Calling London: Anyone want me to speak?
I’ll be in London for a few days in February 2013 with some time. Anyone interested in having me speak somewhere?
Leave a comment or contact me directly.
I’ll be in London for a few days in February 2013 with some time. Anyone interested in having me speak somewhere?
Leave a comment or contact me directly.
I’ve published six successful books and in the years it took to write each one I’ve heard every range of opinion on what makes a good book title and how important it is or isn’t. Here’s what I’ve learned, and it applies to fiction, non-fiction and even other kinds of creative works.
Everyone is very happy to tell you how to pick a title, and in particular, that you are doing it wrong.
A special joy comes from people telling you that your title ideas stink, yet who can’t offer a single better alternative. “Gee, thanks” you’ll say, to which they will offer “Hey, you’re the writer.” Both complaints are valid of course, but neither solves the problem.
There is plenty of good advice, but it’s rarely based on good data. Even a skim of the history of popular books or the current top 100 shows dozens of violations of any expert’s advice. Worse, often good sounding advice contradicts other good sounding advice. For example:
If we rounded up the wisest book editors and the smartest title creators and gave them a list of book titles for soon to be published books, they’d passionately disagree about which ones worked and why. And most of them would be wrong about the results (See #4).
We all suffer tremendous taste bias on titles. We assume our instincts and likes are matched by everyone. There are many kinds of taste, good and bad, which means there is an unbelievable amount of contradictory advice about titles, almost as much as there is about writing books themselves.
Insiders love to point to previously published books as examples of good titles, but that’s cheating. What would validate their expertise is a record of what they thought of the title before it was released. If you want an honest opinion from an expert ask them to tell you about books with “great” titles that failed, or books with “bad” titles that did well. There are many of both.
Most advice chases past successes. And the popular advice leads towards books that sound the same. Since this advice is well known many books aim for the same crowded bullseye. The paradox is they will say: “Your idea is a cliche, so take this advice (which will lead to a different cliche)”
Most genres have crowded namespaces with familiar patterns. Aiming here defeats some of the purpose of the title: to uniquely identify the book. If you follow too much of the advice you hear, soon you’ll be in questionable territory:
Remember that for every cliche there is an original idea for a book title that started it. And you can bet when that author pitched that title, they were told mostly why it wouldn’t work.
But know that cliches can be good if you time them right. They fade in and out year to year, being abused, abandoned and then suddenly rise as cool again. Depending on how many book titles you look at a day, your place, and your reader’s place in that timeline is different. What seems played out to you might be on the rise for your audience.
It can sometimes be effective to use a cliche if you’re going after an audience that hasn’t seen a book aimed that way (e.g. Confessions of a Public Speaker), since it won’t seem cliche to them, as the cliche is a shortcut to expressing the style of the book (e.g. 101 Things I learned in Architecture School).
The non-book writing majority of our species has no idea how many different functions the title serves in the machinery of selling books. It will be used for any of:
Each of these has slightly different requirements and you can’t nail them all at the same time. Most are improved with brevity.
Two facts about books:
Book publishing is not a meritocracy. Even if it were, dozens of decisions influence the outcome. There are many reasons books become popular, or not. Some books become popular in spite of their author’s choices. Other books do everything most things right, and never do very well.
One factor in the overstating of title importance is insecurity and ego. At the time an author and a publisher are deciding on the title they are both at their greatest emotional insecurity: the book is not finished and not released. Their fears only puts more pressure on the decision, not less. Another reason is people other than the writer want to make their mark on the project and the title is the single most prized sentence in the entire book writing enterprise, and it’s easy to express opinions about it (whereas opinions on the text of the book itself requires hours of investment). Many books are chosen by editorial committee and you can guess which ones they are.
Titles of course have an impact on a book’s success. Often its all a potential buyer ever gets to see, and if they can draw interest the book crosses its first of many hurdles in the improbable struggle of getting noticed. But titles only help so much. Most people hear about books the same way they hear about new bands. Or new people to meet. A friend or trusted source tells them it was good and it was called <NAME HERE>. The title at that point serves as a moniker. It’s the thing you need to remember to get the thing you want to get and little more.
Many titles are meaningless until after you read them. Consider the day any of these were first published: The Mythical Man Month, Catcher in The Rye, Catch-22, To Kill A Mockingbird, Moby Dick, Eats, Shoots, and Leaves, Eat Pray Love. After these books were successful of course the titles seem great. But you wouldn’t have said that before the book came out. Or go further and ask about REM or Led Zeppelin or RUN DMC. What? Names for things sometimes are just names for things. They let us refer to a thing, and that’s it. If we love the thing we eventually love the name. You didn’t marry your spouse purely because of their name, right? Or what city you live in? Or what company you work for?
It’s entertaining to consider the names of many publishers: HarperCollins, Simon and Schuster, MacMillan. These names mean nothing as names since they are the actual names of their founders. What rule of naming was followed here? Sure, companies are different from books, and these companies have done very well. But consider Random House, which was named because the founders wanted to publish “a few books on the side at random“? None of them exemplify a strategy based on the importance of a name choice in the success of a venture.
Of all the advice I’ve read, been given, had thrown at me, or pulled out of of more experienced authors, here’s the core of what matters:
The best solution to subjective creative challenges with cheap materials (e.g. words) is to make a big list of candidates. As big as possible. Include anything you like, including cliches. Take your time, over days and weeks. Show the list to lots of people with the goal of making the list bigger. Often there are hybrids and variants that you’ll discover only by growing your list.
When you’ve made a big list and don’t find many new ones, make a specific list of your criteria (see above). Then slowly work to winnow down the list. Here’s good advice on looking at competitive titles and list creation.
When you have a small list of titles you like, get some data. Tim Ferris, Eric Reis and others have graciously popularized the methods they used for applying A/B testing methods (Like Pick-Fu) for picking book titles. From experiments with their websites, to using sample google ads for book title candidates to compare how people respond. This is excellent. Data should inform opinions. It can’t answer every question but it can verify or disprove assumptions in ways no amount of debate can.
However, A/B testing can never generate the candidates for you. It also never tells you how to break ties. And it can’t tell you anything about how well the title matches the book. You might find a title that gets a fantastic response, but isn’t a good match for the book you wrote.
If you’re a writer you will write hundreds of thousands of sentences in your career. Only your name is going on the book: put some confidence in your own judgement.
I’ve been hard at work on book #5. It’s about the year I spent working at WordPress.com. I want you readers to be more involved: an easy place to start is helping pick the title for the book.
Book Synopsis: WordPress.com, the planet’s 15th most popular website, has no headquarters: everyone works from wherever they want in the world. They don’t use email and have an open vacation policy. New work ships dozens of times a day to a live website used by millions of users. How is all this possible? What can other companies learn from their radical methods? In this book you’ll learn insights into leadership, management and the nature of work by following Berkun, bestselling author and former Microsoft manager from the early web, as he tells his story of trying to lead a team of young programmers and designers at the heart of this fascinating, brilliant company.
How voting works: This is the first round. There might be a second round. If you have a write-in candidate for title or sub-title, please vote anyway and leave your candidate in the comments. (My general theory on book titles)
And which subtitle?
If you want to be notified when the book is out: Leave a comment that says “I want to knooooooow when it’s out! WOOT” or something similarly ridiculous. And you’ll get an email when the time is right. Or just subscribe to the blog via the sidebar on the left.
Thanks folks. I’ll be writing more about the book over the next few weeks – stay tuned.
Taking the question of how much does your workplace affect creativity in a new direction, the folks at Janelia Farm, a biomedical research lab, have a pub in their office. Complete with ping pong, beer and coffee.
You can watch a short interview about the pub and some of the employees opinions about it:
The ideal situation is an office on a street with a few pubs and restaurants close by. Then you get the best of both worlds, as the people running the pubs will do what they do best. Trying to create a pub atmosphere inside the bureaucracy and limitations of a large organization is a tough road. Of course many offices are in remote locations, miles from their nearest pub. They have no choice but to try and create a space for workers to socialize themselves.
Seattle’s own Substantial has a fully stocked bar in their office. And a fair number of rising start-ups in the SF bay area do as well.
Would you want a pub in your office? Why or why not?
In response to my claim Jargon Feeds on Lazy Minds, my friend Kav sent me one of the worst marketing emails he’s seen. Rather than complain, I thought why not try and fix it EXTREME makeover style.
Here’s a brief critique followed by a press release makeover.
First, here’s the message – half way between a press release and a product pitch:
Subject: It’s time for a Revolution…a Commercial RE Revolution.
There is a void in the marketplace. Have you noticed it?
For much of the commercial real estate world, the solution is occasionally pulled out because it looks cool; but they can’t really seem to remember how it works. Hidden underneath the pile of instruments we use every day is a much-needed tool. Have you guessed what it is yet?
It’s Collaboration: a social technology tool. Collaboration without context is merely managed chaos. And it requires trust-based teams to provide a context for successful collaborating. Efficiency increases with the alignment of mindsets, purpose and channeling new tools to fully embrace.
With iCORE, we’ve logged many hours creating a new atmosphere of collaboration and teaming while offering the most advanced technological platform designed to facilitate it seamlessly. Long-standing relationships are revered in our business. That’s why we’re approaching channel business in an innovative way, because we understand where the industry is heading.
If your office is land-locked or more importantly, “business-locked”, how do you expand your reach globally?
iCORE solves your “location” problem by placing the capability of reporting and increased optics available at your fingertips, putting you in the know. As a team member, you can manage responsibilities with automated day-to-day updates and document sharing, enabling real-time snapshots of what’s going on with your client, ensuring the best business possible for both you and them.
After all, you’ve invested time, money and effort to build a trusting relationship with your client. And no one wants that to deteriorate. This successful platform of collaboration inspires our team members to provide their clients with the highest level of professional and personal attention that they expect from industry leaders.
Interested in our revolutionary approach? Begin connecting with a global team by contacting foo @ foo today and increase your global opportunities
The email had some basic HTML formatting which you can see below.
The big problem is: what is being sold? A product? A service? You can read the whole thing several times and never know. All of the jargon and fuzzy language makes it worse. In a world of full inboxes this will be deleted as soon as its skimmed. In needs to be clearer, simpler and shorter.
It’s time for a Revolution…a Commercial RE Revolution.
Revolution should almost never be used. It’s used twice in the first sentence. I don’t know what a RE revolution is. Is that a revolution that you do twice?
There is a void in the marketplace. Have you noticed it? For much of the commercial real estate world, the solution is occasionally pulled out because it looks cool; but they can’t really seem to remember how it works
I can’t explain what this means. Are these people with brain damage?
Hidden underneath the pile of instruments we use every day is a much-needed tool. Have you guessed what it is yet? It’s Collaboration: a social technology tool.
Collaboration is not a tool nor a product. Its an activity people do with other people.
With iCORE, we’ve logged many hours creating a new atmosphere of collaboration and teaming while offering the most advanced technological platform designed to facilitate it seamlessly.
Using a i before the name of things makes everyone think of Apple. I’m not sure if this was an intentional association or not, but its distracting. Seamless and facilitate are jargon and should be avoided. An “atmosphere of collaboration” is nice but it refers to something you experience with other people. Does the tool enable this? Or do folks at iCORE simply gotten along well with each other? It’s unclear.
iCORE solves your “location” problem by placing the capability of reporting and increased optics available at your fingertips, putting you in the know.
Why is location in quotes? What are increased optics? Does that mean bi-focals?
Overall its not clear what is being pitched. A product? A service? My best guess is its software for real estate agents to use.
Here is a revised and improved version. It’s shorter by nearly half and is much clearer on the pitch and the payoff.
Subject: How to solve your toughest client challenges
In commercial real estate the challenge is to stay ahead of competitors and in touch with your clients. At iCORE we’ve been working hard for years developing a new tool that solves these problems and more.
Our software provides simple reports that answer your toughest questions. You can automate many of your daily chores and get instant snapshots of what your clients need from you.You should consider the iCore product because:
- It automates the toughest parts of your work
- Its simple to learn, powerful to use
- Industry leaders you respect have endorsed it
You’ve invested your career in building trust with clients.Why not finally use software worthy of your hard work?
You can try it for free for 30 days without obligation.Contact us for more information at foo@foo.foo
Of course whatever is offered now has to backup some of those claims, but there are some things PR alone can’t do for you.
If you were hired to make this over what would you do differently? Leave a comment
A running joke in the world of presentations is: how short can they be? They used to be an hour. Then TED went to 20 minutes, Pecha Kucha to 6, and Ignite to 5. The trend of short presentations has been on the rise for years and one wonders where it will stop.
But then consider TV advertisements: they’re 30 seconds long. The good ones communicate many ideas well in a very short amount of time.
Years ago I ran an event at Microsoft called Design Day. Each year we’d experiment with different formats and one year we tried 99 second presentations. It went well and we did it the next year too. Unlike most speaking events it gives the audience a real chance to participate.
Before the session starts, explain how it works. Make sure the audience knows they can get in line and get a turn.
At first everyone is nervous, but paying attention. How does this work? they wonder. The format itself creates drama, which is good. If you choose good speakers to start the line, and invite them to speak about provocative or important topics, soon someone in the audience will stand up. When this happens, everyone starts listening differently, realizing they too can can get in line.
It’s a small commitment to get someone to speak for less than 2 minutes. They can practice their material 10 times in half an hour. The surprise of short format speaking is it forces speakers to get to the good stuff. One year we let the hand picked speakers have a single slide if they wanted. This adds to your logistics, but if they want to give the audience a URL or twitter handle, having it on a slide makes this easier.
Speakers who volunteer can and will use less than 99 seconds, since they won’t have prepared. This is good. You’ll be impressed by the different, clever ways people choose to use their time.
You need to have:
Explaining things is my job. A living hero of explanations is Lee Lefever, one of the founders of CommonCraft. They popularized the style of hand-drawn explainer videos, including ones about Twitter in Plain English, Wikis in Plain English and the entertaining Understanding Zombies.
He’s put together everything he’s learned about explaining things to people in a new book called The Art of Explanation. Serendipitously his cover design matches the cover for Mindfire.
I have a promotional copy and while I haven’t read it yet, I’m intrigued by the practical approach he’s taken with chapters like Why Explanations Fail, Stories vs. Facts and Simplification. It’s in my reading pile and when I get to I’ll be writing a review. Here’s the explainer video for the book itself:
You can buy The Art of Explanation or grab the sample chapter and more.
[Note: this post was first published at Harvard Business Review and has been edited]
If I could give every single business writer, guru or executive one thing to read every morning before work, it’d be this essay by George Orwell: Politics and the English Language.
Not only is this essay short, brilliant, thought-provoking and memorable, it calls bullshit on most of what passes today as speech and written language in management circles.
And if you are too lazy to read the article, all you need to remember is this: never use a fancy word when a simpler one will do. If your idea is good, no hype is necessary. Explain it clearly and people will get it, if there truly is something notable to get. If your idea is bad: keep working before you share it with others. And if you don’t have time for that, you might as well be honest. Because when you throw jargon around, most of us know you’re probably lying about something anyway.
The people who use the most jargon have the least confidence in their ideas. The people who use the least jargon have the most confidence.
In honor of Orwell here’s a list of jargon I often hear that should be banned rarely used. Flat out, these words are never used for good reason.
Words that should be banned:
These are the lazy words of our time and whenever I see them used I feel justified in challenging the claims. To use these words with a straight face is to assume the listener is an idiot. They are intellectual insults. They are shortcuts away from good marketing and strong thinking since they try to sneak by with claims they know they cannot prove or do not make any sense.
Marketers and managers use jargon because it’s safe. No one stops them to ask: exactly what is it you are breaking through? What precisely are you transforming, and how are you certain the new thing will be better than the old (e.g. New Coke)? If no one, especially no one in power, challenges its use, jargon spreads, choking the life out of conversations and meetings forever.
Pay attention to who uses the most jargon: it’s never the brightest. It’s those who want to be perceived as the best and the brightest, something they know they are not. They use cheap language tricks to intimidate, distract, and confuse, hoping to sneak past those afraid to ask what they really mean.
I’m going to do my best for the rest of the year to question people who use these lazy, deceptive, and inflated terms. Maybe then they’ll use their real marketing talents and tell me a story so powerful that I believe, all on my own, will transform this, or revolutionize that.
What jargon do you hear these days that you’d like to add to the list above? Let me know.
The beginning of a very bad idea often feels very good. And the beginning of a very good idea can feel very bad. Even the sharpest intuition is wrong much of the time about where an idea will lead. Sometimes what seems like a great idea at first falls apart as you develop it, but then eventually you find your way through to making it work. Sometimes you don’t.
We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. -Neils Bohr
Many creativity exercises force you to spend time with ideas, or problems, that seem absurd or uninteresting. Often with enough persistence an idea can transform, invert, pivot, or crystalize into something very different from what you thought it was. That transformation may never happen if you don’t spend enough time getting to know the idea to see where it can go.
But as is always the case with ideas there are no guarantees. Your best idea may lead you for years in a direction that, in the end, is impossible. Other times what seems your worst idea, given enough attention, might be the best idea you’ve ever had.
The only true mark of a creative is someone willing to entertain any idea for a time, to play with it and kick it around, for they know you never know at first glance what an idea really is.
Hat tip: Jessen suggested the vice-versa second sentence
On a whim I decided to spend all of yesterday offline. No email, no Facebook, nothing. I used to have a habit of doing food (and other) fasts, but it has been a long time since I’ve done a fast of any kind.
It’s easier to do if your family and friends do it with you. The idea of a sabbath makes much sense, as its good for people to separate from daily things, and having social rituals around those fasts increases the ease and value of doing them. Thanksgiving was a good day to try this as there were people around (social) and activities like cooking and cleaning that required my full attention (concentration).
We love and hate our families. We want to be with some of them, but after a few hours can’t stand others. Going home for the holidays means confronting an intense mix of pleasures and fears that we never figure out until its time to leave. Here’s some advice for surviving your family this holiday season:
Those were for fun. Here’s some real advice.
If you have a comical or serious suggestion, leave it in the comments.
Everyone has fears about regular public speaking, but what if you have to present someone else’s slides? And see them for the first time as the audience does? And only have 5 minutes? And the slides auto-advance?
I believe in the theory of trying something insanely hard to make normal work feel easier. As a public speaking expert, I had to try this at least to see what I could learn for you readers.
So what is Powerpoint Karaoke? Despite the name, there is no singing. Instead, a bunch of people are asked to present in front of a live audience but with (Powerpoint) slides they have never seen before.
In 2012 I participated in a Powerpoint-Karaoke (also know as BattleDecks) at the Makers co-working Space in Seattle (part of Seattle Creative Mornings). It’s as crazy as it sounds. I participated precisely because it’s crazy. Other space monkeys willing to try were Adam Tratt, Hillel Cooperman, Jon Culver (the winner) and Michelle Mazur.
Here are the slides Luz made for each speaker:
I recently re-watched this excellent talk by John Cleese (of Monty Python) on creativity. The best parts are after the 10 minute mark, and I suspect many people give up before then. His ideas reminded me of Edward De Bono’s Six Thinking Hats, since they both emphasize modes and frames of mind.
Here’s the video with my notes and choice excerpts below:
Five factors:
These are his main points, influenced heavily by the work of his friend Dr. Donald W. Mackinnon. Cleese specifically advocates taking 90 minutes to create space and time. It takes him about 30 minutes to calm down and open his mind, leaving an hour of creative time working on something.
The (flawed) romantic view of creativity is it’s a thing, but really it’s a process:
“Creativity is not a talent. It is a way of operating.”
The quote below evolves into a funny riff at 14:50 that’s worth watching:
“It’s easier to do trivial things that are urgent than it is to do important things that are not urgent, like thinking, It’s also easier to do little things we know we can do, than to start on big things we’re not so sure about”
He reflects on the counterintuitive ‘work’ element of creativity. The myth of epiphany makes this seem wrong, since it assumes creativity is a thing and not a process. Persistence is something involved in how to be good at anything:
“One of my Monty Python colleagues who seemed to be more talented than I was never produced scripts as original as mine. And I watched for some time and then I began to see why. If he was faced with a problem and saw a solution he was inclined to take it even if he knew it was not very original. Whereas if I was in the same situation, while I was sorely tempted to take the easy way out, and finish by 5 o’clock, I just couldn’t. I’d sit there with the problem for another hour and a quarter and by sticking at it, would in the end, almost always come up with something more original. It was that simple.
My work was more creative than his simply because I was prepared to stick with the problem longer. So imagine my excitement when I found this was exactly what MacKinnon found in his research. He discovered the most creative professionals always played with the problem for much longer before they tried to resolve it. Because they were prepared to tolerate that slight discomfort, as anxiety, that we all experience when we haven’t solved it.”
In the talk he explains closed vs open modes of thinking. Most work cultures are (necessarily) dominated by closed thinking. It’s no surprise most people in power are fond of displaying decisive powers:
“The most creative people have learned to tolerate (that) discomfort for much longer. Just because they put in more pondering time there solutions are more creative.”
Most work cultures are political and repressive with fear of offending people. Despite the rhetoric for “be creative” if there are penalties and instant judgements creativity is impossible:
“The people I find it hardest to be creative with are the people who need, all the time, to project an image of themselves as decisive. And who feel to create this image they need to decide everything very quickly with a great show of confidence. Well this behavior I suggest sincerely is the most effective way to strangle creativity at birth.”
“You cannot be spontaneous within reason [-Alan Watts]. You have to risk saying things that are silly, illogical or wrong… any drivel may lead to the breakthrough”
This last quote is pure awesome:
“There is a confusion between serious and solemn.. Solemnity, I don’t know what it’s for. What is the point of it? The two most beautiful memorial services I’ve ever attended both had a lot of humor. And it somehow freed us all and made the services inspiring and cathartic. But solemnity serves pomposity. And the self important always know at some level of their consciousness that their egotism is going to be punctured by humor, and that’s why they see it as a threat. And so dishonestly pretend that their deficiencies makes their views more substantial, when it only makes them feel bigger… ptttttth.
Humor is an essential part of spontaneity, an essential part of playfulness, an essential part of the creativity we need to solve problems no matter how serious they may be. “
I discovered the CBC Comedy The Newsroom a decade ago, while watching PBS late one night. I didn’t know what it was, but found the first season of this well written, darkly funny show thoroughly entertaining.
One favorite scene captures the hypocrisy of claiming you want ideas. Acerbic self-obsessed news director Finkleman asks his staff for new ideas, but rejects everything anyway.
Hasn’t everyone had a boss that has done this to them?
You have to play a long time to be able to play like yourself – Miles Davis
There is a paradox you must accept if you want to find your voice: it takes work. This is counterintuitive because all of the great voices we admire, whether we find them in reading John Updike or Ray Bradbury, or see it in a Georgia Okeefe painting, seem as if they were always present in those creators. This is a falsehood. If you asked any of them, or any master of any craft, they’d tell you in painful detail how many years of work it took to develop the thing we, as consumers of their work, take for granted. It took them a long time to learn how to create like themselves.
We find this hard to believe because our view of other creators is inverted. We know them after they were famous. The works we know best are rarely an artist’s early works. We don’t see their many experiments, their uncertain output during the long years they developed the craft they’d become famous for. All makers require long, disciplined hours to develop their talents, hours they will never be shown at a museum or on a postcard. Go find the early works of Jackson Pollock: it took him years before he discovered the all-over style he’d become most famous for. Who knows how many plays Shakespeare wrote that he burned, or poems Emily Dickinson tore apart and buried in the dust.
“The reason we struggle with insecurity is because we compare our behind-the-scenes with everyone else’s highlight reel.” — Steve Furtick
We are all born with a gap between our ambitions and our abilities, and ambitions rise much faster than abilities can. Ira Glass, host of This American Life, explained the gap this way:
“What nobody tells people who are beginners, and I really wish someone had told this to me… all of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste…. there is this gap. For the first couple years you make stuff what you are making isn’t so good. It’s not that great. It’s trying to be good, it has ambition to be good, but it’s not quite that good.
But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is good enough that you can tell why what you are making is a disappointment to you. You can tell that it’s still sort of crappy. A lot of people never get past this phase. They quit.
And the thing I would say to you with all my heart is that most of the creative people I know when through years of this… Everyone goes through this… the most important possible thing you can do is do a lot of work. Do a huge volume of work… it’s only by doing a huge volume of work that you will close that gap and the work you make will be as good as your ambitions.”
Many very talented people never develop their skills only because they can’t stand the feeling of this gap. They’re embarrassed and tortured by it. They expect to be great quickly and when they’re not they feel they’re a failure, despite their foolish comparisons to ghosts of their own invention.
Some legendary writers and makers struggled with their own opinion of their work even after their success No matter how popular they became they felt their work was flawed, inferior and immature, never reaching the standards invented in their own minds. Even the great ones felt doubts and held themselves in judgement. They failed to see how much value they’d brought to their readers in spite of their own criticisms. Some very successful artists never close the gap and you might not either.
Have patience. Be willing to experiment and try different things. Realize you might need to wait a week, a month, or a year to see something you’ve made with eyes objective enough to learn from it. Enjoy making things for the sake of making: what a gift to have the time to make at all! If you were born 100 years ago, or to different parents in a different country, you wouldn’t have the time to feel bad about your work, because you wouldn’t have the resources to make it at all. If you feel love for your craft honor it with the discipline of showing up, even when it’s hard. Take pleasure in small progressions when you see them, and know those hard won gains are the only way anyone in history has ever achieved anything noteworthy, for themselves or for the world.
Last month was one of the best months of traffic ever at scottberkun.com. These posts led the way in views, comments and attention.
Enjoy.
Ignite Seattle, an evening of fast presentations, runs like clockwork. We think of the evening as a show, and each of the 16 speakers we have at each events are the stars. We do all that we can to set the stage, the audience and the format to make it as easy as possible for them to do a great job. One key role is the host or emcee (MC). They are the first and last person on stage, tying all the pieces together for the audience. I’ve hosted many Ignite events and here’s my advice on how to do it well.
America is one of the greatest countries the world and is often heralded as the best example of democracy (or republic if you want to be a stickler) in the world. Yet there are issues with how voting works in the U.S. worthy of examination. There are better ways to handle some of the details.
While I don’t have specific proposals for solving these problems, and do recognize attempting to solve them might create more problems, you have to notice the problems before you can do anything about them.
What other problems do you see? What solutions do you have? Leave a comment.
RR from the Reluctant Runner blog read my post on how to turn a blog into a book and asked:
Over the past two years I have written a light-hearted fitness blog specific to running. I am going to start turning it into a book. I am beginning the process of going back through my posts and searching in a “Table of Contents” type of manner, seeing what would fit…what won’t. My question is: How do you do to fill holes? I assume a book can’t just be post after post…but rather expand upon these posts as ideas and write and fill in around them?
Writing a book is one thing, writing a good book is something else. There’s no easy answer to your question as it’s very subjective.
It turns out you can just have the book be post after post. There are no laws against it. The Diary of Anne Frank, is effectively just post and after post and it’s one of the most popular books in the world. Montaigne, the dude who invented the essay, wrote a book on intentionally unrelated topics, yet he’s quite popular.Then again, many books from blogs are heavily criticized for having the exact same format as Frank or Montaigne. The difference then is:
The best advice then is to go look at other books made from blogs and see how they deal with the problem. Some examples:
Another wise approach is to make a draft version of your book and ask friends or readers of your blog to read the draft. Ask specifically for feedback on discontinuity between sections, and suggestions for other topics they expected to see to help close the gaps.
When you find a gap, you have four choices:
Good books apply these four choices better than the bad ones. But with books there are no rules to follow. You as the author have to decide for yourself what you want your book to be. Good luck.
The Wall Street Journal recently ran a poll asking “If you had unlimited vacation, how much would you take? The results are shown below.
It’s a question of interest, since my next book is about WordPress.com where employees enjoy an open vacation policy.
Surprisingly almost half the respondents (46.4%) said 4-6 weeks. 17% said more than six weeks.
Read my related post exploring the question: Should Americans get more vacation?