The future of golf: Smash-Putt (Seattle)

If you live in Seattle and like fun you owe it to yourself to check out Smash Putt: a unique arts/sports/golf experience, open for its last weekend of the year (perhaps all time!).

The basic idea: what if you take crazy artists and engineers and let them rethink miniature golf?

You get:

We went last weekend and had a great time. It’s crowded and chaotic, but totally worth it. For extra fun, it’s in the old Immigration building in downtown Seattle, making for a bizarre, but ultimately fun experience.

This is the last weekend it will run in Seattle. Buy tickets in advance here

($12-15 – they tend to sell out if you wait)

Have an Innovation question? I will answer!

For tommorow’s webcast I’m promising to answer any questions on innovation, creativity or creative work you ask.

All you have to do is leave a comment on this post, or over here – TODAY. The webcast is 10am PST tomorrow, and the longer you wait, the less chance I’ll be able to work it in.

Have an issue you’re struggling with? Advice for a situation? Something your organization struggles with? A method or story you want an expert’s opinion on? Now is your chance.

The Social Network: movie review

Good movies about software are hard to make. That’s why few people try and those who do mostly end up with mediocre films. David Fincher (Fight Club, Curious Case of Benjamin Button) gets at least one thing right in his new film: pace. This movie, for a drama about young adults making software, is smart, quick and unrelenting in its progression. The Social Network is a good, well acted, well scripted drama, which provokes questions about ideas, ownership, ethics and relationships (End of short review).

I didn’t read the book the film is based on, Accidental Billionaires, as the author’s style of dramatization and invention (He also wrote Bringing down the house) has earned him a reputation for stretching the limits of what can be called reporting. Its foolish to expect Hollywood films to have much interest in upholding literal truths.

However I have researched Facebook’s history and it’s clear Zuckerberg was not a good guy in his early years (The New Yorker profile suggests Zuckerberg conceeds this). He managed to upset many people he worked with, was sued by some of his first employers and his best friend / co-founder of Facebook. The details of the movie are exaggerated as films, by their nature, tend to be, but the spirit seems not far from the Mark (pun!).  And it’s this spirit that’s the most interesting aspect of  the film.

Nearly everyone is portrayed as shallow, arrogant, selfish and superficial. Some are fools, others are brilliant, but the tone is youthful confusion over what matters most. And this reflects our dilemma over what to make of the worst elements of social media: a playing out of high school cliques, displays of ‘status’ to impress others, and a confusion over what a friend or authenticity actually are. The movie itself shows “a social network” with Mark at it’s center – but its a sad, broken and treacherous one.

The film has been criticized for poorly portraying women, which is true, but this misses how the film poorly portrays everyone. Nearly every character is an embarrassment in some significant way, and the movie is largely criticizing the shallowness of elites (Harvard, Silicon valley, lawyers, VCs, the upper class, etc.).  The movie is a critique of the kinds of people who would choose to profit from changing the world based on the model of “facebooks” (e.g. yearbooks), relationship status, feeds and friending people. The point is:  it’s a 19 or 20 year old’s view of the universe, for better and, as the movie emphasizes, for worse. It’s notable Zuckerberg’s fiancé, with whom he was dating the entire duration of the time shown in the film, isn’t mentioned much less seen. But otherwise it’s hard to find particular bias: I doubt anyone feels great about how they are portrayed in this movie.

I’ve never met Zuckerberg, but his portrayal is reminiscent of people I knew in my Computer Science classes at CMU and in the tech sector today: young men who are arrogant, shy, brilliant, awkward, angry, passive-aggressive, misunderstood and possibly vicious.You’ll find some people like this in any CS classroom or in any tech start-up or IT department. One appeal of computers is they do exactly what you tell them, much unlike people, which tends to attract people with particular abilities and disabilities. Bill Gates near cameo in the film is telling – go watch his deposition video and it’s clear he and Zuckerberg, as portrayed, have much in common (Of course anyone deposed is bound to be cranky, but still).

And more interesting, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellision, Andrew Carnegie, Andrew Mellon, Henry Ford and dozens of others of captains of industry weren’t lovable, likable or ethical either early in their careers (if ever), despite how we lionize them later. Films of their early lives would have similarities to The Social Network. Simply put, no one is forced to be a CEO or start a company. Those who do are often fueled by greed, arrogance, pride, insecurity or a need to prove something to someone who probably isn’t even paying attention, a point it’s clear David Fincher intended to make.

But much like the film Wall Street, which showed the tragedy of the power brokers in finance but instead created a hero (Gordon Gecko) for a certain group of people, The Social Network, which was clearly designed as a tragedy, will have the same fate. Many young entrepreneurs will see having a business card with “I’m CEO, bitch” as a goal worthy of spending their lives chasing, missing how much personal carnage this psychology created for this particular CEO and everyone around him.

Quote of the day

Sherlock Holmes never said “Elementary, my dear Watson.” Neither Ingrid Bergman nor anyone else in “Casablanca” says “Play it again, Sam”; Leo Durocher did not say “Nice guys finish last”; Vince Lombardi did say “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing” quite often, but he got the line from someone else. Patrick Henry almost certainly did not say “Give me liberty, or give me death!”; William Tecumseh Sherman never wrote the words “War is hell”; and there is no evidence that Horace Greeley said “Go west, young man.”

And it’s so good it deserves part 2:

Marie Antoinette did not say “Let them eat cake”; Hermann Göring did not say “When I hear the word ‘culture,’ I reach for my gun”; and Muhammad Ali did not say “No Vietcong ever called me nigger.” Gordon Gekko, the character played by Michael Douglas in “Wall Street,” does not say “Greed is good”; James Cagney never says “You dirty rat” in any of his films; and no movie actor, including Charles Boyer, ever said “Come with me to the Casbah.” Many of the phrases for which Winston Churchill is famous he adapted from the phrases of other people, and when Yogi Berra said “I didn’t really say everything I said” he was correct.

From Notable Quotables by Louis Menand, in the New Yorker

The wonder of assembly lines (My day at Ford)

On my recent trip to Detroit, I saw many interesting things. I saw Jeff Gurney sing at the Red Ox Tavern in Utica (Not bad for a Tuesday). I stayed at the ritzy MGM Grand Detroit, a short walk from the emptiest downtown streets I’ve seen this year (Greektown and the Fox theater were fun though). I spoke at the surprisingly cool Lorenzo Cultural Center, as part of their month on American Ingenuity, where everyone is smart and friendly.

But the hands down highlight of the trip was my afternoon at the Ford Rouge factory tour.

Most factory tours aren’t tours. They’re PR fabrications. For years I’d stop at the Hershey factory ‘tour’, on my regular end of semester trip between CMU and NYC. It was cute and silly, with bad animatronics and cheezy movies about how cocoa beans eventually become hershey’s kisses. Not much of a tour, but a fun break on a long trip.

The Rouge factory tour (Rouge is the name of the nearby river) is the real deal. After a few short PR-ish films (kudos for a mention of Ford’s early union battles), you walk on an observation catwalk above the Ford F-150 assembly line – it’s the real thing. And it’s self guided. No photography is allowed, and cell phones are prohibited, but I spent an easy hour watching in fascination as people and machines worked in tandem to build cars.

The observation area is a catwalk above the factory floor, and you can walk around the entire perimeter. Kiosks tell you about each of the major areas you can look down to see and how each section works.

Workers stand on moving skids, traveling with each car until their tasks are done. Then they step off, and move back up to the next car. The line moved perhaps a foot or two every second. Not that fast to my naive eyes, but given the number of tasks each worker had to perform, it was impressive none the less. And the longer I watched the more impressive this pace seemed.

Most fascinating was the design of the line itself. Hundreds of details must be sorted for each car, and communicated to dozens of workers. Huge scoreboards showed the line status, but other terminals and indicators helped each section discover and track what needed to be done for each car. Designing a system like this involves a huge set of skills: interaction design, workflow, process, economics… the amount of thinking that goes into a line like this is hard to fathom. And the work involved by each person on the line, despite the automation and technology, was intricate, careful and precise. In just a few minutes of watching anyone on the line, I was reminded of how much effort goes in to make a single car, much less 1000 or so a day. It really did make me want to go buy a Ford F-150.

All these thoughts are, I’m sure, well beyond the dreams Ford had when he considered that how butchers work with meat in automated lines, might just be useful for assembling cars.

If ever you’re in the area, I highly recommend the tour. It was the most interesting hour I have spent watching things indoors in some time. Somehow watching software and new technology being made can never approximate the wonders of the construction of physical things.

Contest: The secret for spreading ideas? (prize: signed copy)

As part of the countdown to Myths of Innovation day (Oct 13th – sign-up here), we’re running trivia and other contests, with some fun and unusual prizes.  Some questions require looking at the free sample chapters found here (PDF).

The Prize:  A signed copy of the new paperback edition of Myths of Innovation.

Rules: anyone enters by leaving a comment – one winner will be chosen at random from correct entries.  I’m  the final arbiter of rules, including rulings about rules or rule like sub-rules, slide-rules, slides of all kinds, laws, by-laws, in-laws, laws about common law rules regarding the application of contest laws and sub-law rulings.

Ready? Here we go:

Some have complained the questions are to easy. Ok – try this one.

Question: Which of Rogers factors in Innovation diffusion is the hardest for an inventor to overcome? and why? (see chp 4 in the free sample)?

Trivia winners so far are…

For the first two days of trivia, the winners are:

Day 1 – What is the definition of ideas from chapter 12:

  • Winner for most original answer: Piet van Oostrum #
  • Winner for first correct answer: Eric #

Day 2 – Define the Innovators dilemma in own words:

  • Winner: Brian Yambe – “Getting better and better and solving a problem fewer people care about” #
  • Runner up, Michael:  “No one understands me!”

Brian’s answer isn’t what Clayton Christensen, or myself said, but i asked for in your own words and Brian delivered.

I have sent all the winners email – if you didn’t get it, let me know.

Today’s question will be posted within the hour.

Free Myths Webcast: Wed Oct 13th

As part of Myths of Innovation day, I’ll be doing a free, live webcast on all things innovation, Wed Oct 13th 2010, at 10am PST.

I’ll be talking about new material – using stuff from previous talks as little as possible. So we’re calling it Remixed and Remastered.

Description: With the release of the new paperback edition of the classic bestseller, The Myths of Innovation, Berkun is back with new stories, advice and inspirations based on the true history and present of innovation. Scott will share lessons and insights he’s learned from 3 years of traveling the world speaking about innovation to universities, corporations and start-ups great and small. If you’re sick of hype and bogus trends, and want to be inspired, educated and entertained by true tales of greatness, this webcast is for you (and your boss, and your boss’s boss, and your entire organization if they’re busy chasing myths). Send in your toughest questions, and Scott will work them into his presentation or answer in the extended Q&A.

When: Wed, October 13, 2010 10am PT
Where
:  wherever you are
What
: best free webcast on innovation ever (ok, at least this week)

Go here to register for the webcast

Questions you want me to answer? Have an issue something related to ideas, invention, innovation foo you want me to answer? Even a tough, tricky, uber-hard question or situation? Fire away.  If I use your question, you’ll get a free copy of the book.


Myths trivia #2: signed copy + $25 amazon giftcard

As part of the countdown to Myths of Innovation day (Oct 13th – sign-up here, or on facebook), we’re running trivia and other contests, with some fun and unusual prizes.  Some questions require looking at the free sample chapters found here (PDF).

The Prize:  A signed copy of the new paperback edition of Myths of Innovation.

Rules: anyone can enter by leaving a comment – one winner will be chosen at random from correct entries.  I am the final arbiter of all rules, including rulings about rules or rule like sub-rules, laws, by-laws, in-laws, laws about common law rules regarding the application of contest laws and sub-law rulings.

Ready? Here we go:

Question: In your own words, describe the innovators dilemma?  (Most entertaining answer wins)

Myths Trivia Contest: Win signed copy + prizes

As part of the countdown to Myths of Innovation day (Oct 13th – sign-up here), we’re running trivia and other contests, with some fun and unusual prizes.  Some questions require looking at the free sample chapters found here (PDF).

The Prize:  A signed copy of the new paperback edition of Myths of Innovation.

Rules: anyone can enter by leaving a comment – one winner will be chosen at random from correct entries.  I am the final arbiter of all rules, including rulings about rules or rule like sub-rules, laws, by-laws, in-laws, laws about common law rules regarding the application of contest laws and sub-law rulings.

Ready? Here we go:

Question: What is the definition of an idea offered in Chapter 12 (see chp 12 in the free sample)?

Winners announced here.

Myths of Innovation Trivia: Get it right, win a signed copy, plus a $25 amazon.com gift certificate.

The make vs. consume ratio

Years ago I realized the pleasure of spending a few bucks to see something that cost $100 million or more to make. It’s a special bargain when you realize hundreds of people spent years making something you can watch in just over an hour. A novel which takes a few hours to read, might have taken years or a lifetime to write, and that compression of effort, when you stop to think about it, adds meaning to all created things. Even if ordinarily you might not like result of that work.

As a maker (e.g. writer) I’ve learned there’s an available mindset when watching, reading or using something: I can think not only as a consumer but also as creator. Why did they design it this way? What were they thinking here? How many meetings did it take to decide that shot? Or that plot twist? What were they trying to do, and how do I imagine they considered the result? Even for a bad film, this framing can make the experience quite different and often much better. Even for a bad experience, given the amount of effort that went into it, I can find it interesting or educational for reasons other than the consumer experience alone.

Matt Mullenweg (who is currently was my boss), wrote this a few months ago:

I wonder if there could be some sort of metric for writing that told you the ratio of time-to-create versus time-to-consume. On Twitter it’s basically 1:1, you can craft and consume a tweet in a time measured in seconds. For this blog post, it may take me an hour to write it and 5 minutes to read (not skim) it. You can work your way all the way up through 8-10,000 word essays, and books that may take years and years (or a lifetime) to create.

I’ve thought about this in various forms over the years.  Sometimes it’s hard to guess at the true ratio: I do know writers who agonize over tweets, in the same way poets suffered offer their short poems. Some great works were easy to do (if you don’t include the time required to learn the trade), and some awful works took years of hard work.

Regarding the ratio: It seems the greatest relationship is likely in old cathedrals, which took hundreds of people dozens of years to make. Films, in terms of expense, are hard to beat: years of effort at (often) hundreds of millions per year.

Any thoughts on other ratios, or better ways to formulate the ratio?

Mark the Date: Oct 13th Myths of Innovation day

The new edition of Myths is out, but I’ve been keeping quiet about it (shhhhhh).

Why? Plans are in the works.A small team and I are crafting some fun PR plans for the book in the month of October.

One big plan I can tell you about: Wed Oct 13th is Myths of Innovation day. The goal is to see how high we can get the amazon rank for the book to go. Interested in helping? Here’s what you can do.

  1. If you blog, plan to write a post about the book on Oct 13th
  2. Plan to post on facebook/twitter with a link to the book on Oct 13th (Facebook event here)
  3. Ask other bloggers/fb’ers you know to do the same
  4. Consider buying the book as a gift for a friend, on Oct 13th
  5. Sign up for the Free Webcast, 10 am PST

I’ll link back to all of #1 and #2 that I can – everyone wins!

Please mark your calendar! Over the next week I’ll be explain all the fun stuff we’re doing, including prizes, competitions, events and other fun, but wanted to announce the date. Hope you’ll help.

Leave a comment if you can do any of the above – then I can follow up with you if necessary. Cheers!

Book Review: Where Good Ideas Come From

Sometimes life provides happy surprises. I contacted Steven Johnson this summer asking for a blurb for the new edition of The Myths of Innovation – I knew he was a fan of my book from years ago. He provided the blurb, which was great, but the surprise was, after a brief conversation, he asked me to read a late draft of his latest book and give some feedback. An honor indeed, so I said yes. And this brief review is based on that version.

I’ve read dozens and dozens of books on innovation. People send them to me often or ask for blurbs, and as you might guess, there is a kind of innovation fatigue: there’s only so many things to say and so many ways to say them, and the more you read on a subject, the less surprises you expect to find. I didn’t start reading WGICF with particular enthusiasm for the topic for this reason, other than for the fact I had the honor of a preview from the author and a chance to give feedback.

The refreshing surprise is how well Johnson writes. Early on he shows his talent for finding interesting angles on old stories, and his opening chapter about Darwin is both compelling and novel. Unlike The Myths of Innovation, where I used the truth about great stories to teach skills applicable in life, WGICF runs on a different balance – it’s more about science than business, and the stories hunt ways to think about ideas, rather than to generate or apply specific ones in the world. One of WGICF’s strongest themes is comparing ecosystems for how life develops, with the organic nature of how ideas develop, a fascinating comparison on many levels, and one my hero Loren Eisley would surely be fond of.

The sub-title is exceptionally precise (most sub-titles read like afterthoughts pushed by the marketing committee), and almost makes for a better title for the book: the natural history of innovation. Nature, science and history are main characters here. The book is a narrative through ways of thinking about how ideas, and the natural systems that generate them, can be categorized and understood (The adjacent possible giving a name to something I’ve thought about for some time).  It’s a fresh, wonderfully written book that, to my surprise, I greatly enjoyed. I didn’t agree with all of Johnson’s conclusions, but where we disagree challenged me to think hard about why, and that’s part of the gift of an excellent book.

Available for pre-order on Amazon

Excerpt here

Help wanted: Berkun promotion team

It’s time to ask for some help.

A volunteer team is forming to spread the word about my work. If you have pr or marketing experience that’s awesome, but anyone with a half-hour here or there can make a huge difference. For starters we’re focusing on PR for the new edition of the Myths of Innovation.

If you a fan, or have energy to invest in getting more folks to read my work, join this google group: Berkun promotion team.

People who help most will get signed copies of my books, a fancy dinner on me next time I’m in your town, and other special fun unique things. The work itself is likely to be quite fun – we’ll do some crazy things and see what happens.

Teams are forming around twitter/facebook projects, pitching bloggers to do book reviews, and more. Hope you’ll join and lend a hand.

Thanks.

Ira Glass live: review

I saw Ira Glass, of This American Life (TAL) fame, speak recently in Seattle at Benaroya Hall.  Years ago I met him backstage at a conference in NYC. He’s tall. and thin. And very funny, nice and slightly sarcastic all at the same time.  We chatted about my sacred NYC places tour, which he seemed both entertained and baffled by. Very human and friendly, much like what you’d expect him to be based on TAL.

In Seattle  he spoke for nearly two hours, giving a mix of backstories about episodes from the show, theories on storytelling and journalism, and answering audience questions. He did a fantastic job. Without any slides, or props (other than the desk), he let the stories and his ideas speak  for themselves.

On stage, he sat behind a large desk, reminding me for some reason of John Cleese’s regular setup on Monty Python. With a mixing board and CD player, he played segments from the show, as well as music underneath his own monologues. Somehow the fact he was sitting down drew the audience in more, reminiscent of Spalding Grey’s monologue style (sample here).

He closed the show talking about the ancient tale Scheherazade (1001 nights), and this riff on the power of storytelling:

What the story is about, among other things, is what narrative does to us. A back door to a very deep place in us. A place where reason doesn’t necessarily hold sway… We live in a very odd cultural moment where from the moment we wake up till the moment we go to bed we are bombarded with stories like no one who has ever lived. And I mean everything on the radio, everything on TV, every ad, every billboard, every song, all the little videos on the internet, it’s like story, story, story. And for me it’s like the number of stories I encounter over the course of a day, so many of them it seems like the colors are too bright, and the thoughts are partial, and its rare that I can imagine what it’d be like if i were in that situation.

Stories that are done well enough that we can even empathize, and that touch you, it’s rare still somehow… and we live in such a divided country, and world, where we so rarely get inside each others lives, especially people who live different from us, I think like anything that helps with that is probably a good thing. Not just like the news, or information, but stories that take you inside someone’s experience, because that’s what stories can do like nothing else can. And that’s what we shoot for on the show.

If you’ve never heard the show, get started here (It’s apparently the #1 podcast in America). There’s also a TV show, based on the series.

‘UX professional’ isn’t a real job?

Lots of fun was stirred up by this recent post, ‘UX professional’ isn’t a real job.  Which I think was sparked by this tweet:

The post isn’t much longer than the tweet. And it’s popular. Which testifies mostly to two things:

  1. Some people are very sensitive about job titles.
  2. People in the UX/design/etc world might win the prize for most sensitive.

If ever you want a popular blog post – post about how “UX doesn’t exist” or “interaction designers are kitten kicking liars” and you’ll be well on your way. These are passionate, if perhaps touchy, people.

For decades now people who work in various aspects of UI/UX/IA/Usability/kitchen sink/Interaction design/graphic design related work have agonized, fought, debated, resisted, modified, abbreviated, and debated again the names they use for their work and the roles. It’s an old wound and this jabs at the stitches.

An easy way to spot people with identity issues, or professions that feel marginalized and vulnerable, is how much drama they make about what they call themselves and what other groups of people call them. More telling perhaps is how much in-fighting and factionalism there is among groups with largely the same ambitions, rhetoric, and in some cases, members. They’re good at human computer interaction, but human to human interaction seems lost on them.

In the end, they’re just words. People who are busy with clients don’t worry so much about words (and they also have fewer slashes in their job description).  If you provide great value to your clients, they’ll hire you no matter what you’re called. Provide little value to clients and you could call yourself God and still not get hired. Actually, calling yourself God (“I am the GOD of UX, hire me or I shall smite you”) is likely a very bad way to get a job, but that’s a story for another post.

Case in point: If someone were to say “Doctor is a bullshit job title“, few doctors would care. The fact that they think they’re doctors, and their patients pay them for doctoring, and everyone is happy with the result, proves that it’s not a bullshit title for the people actually involved.

In the case of the actual post (‘UX professional’ isn’t a real job), it does have some points. I agree that in the ideal world, there is just making: makers of things for people should know not only the technologies of making, but the skills of how to design things to be easy to use. All engineers and craftsmen and makers and managers who decide issues that effect customers should understand this stuff – but that’s in the ideal world, a place I’ve yet to find.

But there are simpler issues worth calling out:

  1. I don’t know anyone who calls themselves a UX professional.  Is that real a title on someones business card? I’ve never seen it. So on that I agree. Doesn’t t having a business, or a business card, make you a professional?
  2. We forget (only some) people are much better than others at everything. There are some developers who can do everything. These people don’t understand why specialists are needed – because mostly they don’t need them. Unfortunately most people in most fields are not good at everything. The average web developer, or writer, or anything, has many skill gaps, despite the fact that it is their profession. Their recognition of their limitations is good – for the client and the client’s customers.
  3. We tend to be myopic in our experience.  The client world, and the in-house world, are different things (the author does try to clarify this in the post). It’s easy to think all projects in the world are similiar to the ones you tend to do. It’s hard to imagine how a 500 person team functions if you mostly work on teams of 5. Without exposure to other kinds of work, or work for other kinds of clients, the notion of specialized roles or tasks is unimaginable, and for many people the unimaginable is lumped in with the stupid, dumb, unnecessary or wrong. A few minutes of thought reveals specialization is in all of our lives: doctors, restaurants, etc.  Nothing wrong with that.  Some buffets in the world have amazing food of all kinds, but more often, if you want the best at a specialized thing, you’re better off going to a specialist for it.
  4. Everyone thinks they’re great at something they suck at.It has happened dozens of times to me where someone tells me (e.g. talking)  how great they are at design, or making easy to use things, or basketball, or singing, and they when I witness them doing that thing (e.g. doing), I quickly realize they suck. Sometimes they’re just very confused, but other times they’ve simply never seen someone do better than what they do, even if what they do is damn mediocre. Reading the comments, I’m sure this is true for many on the thread. There’s a wide range of what it means to be good, or good enough, or having a clue at all. Talking about design pretends everyone has the same notion, but we don’t. The notion ‘good enough’ has, I suspect a very wide range.

I’m fond of simply calling myself a writer. There should be a verb in your job. Usability engineers are really analysts or consultants. Designers of all flavors are, surprise, designers. Information architects are planners. If they are expected to be leaders beyond their specialization, then add the word lead. And on it could go. one word, preferably a verb, and we’re done.  The pretense is fancier titles better convey the role, but I think that’s the real bullshit. Simpler titles, based on a verb, would be way more useful for clients or co-workers in figuring out what you can do for them.

However the competitive realities of the professional world incents all kinds of inflation and stupidity – every industry has its share of odd, weird, redundant and misleading job titles, and the tech world is not immune. But the wise realize job titles are not the problem. Instead it’s the skills and motivations of the people involved on your project, a challenge no amount of title-wrangling will ever solve.

Is your book idea good? (Yes, I promise)

“If you write for yourself, you’ll always have an audience.” -Bruce Springsteen

“We can secure other people’s approval if we do right and try hard; but our own is worth a hundred of it, and no way has been found out of securing that.” – Mark Twain

It will take many hours to write a book. Therefore, you should write about something you, the writer, finds interesting.  Why not please yourself?

“Will anyone care about my story?” people ask. Yes – you. It starts with you. Many people with an idea want an authority to tell them their idea is worthy. Why is approval necessary? You are the one who is going to do all the work. No matter what support you get, or don’t, it will still be you that must put in many hours. If you think you want to write a book, than do it. I think you should, simply because you are thinking about it.

However, if you want a guarantee that you will sell thousands of copies, that’s a marketing problem, not a writing problem. You solve a marketing problem by studying how to market and sell books, which is a different skill from writing them. If you want a guarantee that you’ll be famous, that’s an ego problem, and also has little to do with writing. Writing is just a kind of work. Only you can decide you care enough about your idea to do the (writing) work required.

If you think your story can help people, that’s excellent. But it’s unlikely that you’d be the first to write about:

  • Being a recovering drug addict
  • Surviving divorce
  • Starting a successful company
  • Learning a major life lesson the hard/easy/fun way
  • Or whatever story, fictional or true, you want to write about

If you primarily want to help people, a far easier way is to find good books that already exist and convince more people to read them. The authors of those books will be grateful, and the readers who connect with them will be too. Writing a book yourself is the long way to go in helping other people.

If you’re thinking of writing, do some homework: does a book like yours exist? It probably does. The question then is: how is your story is different?  Or can you tell a similar story in a better way? Or aimed at a different audience? You’ll be a better writer if you become a better reader first. But of course independent of what others have done, you can decide you want to write your book anyway. You’ll learn much about yourself if you do. It’s an excellent investment of time, but only if you think it is too.

I say don’t wait for permission. Permission on creative matters is for cowards. Just write a draft of a single chapter and see what happens. Maybe it will be awful. Maybe wonderful. Who knows? No one. Not until you get off your ass and make the thing. Writing is easy bravery. No lives are at stake. You’re not doing heart surgery or charging across flaming trenches. Pick up the pen, go to the keyboard, and use your words. No one will see but you – why be afraid of yourself?  If you care about the idea for the book, do it. If you find it worthwhile or meaningful, that’s enough. Your idea is good because it’s yours, and it means something to you.

If in the end only one other person on the planet gets value from what you make, that alone justifies your efforts. That person might be a close friend, a distant stranger, or possibly even yourself, years later, when you rediscover this amazing thing you made, amazing simply because you made it. Your book idea is good because it’s yours. Whatever it is it’s good enough to be the book that you write. If an idea lingers in your mind, and won’t leave you alone, just do it. The only chance for sanity is to get the idea out of your mind and down on paper or on a screen.

If you think the story should be told, whether it’s yours, your Mom’s, or your imaginary friend Rupert’s, you are the only person in the world capable of telling it in the way you have it in your mind. Fiction, non-fiction, memoir, fantasy, a play, a novella, a blog, first person, third, a third person fantasy novella about Smurf memoirs, who cares? Form is a distraction. Certainly at first, and maybe always.

“All fiction is derivative, a fact that the good writer turns to his advantage, making the most of reader’s expectations, twisting old conventions, satisfying expectations in unexpected ways. “ – John Gardner, The Art of Fiction

So what if your idea is not original. The last 2000 years of literature is mostly borrowed from Sophocles and his buddies, or Shakespeare, or the ancient myths. It’s clear the telling of the tale can be more potent than the tale itself.  And for those ignorant of the books you’ve read, your story, however trite to you, might just blow their mind.

Don’t pester others for validation before you’ve written a word. Instead ask them to support your excitement and passion, for they can do that no matter how little sense your idea makes to them. Feedback? Sure. But feedback on an idea is mostly worthless. What confirmation do you need, or could you possibly get, for your own interest in an idea? The only way to know if an idea is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is to do something with it.

And if you make it, and others don’t like it, you’re in good company. No author or artist has made something everyone likes. And for many authors and artists their friends were their only fans in their lifetimes.

Ideas can seem to tease us in our minds – they hover out of reach, too far for mere thinking to knock them on their ass. It’s only the act of making an idea real, through writing, drawing, filming or other manifested work  that we pin ideas down long enough to discover what they can or cannot be in the world. Many will crumble. Some will disappoint. Some might need to linger again in our minds, for weeks or years. But the glory is that in every attempt there are new seeds to plant elsewhere. There is always more. People who never make anything don’t know this, but there is always more. You lose nothing by making. If your idea fades, before it disappears it will help you find others.

It’s only through effort that we learn what an idea actually is, and if our passion for it will last or fade. There is no shame in failure – all makers fail. But it’s hard to respect someone who never tries, even once, to do something good that’s always on their mind. If you’re worried about how good your idea is, you’re worrying about the wrong thing.

Get started. It’s the only way. If this essay doesn’t get convince you, and yet you keep thinking about writing, this might explain why.

Or if you want to begin, go here.

[edited 12-5-15]