A quick ramble around the point.
Oct. 24th, 2006 11:30 amSo then, this business of exchanging pleasingly-ordered words for ${KER-CHING!}[1]
I had previously thought it was a case of toddling down to one's Writing Shed or Study, bright idea clutched firmly in paw, and then scribbling/clattering away until one had reached The End. At which point a bespectacled slip of a girl from the publisher pitches up, dumps the manuscript in the wicker basket on the front of her pushbike, and that's about the last you hear of it until the cheque arrives coincidentally with the telephone call from Melvyn Bragg.
This version of events would appear to be somewhat in error.
The other version, the one that involves staring into space for months at a time, waiting for the muse to appear, also seems somewhat at odds with the facts of the matter.
(Although if the muse were to turn up on the doorstep one morning, in the guise of Sharon Stone helpfully holding the milkbottles, I suspect the conversation might turn out thusly:
"Dear God, woman. You'll catch your death. I'm sure wafting about in diaphanous trifles like that is all the rage where you're from, but it'll do you the power of no good round here. Get yourself inside and I'll put the kettle on.")
On the other hand, staring into space while thinking about a hard problem is acceptable in coding-land (as long as one doesn't subscribe to the man-month or KLOC schools of gross management stupidity), so, um, trilobite in school blazer.
Weirdly, the version that goes 'Just crank it out. Throw away the bits that aren't a lion. Continue cranking until the lion is complete.' probably works for writing code, too.
See also 'Good enough for (jazz|folk)[2]', 'Build the first one to throw away' and the one about perfect being the enemy of working. Probably.
[1] It's the sound of an old cash-register, which will make no sense to those unaware of The Goons, skool of Molesworth or Python.
[2] It's funny how the companion phrase 'Good enough for g*th' doesn't exist. Could it be that g*th 'musicians' are a lot further up themselves than the equivalent jazzer or folkie?
I had previously thought it was a case of toddling down to one's Writing Shed or Study, bright idea clutched firmly in paw, and then scribbling/clattering away until one had reached The End. At which point a bespectacled slip of a girl from the publisher pitches up, dumps the manuscript in the wicker basket on the front of her pushbike, and that's about the last you hear of it until the cheque arrives coincidentally with the telephone call from Melvyn Bragg.
This version of events would appear to be somewhat in error.
The other version, the one that involves staring into space for months at a time, waiting for the muse to appear, also seems somewhat at odds with the facts of the matter.
(Although if the muse were to turn up on the doorstep one morning, in the guise of Sharon Stone helpfully holding the milkbottles, I suspect the conversation might turn out thusly:
"Dear God, woman. You'll catch your death. I'm sure wafting about in diaphanous trifles like that is all the rage where you're from, but it'll do you the power of no good round here. Get yourself inside and I'll put the kettle on.")
On the other hand, staring into space while thinking about a hard problem is acceptable in coding-land (as long as one doesn't subscribe to the man-month or KLOC schools of gross management stupidity), so, um, trilobite in school blazer.
Weirdly, the version that goes 'Just crank it out. Throw away the bits that aren't a lion. Continue cranking until the lion is complete.' probably works for writing code, too.
See also 'Good enough for (jazz|folk)[2]', 'Build the first one to throw away' and the one about perfect being the enemy of working. Probably.
[1] It's the sound of an old cash-register, which will make no sense to those unaware of The Goons, skool of Molesworth or Python.
[2] It's funny how the companion phrase 'Good enough for g*th' doesn't exist. Could it be that g*th 'musicians' are a lot further up themselves than the equivalent jazzer or folkie?
no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 10:38 am (UTC)In addition, vinyl has seriously been on its way out for, what, at least 15 years? There is a whole generation of kids who, unless they do DJing, do not have experience of vinyl. Yet the SKRRRROOOOP! noise continues to be cultural shorthand.
Another thing this generation will miss out on is the joy of tape. I've noticed that fast forwarding anything at all on TV programme still has the tinny speeded-up soundtrack of a rapidly spooling reel to reel tape recorder. Nothing has sounded like that since, yet this is the universal sound effect.
I wonder whether, in another 20 years, a new generation of sound effects technicians/foley artists will have jettisoned these retro sounds, except there is nothing to replace them with. You still need an audio cue.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 11:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 11:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 12:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 04:07 pm (UTC)Vinyl sales have actually been increasing over the last year or two, as the Myspace generation have discovered the joy of having a physical artefact to go along with their MP3s. I saw a program on it, and everything.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 04:10 pm (UTC)Which the kids then buy, because the band says it's cool.
Could it be that g*th 'musicians' are a lot further up themselves than the equivalent jazzer or folk
Date: 2006-10-24 10:50 am (UTC)Re: Could it be that g*th 'musicians' are a lot further up themselves than the equivalent jazzer or
Date: 2006-10-24 08:17 pm (UTC)Hard place.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 10:54 am (UTC)Weirdly, the version that goes 'Just crank it out. Throw away the bits that aren't a lion. Continue cranking until the lion is complete.' probably works for writing code, too.
Sounds like you have come up with a new method for lion hunting!
http://komplexify.com/math/humor_pure/HuntingLions7.html
no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 11:53 am (UTC)(It was originally about sculpting lions...)
no subject
Date: 2006-10-25 12:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 11:43 am (UTC)Tools: What you need is an literary IDE. An Eclipse plug-in, or similar, that automagically underlines cliches with wiggly red. Or that cross-references with wikipedia/google/gutenberg/interwebnetthingys when you're in danger of unwittingly re-hashing someone else's idea. Or that automagically re-pleases your word order. Like a Burroughs cut-up in reverse, if you will. With a little training, I'm sure it could be programmed to win Just a Minute and be more entertaining than the usual.
What you don't need is "Extreme writing", where an editor sits on your shoulder and says things like "You don't wanna do that!" Or "Have you considered a character that would appeal to the mid-20's urban cordwangling audience?"
no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 12:00 pm (UTC)Indigestion Waltz
Date: 2006-10-24 02:44 pm (UTC)[BLOODNOK] And the next dance please.
I do have every Goon Show ever, on inflatable leather MP3, should you so desire. But I'm buggered if I'm going to upload them, so you'll have to ask for a disc.
Re: Indigestion Waltz
Date: 2006-10-24 06:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 03:13 pm (UTC)You forgot another classic example ... Arkwright's till.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 06:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 07:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-25 12:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-25 01:03 pm (UTC)I have to go listen to Joy Division to cheer myself up if I catch any of those.
You know, there's an entire post in there.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-25 01:10 pm (UTC)Eastenders is rather bleaker and more pointless (than my existence at least)... plus has a much higher death-rate.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-25 01:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-25 01:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-25 01:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-25 01:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-25 01:59 pm (UTC)Maybe a poll should be done to see if anyone knows. Someone is bound to fess up!
no subject
Date: 2006-10-25 01:54 pm (UTC)Which you do have opportunity to do these days ...
no subject
Date: 2006-10-25 01:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-25 02:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 03:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 03:44 pm (UTC)It`s implicit in the quality of offerings, surely?
no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 06:50 pm (UTC)(I can't find many references to 'good enough for punk' f'rinstance.)
no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 07:44 pm (UTC)That works . . to get you started. The whole writing to rewrite thing is an art itself. Most writers that I know hate the rewriting process, though each of them claim it is essential. It is rare to sit down and crank out the final in one sitting, though I do not think it is impossible.