The Feedback Loop

Last week, Salon posted a good Q&A with comedian Michael Showalter about his new memoir, "Mr. Funnypants." One quote of his, in particular, jumped out at me...

"I didn't perform any of it (his book's comedy material) in front of an audience, which is one of the more interesting and terrifying things about writing a book. You really have no idea whether or not what you're writing is funny. In stand-up and sketch comedy, you know right away and you can make your changes accordingly."

I smiled the first time I read that, because I can relate -- especially now that I've made the conscious decision to write more humor. It's a frustrating thing writing the funny for print. You have no way of knowing for certain if what you're writing is getting the laugh until it's read or published. I often crave that immediate feedback. When you can tell a joke or perform a sketch, if the intended gag is met with audience silence, that will usually tell you everything you need to know.

Every writer -- regardless of their experience, or what they're writing -- carries a tiny bit of anxiety, questioning, "Is what I'm writing going to get the reaction I want?"

• Will my memo convince the boss to start production on my product?
• Will my legal brief sway the judge?
• Will readers get turned on by my steamy romance story?
• Will my headline generate page views on the website?
• Will the studio buy my screenplay?

That's why it's so important to seek out -- and listen to -- feedback on your work. The "seeking out" is relatively easy: go to writing classes and workshops, open mike (mic?) nights, track the web hits counter, track your book sales, watch your Facebook friends hit the "Like" button, ask a colleague, seek out the advice of a mentor.

Experienced writers can get in their own way, tuning out help because they think they know what they’re doing – even when they don’t. New writers, because they lack confidence, tend to "over-listen." Regardless of where the feedback is coming from, they make every change suggested, and question their own instincts. They don’t stop to ask, "What is this person's motivation?" Sometimes, you have to consider that the person giving feedback has his or her own agenda.

This happened to me early in my career. For a (thankfully) short time, I wrote for a newspaper where one of the editors actually had the balls to circulate a memo that showed examples of how to not write stories. Every single ‘don’t write like this’ example quoted from stories with my byline.

Still relatively new and unsure of myself (despite a couple of years and awards already under my belt), I felt humiliated and took it to heart, because this guy was an editor with more experience. It wasn’t until later that it occurred to me:

• The stories were all good enough to publish in the first place.
• None of my other editors had complained before (or since).
• I never asked for his opinion. No one did.
• His memo did not offer constructive criticism -- helpful suggestions that would be instructive to everyone who saw it for how to make our writing better.
• He may have been purposely sabotaging me, trying to push me out of the job.

 While at the time, I was floored (and – surprise, surprise – quit very soon after) I eventually came to realize that this guy, even though he was an editor and had more experience than me, was your basic, run-of-the-mill d-bag asshole. He had his own agenda for telling me and everyone in the office I didn’t know what I was doing. Helpful instruction was not part of that agenda. This was feedback that could be rejected.

Now, this is the exception, I believe, not the rule. Most often, if you ask for, or are offered, feedback -- especially from other writers – people genuinely want to do right by you. But sometimes the feedback is misguided. Occasionally, it can be damaging. It takes experience to learn how to sort through it all. This is by no means complete, but here is a list of questions to ask yourself to help tell the difference.

Advice from a Do-Write, or a D-Bag?

• Why is this person giving the advice? Did I ask, or was it offered?
• Does this person have expertise in your area of writing?
• Is this person giving you their honest, fair assessment?
• Does the feedback talk to you in terms of what works and what doesn't in your writing? (As opposed to what is "good" or "bad" about your writing. "Good" and "bad" are subjective. What "works" is something that can be quantified and/or explained.)
• Is the person asking questions about what you were trying to accomplish?
• What's in it for this person if he/she is offering to help me?
• Is this person only focused on what they didn't like, or what was "wrong" with the writing? Can he/she point to what you wrote that was right.

I'd love to hear about how others get feedback, and when you can tell if that feedback is good. Post in the comments.

Referenced link: Salon: Michael Showalter interview

A Wordier, Nerdier New Day

Your Friendly Neighborhood WordNerdGirl has been rather dormant, being neither wordy nor nerdy the last few weeks. That's partly because I've been working my girlie butt off (there are a couple of links below to some of my most recent feature stories in SJ Magazine -- just a couple of the recent writing and editing gigs that have kept me busy.)

When Life Changes in a Heartbeat - February 2011 issue of SJ Magazine

Cuts to the Bone - January 2011 issue of SJ Magazine


But I also had to take some time to reflect, ruminate and plan for the ever-changing future. In the next few weeks, I'd like to tackle writing issues that are not only of interest to me, but also to you, my loyal fan base of not-quite-a-dozen readers, with regular features that include a focus on the many different types of writing out there -- everything from screenwriting to PR to comedy to ad copy to videogames to fiction to essays to trade magazines to... you get the idea. Writing and publishing news, advice, problem-solving, interviews with other writers, and sales and marketing strategies for freelancers are just some of the features I'd like to see posted here -- items that are useful and interesting to writers, veterans and newbies alike, no matter what they write.

It may be overly-ambitious, but hey -- I gotta be me.


In the meantime, let me know what YOU, as a writer, want to know more about. Leave comments below or email wordnerdgirl@comcast.net. Tell me what you want to read about, what you write about, and what would help you.

Unfinished Business

Everyone makes a big deal out of New Year Resolutions. They're meaningless. Most people don't follow through on their January 1st declarations. More often than not, by January 2nd, the personal resolve fades. Really, if you were serious about what you said you wanted to do, you'd be doing it already.

That's why I purposely waited until now to blog in the New Year -- January 2nd --to talk about follow-through, both in writing and in life.

I have stored, on multiple hard-drives and in boxes, the beginnings of many fiction stories, both short and novel-length. All of them were abandoned, for one reason or another. With some, I just had no idea where to take the story. Others were left unfinished because other priorities took over -- be it my kids, my family, an editing or writing gig, blogging, or hanging out and talking with my friends. But really, they were excuses. I managed to write and edit other things -- jokes, essays, feature stories and blog posts -- but I always had a reason to not get back to my stories.

Honestly, I'd often struggle with the fiction once I got past my beginning. I got to the point where I hated what I was writing and found the story draining. I'm very good at deconstructing a fiction story, finding the problems and solutions for other people. But for some reason, constructing the fiction just ain't in me.

I used to promise myself that, one day, I'd buckle down, eliminate the distractions and finish those stories. And this is the point where most writers would declare their New Year's resolution to get those stories finished, write X number of pages per day, and complete their Great American Novel. But I'm not going to do that.

I'm leaving those stories abandoned. I'm letting them go.

Because really, if I was serious about what I said I wanted to do, I'd be doing it already.


Back in October, I read a post on the Advanced Riskology blog that really stuck with me, especially the opening section:

"Every decision you make is life or death. Every single one leads to one result or the other -- even the seemingly insignificant ones. When you decide to do something you love, you choose to live. When you decide to do something you don't, you choose to die, it really is that simple."

Personally, last year was -- for lack of a more poetic term -- a crap-tacular disaster for me. Among other things, my grand, years-in-the-making career plans to -- finally -- write fiction in a graduate school creative writing program went down in flames, and for a very long time after that happened, it felt like my dreams had died. I have been, to a certain extent, mourning that loss over the last six months.

The one bright spot has been launching my WordNerdGirl business, because I do love making things funny, writing essays and feature stories, writing this blog and editing stories and scripts for other people. LOVE IT. I've had a chance to work on projects I never would have tackled years ago.

Also, I've been taking improv classes (not -- it should be noted -- fiction writing classes, which I could have easily done). Initially, I did it to blow off steam and forget about my life aboard the Titanic. But learning how to perform and be funny on stage has done wonders for my writing. I'm exploring things I had always told myself I could never do. It's been challenging, but it also has been the thing that's made me feel alive, when so much else in my life has -- for lack of a more poetic term -- sucked.

It is January 2, 2011 and I am not a fiction writer. It is not something I love to do. It's something I always wanted to do. It is something I used to love to do, years ago, when I was a different person. And it's something I always thought I should be able to do. But I don't love it. So I'm letting it go.

I write almost every day. I am a funny writer, an essay writer, a script writer, a news and features writer, a kick-ass story editor and script doctor, and I am a WordNerdGirl blogger. But I am not a fiction writer.

Sometimes, I think, it takes coming face to face with what you are not to help you figure out what you are. It really is that simple.

If yesterday, you resolved to write more, submit your unpublished stories, or start a blog, it doesn't really matter. The real question is, what are you going to do today, January 2nd? And March 14th? And July 5th?  Writers write. If you are not writing on this day, or that day -- for whatever the reason -- then you are not a writer that day. And that's okay too.

My 2011 wish for everyone -- writers and not-writers alike -- is that you try new things, every day, figure out who you are not, and become who you are.

Happy New Year.

Referenced link: Advanced Riskology: Every Decision is Life or Death

'Mad Men' Explains Punctuation: How Semicolons are Like Joan Holloway

;Semicolons
Semicolons are like Joan Holloway in Mad Men; a sexy wink and a smile, semicolons got it goin' on – with the curve down there, stacked with the dot up there. When you see a semicolon in a sentence, if used the right way, you know that it must have something smart to say. Semicolons make sense out of large, messy sentences, usually created by misguided, scatterbrained commas. They're also a smart way to link two independent clauses -- sentences that can stay separated, but are always so much better when they hook up. You don't notice semicolons because they are flashy and overused, like the exclamation point! (Exclamation points are the Snooki of punctuation.) They don't demand attention; they command it. Semicolons know what you want to say and, if used correctly, help you say it with style and class.

, Commas

If semicolons are the Joan Holloway, commas are the secretarial pool. They're everywhere and used frequently. When they're where they're expected to be in a sentence, no one really notices. But when they don't show up, or show up at the wrong time, it causes big problems. They're overworked and, for everything they do, they're underappreciated. They're expected to set off dependent clauses, clarify parentheticals, support conjunctions and quotations, separate adjectives... and that's only a small sample of the demands placed on them.  Like a drunk secretary steering a lawn mower through the office, they can cause real damage to your writing. And, if in the wrong place at the wrong time, they create the kind of chaos that breaks apart subject-verb relationships.

...Ellipses
Ellipses are those three periods in a row that trail off a sentence, or appear in the middle of quotes. Ellipses always leave you wondering, "What was left out? What aren't they saying?" Ellipses are the Don Draper: they only like the beginnings of things. Sometimes, the ellipses is there to indicate that something was purposely omitted. It can also be used to let the reader to draw their own conclusions. You're following along with the sentence's thought when... what? Whether out of necessity or choice, when you use an ellipses, its presence almost always has an air of mystery.

.Periods
 Periods are the Burt Cooper, the president and patriarch of punctuation. All other punctuation marks work in service of the period. In very long sentences, periods rely on the employ of the other marks to keep things running smoothly. If they do their jobs right, the sentence works and makes the period look good. If they don't, you can wind up with a confusing, run-on sentence that leaves you wondering why the period didn't show up sooner. When you see a period, no matter how odd or strange the sentence may be, the discussion has closed and the final word has been spoken.

Keep It Simple, Say It Plainly.

I was talking to a friend earlier this week about how you can tell when a writer is trying too hard. The signs are usually obvious, even to an untrained eye:

• Strained similes and metaphors are in every other sentence.
• Every adjective sounds like it was the 5th entry in a thesaurus search.
• Most words have a three-syllable minimum.
• Ideas and events are told, then shown, then explained again, but with different words. And then there's the summary...

Every writer does this. All of 'em, me included, though I've found it's most common with people who are either inexperienced or trying to impress people. Most of the time, this is done with good intentions. When you care about what you're writing -- whether it's a grant proposal, a college essay, a screenplay, a speech or a magazine article -- you want it to be good. Memorable. Perhaps even unforgettable. You want to make a good impression, or get your point across. So you go the extra mile to make every sentence great, because you care about your work -- it's all about the work, dammit!

If this sounds like you, stop. You're not doing yourself, your readers or (if you're writing for publication) your editors any favors.

It's very easy to get so caught up in The Writing that you forget about The Reader. Your sentence could use the most original words and imagery ever written, but if the reader has to slog through large, long blocks of text, unfamiliar words and confusing comparisons, it won't matter, because they will stop reading. This point does warrant a repeat, and extra formatting:

They will stop reading.


Whether you're writing The Great American Novel, or an email to colleagues, you don't have work sentences into flowery prose, explain every minute detail, or use words that you've only ever heard on the National Spelling Bee. A little bit of the fancy stuff here and there is great -- it makes the writing interesting, both for you and the reader. But when it's too much, your story gets confusing, your message gets lost, and no one has heard that thing you labored so hard and so long to say.

More often, it is the short, straightforward words that are the most powerful. That's what people remember and respond to most.

Keep it simple. Say it plainly.

Euphemisms Are So F*@#!ng Funny!

Last week, there was a lot of buzz about Cee-Lo Green replacing the lyrics to his song "F*ck You" with "Fox News" during the aired version of his performance on The Colbert Report. After seeing the bit, and subsequently seeing the unaired, uncensored version of the song, I got to thinking about why both versions are so damn funny.

As it is, the uncensored song is fantastic -- it's very catchy, upbeat, and I can honestly say I have never heard anyone say, or sing, "F*ck You" with so much enthusiasm and joy. Seriously... it's my new favorite song. If you haven't heard the uncensored, full-on "F*ck You" version, take 3:55 to watch and listen:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Cee Lo Green - F**k You
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election March to Keep Fear Alive

I know -- f*ckin' awesome, man! I think what makes it so brilliant -- and why it has become the unsung  anthem of 2010 (literally unsung -- it's the most popular song that nobody will air without heavy editing) is that it takes an inherently aggressive, nasty-sounding phrase and turns it into something silly and fun.

Like most basic cable, Comedy Central generally "bleeps" away the coarse language which, if it's done right, can actually add to the funny. But music is another matter entirely. Songs that are bleeped or "edited for radio" (which is a whole 'nuther topic I could go off on) are usually ruined in the process. But not "F*ck You." Because The Colbert Report had a brilliantly simple solution: the euphemism.

They could have used almost any phrase to replace the "f*ck you" and it still would have been funny. Go back and listen -- if the impossibly catchy hook isn't already earworming around your noggin -- but replace the "f*ck you" with almost any variation and you get some instant silliness:

I see you driving 'round town with the girl I love
And I'm like
Tofu.
I guess the change in my pocket wasn't enough
I'm like
Suck moo.
And puck her too...


"Fox News" just happened to be the best choice for their show, and inserting the euphemism aired the song in a way that a)- didn't hack it to pieces with ridiculous bleeps or edits, b)- was true to the spirit of the song, and c)- also made a great bit of comedic political commentary.

Usually, I prefer it when people say what they mean to say. But when writing for the funny, I think the lesson here is that sometimes, it is better to go out of your way to avoid saying what's so f*cking obvious*...

*Because everybody knows what the stupid asterisk really means.

Referenced links: The Colbert Report, Entertainment Weekly

WordNerdGirl vs. The Lit Critic (in defense of NaNoWriMo)

I originally logged on to write a brief post about NaNoWriMo -- National Novel Writing Month, which kicked off November 1st. (Bang out 50,000 words for the first draft of a novel in a month, which is a little over 1,600 words/day. If you're not familiar with it, check out NaNoWriMo.org.) A friend had emailed over Halloween weekend to ask if I was doing it. I hadn't planned on it but, still bummed out about my graduate school plans falling through (for an MFA in creative writing) and determined to follow through on my newly-adopted, improv-inspired "Yes, And..." writing philosophy, I decided to cheer him on (go Dave!) and do my own, unofficial version of NaNoWriMo... a Nano-NaNoWriMo, if you will: if I manage at least 500 words a day, I'll be happy. After two days, I have over 2,000 words, so for myself, I'm ahead of the game.
 
But, like I said, I originally wanted just to share that little snib, but this morning, Laura Miller at Salon.com managed to annoy me again with this article (which means she's doing her job as a critic, I suppose). So, in true bloggy fashion, I'm going disagree. Or, if I want to increase readership of this blog, I guess I should be a little more extreme and flamey:

LAURA MILLER HATES WRITERS

Okay, scratch that. Honestly, that's too extreme for my taste. How about...

LAURA MILLER HATES WRITERS
Hey Lady, Chill out!

Nah... not enough 'zazz in that title. Oh wait, I know... we'll go with the superhero/comic book imagery:
LAURA MILLER HATES WRITERS
Hey Lady, Chill out!

WordNerdGirl vs. The Lit Critic


I  like it. It oversimplifies the argument a la The Huffington Post, but doesn't get too personal. And I get to picture myself in a super-hero costume, which is just silly, like a lot of flamey blog wars. But I'm getting off track here...

Ms. Miller is arguing that NaNoWriMo is "a waste of time" and that people shouldn't encourage writers to write their stories. Instead, she says we should be encouraging readers to read, because they will demand good stories from writers. That just plain old doesn't make any sense, and completely misses the point of NaNoWriMo. NaNoWriMo is about being creative, having fun and getting something you can work with down on the paper. How "good" it is doesn't matter when you're writing a first draft (and "good" is in the eye of the reader.) Sure, most of those writers may never get their story published, but so what, if they enjoy writing it?

Her main complaint seems to be that most NaNoWriMo participants don't go through the next (and necessary) step of editing and/or re-writing before sending in their submissions. Okay, fair enough. If you're serious about getting published, you have to do that work. Maybe NaNoWriMo should launch a rewriting initiative in February -- a ReWriNaNoWriMo, if you will, to encourage and guide writers who want to try to publish. But to complain because agents and publishers have to wade through a large slush pile of unsolicited, unedited manuscripts in the months after NaNoWriMo ends just sounds silly. If I'm not mistaken -- that's their job!


She also takes issue with the fact that NaNoWriMo encourages writers to seek encouragement. Again, that's just silly. Some of us need that encouragement, especially you're a writer (like me) who has the very bad habit of editing as we write, so much that we give up on our stories before they ever get past the first 30 pages; and especially if you're a writer (like me) who wanted to do something like an MFA in creative writing program, -- which would no doubt get the Literary Critic Seal of Approval -- but can't. If every writer approached writing the way she is suggesting, there would be very few stories for readers to read, because all the writers would be too busy second-guessing their stories, lest they be branded as "bad." And, as for all those readers who are being encouraged to read stories that those writers aren't writing, how is a reader supposed to know what stories are "good" or "bad" if they have nothing to compare?


So I am going to publish this post, eat my stuffed cabbage lunch, and get back to cranking out my unofficial nano-NaNoWriMo project of (at least) 500 words before the younger two kids wake up from their naps. My heroine needs to escape her kidnappers, which may sound like a bad story to some, but writing it is just fun for me.

*Referenced links: Better Yet, DON'T Write That Novel, NaNoWriMo.org, The Huffington Post, Salon


*In fairness, I adopted this format from for blog links after reading another column by Laura Miller, so she's not wrong all the time.