Writing

What’s wrong with my 6502 machine language article?

Dave Farquhar Retro Computing, Writing , , ,

It occurred to me this morning that writing about what was wrong with my 6502 machine language article from the early 1990s might be useful. Or maybe that was just whatever the dentist was injecting into the roof of my mouth talking, but I’m going with it.

Should I cut myself some slack on account of my age at the time? Sure. But teenage Dave would have welcomed the critique of mid-30s Dave, if either could find Dr. Emmit Brown’s DeLorean.

Read more

Find material for a rebuttal assignment

Dave Farquhar Writing ,

A coworker who went back to school and is currently taking a composition class asked me a good question today. His assignment is to find an article he disagrees with and write a rebuttal of 350-700 words. But he didn’t really know where to start, and asked me for advice on where to find material for a rebuttal assignment.

I never have problems finding something out there that I disagree with, so I guess he asked the right guy. I can just go to Google News and click on anything and I’ll probably disagree with some of it. I guess journalism school taught me right. If it’s not that easy for you, I have a trick. It’s nearly foolproof.
Read more

Why total freedom of expression is a reader’s worst nightmare

Dave Farquhar Writing , , , , , , ,

A longtime reader asked me about news writing, and writing in general, after complaining about the sorry state of writing these days. I think a lot of things are in a sorry state, and the writing is a reflection of that. But maybe if we can fix the writing a little, it’ll help everything else, right?

Kurt Vonnegut once said writers should pity the readers, who have to identify thousands of little marks on paper and make sense of them immediately, an art so difficult that most people don’t really master it even after studying it for 12 long years.

He says to simplify and clarify.

As writers, we’d rather live by Zeuxis’ mantra that criticism is easier than craftsmanship. But one way to avoid criticism is to make sure the readers understand what we’re writing in the first place.
Read more

Pontificating on how to blog

Dave Farquhar Writing ,

Several people I know have started blogs lately. Conversations with them have reminded me of a few things. I’m far from an A-list blogger, and was never anything more than an E- or F-list guy. At my peak, I got about 2,000 page views per day, but I’m a ways from that now. All I can say now is that I’ve been doing it 11 years. Some people have been blogging longer than me, but not a lot.

Oddly enough, 11 things about blogging came to mind. One for each year?

Read more

We just lost the best pure writer alive

Dave Farquhar Writing

Everyone and his uncle is writing about Kurt Vonnegut today, I’m sure. I have to admit I wasn’t a Vonnegut fanboy by any stretch, but I had a great deal of respect for him. I always thought he was the best writer alive during my lifetime.I know I’ve read a few of his short stories from time to time. I’m ashamed to say I haven’t read Slaughterhouse Five (which is probably something everyone in Washington D.C. ought to read–I think we’d be better for it as a nation) but I should. It’s a common book, so the next time I see a used copy, I’ll buy it and read it. That could be Saturday for all I know.

But a Vonnegut essay did have a profound effect on me. I first read it at 18. It was a short, probably 400-word essay titled How to write with style, written for a paper company as a promotional piece. Go read it.

My favorite passages:

Find a subject you care about and which you in your heart feel others should care about. It is this genuine caring, and not your games with language, which will be the most compelling and seductive element in your style.

Had I heeded this advice at 21, there’s no telling how many things I would have published by now.

Simplicity of language is not only reputable, but perhaps even sacred. The Bible opens with a sentence well within the writing skills of a lively fourteen-year-old: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

Don’t visit dictionary.com and try to work the word of the day for the last week or so into what you’re writing, in other words. (Yes, some people do that to try to make themselves sound smarter than they are–including people who should know better.)

The writing style which is most natural to you is bound to echo the speech you heard when a child… I myself grew up in Indianapolis, where common speech sounds like a band saw cutting galvanized tin, and employs a vocabulary as unornamental as a monkey wrench… I myself find that I trust my own writing most, and others seem to trust it most, too, when I sound most like a person from Indianapolis, which is what I am.

I was going to say it’s steel that’s galvanized, not tin, but technicalities aside, everyone else’s opinion of his own sound was much better than his own. There’s another lesson here: If you find yourself enjoying your own writing too much, your ego is too big.

I just have one other thing to add. Vonnegut hated developing new characters. If you’re an aspiring fiction writer, a way to get around this weakness if you have it (I do) is to keep elements of the story on notes on index cards rather than sitting down and writing furiously, which is my natural inclination and I’m sure I’m not the only one like that. The two most important elements of a story are plot and characters, and it’s the characters that make it interesting. Start with a few lines out of a psychology book that seem to describe someone you used to know, then flesh in some details. Imagine how those people would interact with the other people you’re creating, and the world in which you’re placing them.

And so it goes…

This author says used book sales don\’t hurt authors or publishers

Dave Farquhar Writing , , , ,

In case you didn’t know it, Amazon.com sells used books as well as new books. This New York Times story (via News.com) says authors and publishers still don’t like used book sales because they say it hurts new book sales.

I happen to be a published author. I say they need to quit whining.In case you didn’t know it, here’s how authors are generally paid. Authors get a royalty on each copy of the book sold. The royalty varies. On a typical Dummies book, the royalty is about 25 cents. Other publishers pay closer to 10 percent of the cover price. When you buy a book for $25, the author will probably see $1.50-$3 of it.

When the publisher agrees to take the book, the author gets an advance, usually of a few thousand dollars. Celebrities might get half a million or more. A first-time author might get less than $10,000. Generally the advance is determined based on expected sales. So I’ll always get a fraction of what a marketing machine like Phil McGraw gets, since he can essentially turn his daily TV show into an hour-long commercial for his book until he’s happy with the sales.

The advance is paid back by withholding royalties. So, if I were to get a $6,000 advance to write a book and got a royalty of $1 per copy, I would start seeing royalties after 6,000 books were sold.

Some people say used book sales hurt authors and publishers because these books exist and are bought and sold outside of this royalty structure. If you buy a used copy of Optimizing Windows, I don’t see a penny of it. Unfair, right?

Wrong. I got my royalty on that copy when the copy sold the first time.

The only time that a used book sale truly hurts the author or the publisher is when a copy that was sent to a reviewer or an otherwise free copy ends up on the used book market. This happens, even when the free copy is stamped “Not for resale” or something similar. But even then, the harm is minimal. Optimizing Windows got a huge burst in sales when Sandy McMurray reviewed it. Thanks to him, the book made Amazon’s Top 10 in Canada and even hit #1 a couple of times. He made me thousands sales. I don’t give a rip if he resold his review copy–it’s still a huge gain for me. As far as I’m concerned, if a review results in two book sales–which it inevitably will–that free copy did its job.

And, sadly, books go out of print. Once that happens, the only way to get a copy is to buy a used one.

I have no problem at all with used books. It keeps books circulating, and I believe that people who buy used books also buy new books. They’re also more likely to talk about books, which will result in more sales of both used and new books.

Besides, if you buy a book and you don’t think enough of it to keep it, shouldn’t you be able to get some of your money back out of it?

Should journalists protect their sources?

Dave Farquhar Writing , , , ,

In the wake of New York Times reporter Judith Miller going to jail for refusing to reveal the identity of an unnamed source, of course I was asked about journalism and confidential sources, and should journalists protect their sources anyway?

I liken this situation to what would go through my mind if the New York Yankees ever played the Cuban Nationals. I would have a hard time deciding which team I wanted to lose.You see, confidential sources aren’t something you’re supposed to use very often. Since the biggest journalism event of the previous century–Watergate–couldn’t have stood without Deep Throat, people tend to assume it happens a lot. In reality, you ought to see a rude four-letter word somewhere on the front page more often than you ought to see an unnamed source in a story.

I was taught that unnamed sources are inherently unreliable. Think about it. Why would you have any interest in what I had to say if I wasn’t willing to sign my name to it? When my name’s not on it, it doesn’t matter what kind of a lie I tell. It’s not going to affect my reputation any. The best source has something at stake by talking to the journalist. A lot of people find talking to journalists to be tedious and unpleasant, but let’s face it: People respect people whose names they see in the newspaper. So a journalist inherently ought to seek out people who have a need to build or protect a reputation.

To my knowledge, I only ever used unnamed sources once. That was in a story about college students drinking underage and getting DWIs. None of the students I interviewed wanted their names used. Every attorney I interviewed did. That’s predictable. And since the unnamed sources’ stories sounded reasonable, nobody questioned me over their use. My assurance that these people really lived and weren’t the product of my imagination was enough. The story ran.

But that’s one problem with unnamed sources: A lot of times they’re just a cover for laziness. It’s a lot easier to make up quotes than to get them. And if you’re not willing to divulge a name and a phone number, and the editor is willing to take you at your word that you talked to these people, unnamed sources can result in a lot of fiction being presented as fact.

That’s why I’m not a fan of unnamed sources. They should be a last resort, not a first resort. If one person’s willing to talk, someone else ought to be as well, and maybe that other person has a name and is willing to let you print it. And two unnamed sources lend more credibility than one. It’s a little harder to fake, for one thing.

But Ms. Miller used unnamed sources. And this unnamed source revealed the identity of a CIA operative during a time of war, which is a crime. Since she wouldn’t reveal the source’s name, she’s doing time.

And that’s why I liken this to the Yankees playing the Cubans. On one hand you have a journalist using an unnamed source. On the other hand, you have a government that considers this a time of war when it’s convenient, but not really a time of war when it’s not–there’s that little bit in the Constitution about only Congress being able to officially declare and wage war, for instance. And that government really seems to be eager to gobble up freedom these days. Without a truly free press, that’s one less check and balance. Thomas Jefferson once said newspapers are more important than government.

So I’m wondering a lot of things, including how Ms. Miller could have broken that law when we aren’t officially at war, but also if we were to lose a free press, how we would get it back. It’s a lot easier for the CIA to get another operative.

Journalist-source confidentiality is supposed to resemble that which exists between a doctor and a patient, an attorney and a client, or a priest and a parishioner. And while there are exceptions to those often unspoken confidentiality agreements, they are just that: exceptions. If during the course of gathering a story an unnamed source told me he committed a murder, or another heinous crime such as child abuse or rape, that’s obviously an exceptional situation. A journalist who has just learned such a thing should be compelled to go to the police, as should a priest.

While a CIA operative being unmasked is a more exceptional situation than someone confessing to having run a red light or having spent the previous evening at a disreputable entertainment establishment, I have a difficult time mustering up the same sympathy for the CIA as I would the family of a victim of a violent crime. Murder, rape, and molest ruin lives. Did Ms. Miller’s source ruin the CIA? Ms. Miller’s source certainly changed the life of that CIA operative, but is that along the lines of murder? Isn’t this situation one of the hazards of the job?

So while I don’t like the practice of using unnamed sources, and I’m anything but a big fan of the media as it exists today, I believe that a free press is a necessity. And by that I mean a truly free press–not a press that’s free to print things I agree with. The Soviet Union had that. The Pravda was free to print whatever the government would allow it to print.

Once you lose a truly free press, it usually takes a very bloody revolution to get it back.

Unfortunately, both the far left and the far right tend to want to suppress opinions that don’t agree with theirs. I believe that the people who disagree with me have the right to print whatever they want to print. I’m confident that enough people will see that they are idiots and will agree with me. And in those instances where I’m the idiot, how else would I ever find out that I’m the one who’s wrong?

So while I’m not willing to call Judith Miller a martyr–some headlines have–I believe I can make a case for siding with her. I don’t see how I can make anything but a very wobbly case in support of the government.

Those who don’t agree with me ought to click on that link a few paragraphs back that features some quotes from Thomas Jefferson.

An author reflects on publishing

Dave Farquhar Writing

Last week must have been the week for writing and publishing questions. I’ll be honest: I don’t know much about publishing successfully. And I think the advice I’ve dispensed over the years has done a lot more to dissuade potential authors than it has to encourage them.
Someone asked me last week if I would write full-time if I thought I could make a good living off it. That’s an easy answer. Absolutely. So I guess it’s telling that I have a regular 40-hour-a-week job with a salary and benefits and three bosses.

The downsides of writing: Nothing is certain. There’s no way to know how many copies a book will sell, so there’s no way to know how much money you’ll make from quarter to quarter. There’s no way to know if you’ll have steady work. Steve DeLassus was telling me about some book proposals someone else we both know is currently pitching. This other guy said the publisher was really excited.

To me, that’s like getting excited because that young, single and attractive girl who just started in HR smiled at you as she passed you in the hall. Just because she smiled doesn’t mean she wants to marry you. A publisher’s excitement about a book proposal is worth less than the change in your pocket. The change you have in your pocket is certain, and it already belongs to you.

Publishing a book is a long road, like dating. It’s so much like dating that I almost started referring to Optimizing Windows by a girl’s name while I was writing it. I nixed that when one of my friends told me that was too weird and psycho. But think about it. Finding an idea is like getting interested in a girl. Finding a publisher is like asking a girl out. You probably get more rejections than you’d like. And maybe you ask the same one more than once. Writing the book and getting it to press is like the dating and engagement process. Hopefully you’re both excited and both working hard. But it’s sunk if either one of you gives up. Halfway through my second book, my publisher pulled the plug on it. A contract is no guarantee.

So, how do you pick a publisher? I wish I knew. I’ve worked with good ones and bad ones. The very best one I’ve worked with, by a long shot, is Dennis Publishing, a British magazine producer. But that’s magazines, not books.

An agent can help you find a publisher, but the agent doesn’t necessarily know everything, and the agent’s best interests may or may not be your best interests. Sometimes they are, but sometimes no. At times while I was writing my second book, I felt like both my publisher and my agent were taking advantage of me. I absolutely hated answering my phone.

But if you don’t have an existing relationship with an editor somewhere, it’s definitely much easier to get in the door with an agent. An agent, after all, knows the industry much better than most authors do, and has contact with a larger number of publishers and editors. The agent may even be able to call in a favor to get you noticed. And agents are typically always looking for new authors, whereas most editors would probably rather be doing other things and are more likely to listen to an agent than a wannabe writer. After all, if the writer is totally worthless and the idea is totally worthless, the agent has better things to do.

You may decide later not to use an agent. I don’t use one to do magazine gigs. There, you’re usually dealing with flat rate per-word pay, so it doesn’t make any sense to pay an agent 10% to firm up non-negotiables, especially in my case when the editor had already made all of the terms clear and was also making it very clear that he was eager to work with me.

But if you’re asking questions like what publishers would be best under specific circumstances and who would be the most likely to promote your book, you need an agent.

I’m not an expert. I signed two books and published one of them. I’ve published a number of magazine articles. I guess the most valuable thing I have to say is that most people need an agent but should be careful.

Hopefully my thoughts are better than nothing.

A trick to give your fictional characters some consistency

Dave Farquhar Writing

So I was reading up on character disorders (shaddup Steve) when I stumbled across an incredibly useful site: http://www.writersvillage.com/character/
Let’s say you’re writing a work of fiction. (Contrary to what some people have told me, I do that occasionally, not every day.) And you want your characters to be interesting. Normal is boring. The most interesting people in the world have something wrong with them. (Say yes.) (Steve, don’t say another word.)

Hey, think about it. Think of the greatest novel ever written: The Great Gatsby. I can think of two characters who showed any symptoms of healthiness in the whole book: the narrator, Nick Carraway, and I’m not even positive about him; and Gatsby’s dad, who only shows up in the end. The rest of them are very interesting people. But you’re in deep trouble if you live next door to any of them.

So give the characters in your story a character disorder.

If you’re like me and don’t remember character disorders from college psychology class, there are basically two types of mental illnesses. There are neurosises (I know I spelled that wrong), and character disorders. A neurotic can be pretty messed up, but a neurotic’s problem(s) are generally treatable and a neurotic still has enough grip on reality to be able to take responsibility for his or her own actions.

Character disorders generally aren’t treatable. A person with a character disorder is generally less pleasant and considerably more dangerous. A person with a character disorder generally won’t take responsibility for his or her actions, or a problem he or she caused. I once had a landlord who liked to threaten to shoot people and put a gun in their hand and drugs in their pocket. He probably had a character disorder.

So what’s this have to do with writing fiction? Basically you answer about 300 questions about a character in your story, and it comes back and tells you what character disorder the person might have. Then you can read a profile and a few symptoms, which will give you some insights into how your character will behave in different circumstances and allow you to give the character some consistency.

No fair trying to use it to diagnose your coworkers, OK?

And no fair trying to use it to diagnose me either. I’m a neurotic. (There. That quote will keep me out of public office.)

Writers vs. Critics

Dave Farquhar Writing

Charlie brought up a good point last week when he talked about the difference between being a writer and being a critic.
Sometime last week, I started getting hits from WatchingMicrosoftLikeAHawk.com. They had linked my “Why I Dislike Microsoft” piece. All told, just under 100 people followed that link here. A couple of people e-mailed me asking for permission to link. I thanked them for the link, which brings up a point. Some sites prohibit deep-linking, or try to. So let it be known now: Link to anything on this site that you want. Sure, I want people to read my new stuff and not just my old stuff, but getting them to read my new stuff is my responsibility, not yours. If you deep link, and my writing in that piece plus 30 headlines over on the right-hand side doesn’t get someone to stay, shame on me. Prohibition of deep-linking is a sign of bad site layout.

I also got some critics. Some of them seem to believe that corporations can do no wrong. Others disregard antitrust law, which states that the owner of a monopoly has to play by different rules than companies that don’t have a monopoly, and that the owner of a monopoly cannot use one monopoly to get another.

One anonymous poster told me to name sources and insinuated that I couldn’t. Now, had I written for a different audience, I would have used more sources in the first place. A peek at my logs over the past few months indicates the majority of my users are probably very familiar with Microsoft’s wrongs. I know a good number of them probably thought of the phrase, “DOS ain’t done ’til Lotus won’t run” when they read the title. To some of them, that piece didn’t say anything new at all. It was just the first time they’d seen it all in one place.

But sometimes pieces get read by people outside of the original audience, and that’s what happened here. I figured the piece would be read by about 300 people and promptly forgotten. I was wrong.

So I went looking for sources. And I told my nameless critic I’d name sources once he had the guts to post his real name, like I had. Then I came back with a source. A while later he came back with a name.

Before he came back with a name, I had some sources. What I found wasn’t pretty. Turns out that if anything, I’d underestimated Microsoft’s shenanigans.

My friend Jeanne asked me this week if sometimes having a Web site is more trouble than it’s worth. I said yes.

But I’ll be back tomorrow.