, who would have loved to have become a full time writer himself, but who was constrained by family commitments and his excellent job at the Times. He was paid too much money to quit—and said so. His situation excoriated him.

I would go and stay with Niall frequently—and we would walk and discuss issues, but would always come back to writing sooner or later. Niall would never tell me how to write, or get involved in the specifics of a plot, but he did a great deal to prepare me for the level of commitment involved—yet was consistently encouraging.

Whereas many people seem to regard writing as a feckless occupation because of the lack of financial security (though, paradoxically, successful writers are treated as if they walk on water)  he regarded it with great esteem—and thought it was worth risking everything for (providing you didn’t have a family dependent on you).

He was well qualified to empathize with my goal.

He had taken leave of absence from his job for a period and, with his family, had lived in the West of Ireland while working on THE SPANISH ARMADA IN IRELAND. He didn’t recall the period with much affection—and had thoroughly disliked living in the West of Ireland.

I located my protagonist, Hugo Fitzduane there nonetheless because the West has very special romantic associations for me—and it is beautiful in a wild and windswept kind of way. Yes, it does rain too much—and the constant wind off the Atlantic will tan you faster than the South of France (wind burn), but the terrain will grip your soul. 

His excellent book had earned him a great deal of respect, but not a great deal of money.  Nonetheless, writing it had been extraordinarily important to him.

While not minimizing the financial stresses involved—in fact he emphasized them—it was Niall who consistently advocated that writing should be a full time job.

It was too serious and demanding a business to dabble in. He was adamant on that point. I didn’t need much persuading. I had already formed the same view. Nonetheless, it was comforting to have my opinion reinforced.

Niall wasn’t always the easiest of men—he liked to challenge, which was part of his attraction as far as I was concerned. He would stretch me mentally—and vice versa. We had a candid relationship based upon mutual affection and respect—and much humor

Tragically, he died of a heart attack way too soon—the day after a physical that gave him the all clear. He was still in his fifties.

To say we were appalled doesn’t get close. I still think of Niall constantly and I can hear his voice slagging me over something or other. ‘Slagging’ is joshing in Ireland—and very much part of the culture. If you can’t hold your own, you had better emigrate!

Niall was an inveterate slagger—but never vicious. There was always the quizzical smile and the warm tone of voice.

I can hear him now. He had a very distinctive voice. He was a man to love—and he was much loved. It is hard in our culture to say this about a man—but I loved him.

Niall was, as we say in Ireland, a thoroughly decent man who enriched the lives of all who knew him. I have numerous wonderful memories of him—mostly humorous and all heart-warming—but my favorite happened when I took my children down to visit him, and some other friends, at a rented holiday home in Kerry.

As fate would have it, my children were regarded as intruders. This was the first time we had visited—whereas  the others had been going there for years, and had formed a tight little clique.

My kids were not made welcome.

Predictable but unpleasant.

Time might have overcome this, but since we were only visiting for a couple of days, there wasn’t much point in doing anything too drastic—but Niall could see that I was somewhat upset.

The following day he avoided friction by letting the clique do its own thing—while he took me and my kids on a long walk through the very beautiful Kerry countryside.

We ended up by climbing a steep hill—we probably called it a mountain, but Ireland has few serious mountains—and, somewhat puffed, sat down to recover, and  gazed across the truly spectacular view.

It was a hot day (by Irish standards). Niall then produced soft drinks and sandwiches—and a liter bottle of wine for the pair of us (and glasses).

He knew I was partial to wine, and without saying a word, had lugged that weight just so he could surprise us—and me in particular. The gesture was part apology and part hospitality—and all Niall.

Wine has rarely tasted better. The unpleasantness of the previous day—which I had understood if not liked—was forgiven and forgotten. I think we drank most of the wine. I know we stayed on that hilltop for a considerable time, just talking. I was much moved. It was very special.

Such was Niall—mentally tough, challenging, kind, vastly intelligent, empathetic, thoughtful, generous, warm hearted—and witty. 

True, I didn’t have a writing mentor. I had something better still—the very best of friends (who happened to be a writer).

I have said elsewhere that a writer only needs a single supporter to make it—but you really, truly, and absolutely need that one person.

The alternative is despair—and probably death—and that’s no way to run a railroad.

However it appears, no one does anything entirely alone. We all have backing in some way or other. Backing of the spirit may be the most important type of support. Typically it says:You can do the impossible—and such a statement has the effect of galvanizing you into effective action. To be believed in is just plain wonderful. Such belief may well not last—people are not good at long distance—but it buys you time. You limp from lily pad to lily pad. You endure.

Eventually—and it can take a ridiculous amount of time—you achieve.. Few understand. It is worth every second.

Writing—unless you are very successful—does not make for an easy life. When I have wavered—or temporarily lost my way (as I have)—I have always had my courage restored by a friend.

A hand has been  extended and I have been hauled to my feet (feeling somewhat mortified, may I add).

I feel much blessed in that regard. I do not take it for granted. I hate to fail in such an abject manner—it’s humiliating—but better to fail and be humiliated than to give up. The one is a small victory—but a victory nonetheless.

Let me add that all my writer friends have been consistently supportive. They understand in a way most others do not. Though they are mostly a successful bunch, they have all endured hard times too. They know the value of support and give it willingly.

Writers are supposed to be jealous of each other. I have yet to see any evidence of it. Empathy has tended to dominate.

I still don’t have a writing mentor. In fact, I’m working up to mentoring others. However, I am fortunate enough to have a friend who has many of the same qualities as Niall.

Is he also a writer?

Surprisingly not—yet he understands my arcane writing world in a way that few do. He is a former Apache AH-64 attack helicopter who I met originally when I was researching the 101st Airborne back in the mid Nineties—nearly 20 years ago.

And yes, I did fly in an Apache AH-64 attack helicopter both by day and by night—a singular honor—and, as it happens, a life changing experience.

His name is Tim Roderick—now a retired Chief Warrant Officer Four—and if I have any further success in writing, it will be due in no small measure to him. According to Tim, WOs are the problem solvers of the Army. They tend to be specialists and to know their fields better than most. Warrant is an interesting rank. I suspect he is right.

Do writing and flying attack helicopters have anything in common?

Both require total commitment and are particularly demanding occupations. Both require solving numerous problems. Both can, at times be exceedingly dangerous (if you research the kind of stuff I do). That said, attack helicopters get shot at more. But they can shoot back—and that they certainly do.

Writing is a strange business—and puts us in strange, dangerous, and wondrous places.

Now you know.


 

 

 

 

 

Saturday, August 16, 2014

August 16 2014. The ritual that is writing

“This is what rituals are for. We do spiritual ceremonies as human beings in order to create a safe resting place for our most complicated feelings of joy or trauma, so that we don't have to haul those feelings around with us forever, weighing us down. We all need such places of ritual safekeeping. And I do believe that if your culture or tradition doesn't have the specific ritual you are craving, then you are absolutely permitted to make up a ceremony of your own devising, fixing your own broken-down emotional systems with all the do-it-yourself resourcefulness of a generous plumber/poet.”

Elizabeth Gilbert, Eat, Pray, Love


More and more, when I am writing these days, I feel rather as if I am a samurai practicing sword-fighting. The whole process is ritualistic in a way—and very intense—and I have a profound sense of purpose. Yet I feel that each piece, rather than being an end in itself (although each is written to be complete unto itself) is more a building block of a higher purpose.

No, I’m not talking religion here.

What is that higher purpose? I don’t know exactly. I think it is a breakthrough in understanding. I seem to be mastering an approach to writing which has eluded me up to now.

I don’t mean I literally feel like a samurai—or want to be one. I don’t harbor such illusions. Instead, it is the image—mental shorthand—which comes to mind when trying to explain the energy which courses though me when trying to do, what I do, as well as I can. I put huge effort into everything I write these days.

Total effort.

True, I have always tried to do the best I can where writing is involved, but the difference now is that I seem to be becoming more skilled at tapping into my creativity—my inner chi. (for want of a better phrase).

Interesting that I have invoked the word ‘ritual.’ On the face of it, I wouldn’t have thought of writing as a ritual—but that is increasingly how I seem to be approaching it—with a view of achieving the impossible—perfection. Of course I won’t—because impossible is just that—but I may push the envelope a little further.

Ritual is defined as: “a sequence of activities involving gestures, words, and objects, performed in a sequestered place, and performed according to set sequence."

Good grief! My writing is a ritual and my approach to it is becoming increasingly formalized.

Strange that I didn’t think of this before—but I didn’t. Next I’ll be saying that writing is spiritual.

It is.

It has taken me a long time to wake up to that self-evident fact—and it helps to explain the quite astonishing hold that writing has on its practitioners. Most of us certainly don’t do it for the financial reward—yet we seem to be driven to write, nonetheless.

We do it because it satisfies a deep spiritual need? Again, I’m not talking religion here.

What is writing about? It’s about communication, permanence (if so required), clarity, and understanding. The first two points are self evident. Clarity is part of the process. It has to be because one’s thoughts have a tendency to be muddled (certainly, mine do).

Paradoxically, that can be a good thing from a creative point of view because a degree of mental chaos encourages unexpected connections to be made. Thoughts that would not appear to link if one thought entirely logically, bump into each other and team up if one’s mind is something of a chaotic jumble.

Writing, somehow—and I don’t pretend to know how, except that it is something of a miracle—can make sense of all this. Or it will if the writer has enough hard-won experience.

That being so, the sequence would seem to be:

  • Think
  • Clarify
  • Write
  • Communicate

The underlying point there would seem to be that writing—in itself—promotes understanding. Actually, it does even if what is written is a tissue of lies. It acts as a magnifying glass in that thoughts—when expressed in written form—are much easier to examine critically.

Writers really are the bearers of light—the illuminators of the human condition.

Scarcely a trivial mission. Certainly an honorable one.