Get It Right The First Time

For those who know and read science fiction, you know what a giant Harlan Ellison was and still is in that genre. Even if you’ve never read anything by Ellison, you know the name.

Ellison was born 27 May 1934 in the city I grew up in: Cleveland, Ohio. He died on 27 June 2018 at the age of 84 in Los Angeles, California. His first publishing credits came in 1949 and started a long and prolific career.

Ellison was born too late to be part of the pulp magazine scene, as the pulp mags were dying out about the time he started his writing career. Yet the way in which he worked was very much in the manner of the pulp fiction writers.

I must confess that I haven’t read any of Ellison’s work. By the time I became acquainted with his name, my reading of science fiction was on the wane. However, I was very interested in an article Eric Leif Davin sent out to the members of PulpMags@groups.io on Ellison’s work habits. Because I’m very much interested in why some writers are able to maintain high quality and yet be exceedingly prolific in their output, and how is it they are so prolific in the first place.

One of the things that creative writing teachers teach and the publishing industry itself promotes is the virtue of re-writing. Yet virtually every prolific writer does not re-write. They simply don’t have time. They get it right the first time. Or at least mostly so.

Mr Davin began his article noting two points about Ellison’s writing:

Harlan Ellison produced first drafts quickly, and there was nothing careless or thoughtless about them. If you’d like to read one of his first drafts, just read any of his stories. What you see is what he wrote, first time, last time. 

Harlan Ellison was a fast writer and did not re-write. He got the story right the first time. In this, he was no different than such prolific wordsmiths as William Wallace Cook, Edgar Wallace, Hugh B Cave, H Bedford-Jones, Max Brand, or Dean Wesley Smith (although Smith calls himself a three-draft writer).

Mr Davin goes on in his article to say how he watched Harlan Ellison sit in a bookstore window and type a story from start to finish from noon to five each day. Ellison had been doing that for a week. At the end of the day, Ellison would give the typescript to one of the bookstore clerks who would duplicate it and give a copy to whoever wanted one if the person bought $10 worth of books. Davin got a copy and when the story was published, verified not a single word had been changed from the typescript. And Mr Davin was not alone in this assertion. Editor and author Ted White confirmed that this was how Ellison worked.

Five hours, one story. That’s prolific. Five hours, one story, no re-writing. That’s knowing what you want to write about.

It’s my opinion that we writers listen to the advice of people who do not make their living by writing fiction. We accept as sacred shibboleths the words of creative writing teachers who make their money by teaching — but generally have few or no publishing credits of any consequence to their name. As George Bernard Shaw wrote: those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.

For myself, I’d rather listen to those who know the business. They are themselves writers and writers who make money from their writing. People like Dean Wesley Smith, or H Bedford-Jones, or William Wallace Cook, or Erle Stanley Gardner. Or Harlan Ellison.

Mr Davin wrote that after sitting in the bookstore window for five hours typing, Ellison was eager to talk to people and would answer questions.

A female reporter from a local college newspaper asked him the first question: “Why do you write just one draft?”

“Because I get it right the first time,” Harlan answered. 

Mr Davin went on to note:

After a few others asked similar questions, I ventured my own: “Are there any circumstances under which you can’t write?”

“Absolutely none,” Harlan replied. “If you’re a true writer, you can write under any conditions…in the middle of a party, riding in a car, in a store window, anywhere.”

That is an amazing statement. A true writer can write anywhere.

As I write this, I’m putting Ellison’s statement to the test. I’m visiting my dad who likes to listen to music and is hard of hearing, even with his hearing aids.

I certainly don’t want to tell the old guy that he can’t listen to his music because I’m writing and like it quiet when I write. And I certainly don’t want to have a non-productive week by not writing. Nor do I want to insult him by putting in my ear plugs and donning my ear muffs to keep out the noise.

So I just write. And you know what? Ellison was right.

Mr Davin complicated his question with a follow up. Outlining an impossible writing situation; at least impossible for most of us. Ellison responded:

“You can write one paragraph, or one sentence, sitting by yourself on the toilet. If you do that every time you go to the bathroom, it adds up. Or you can go into a closet, shut the door, turn on a light, and write. Proust wrote “Remembrance of Things Past” in a small closet. It was cork-lined to keep out the noise, but it was a closet.

A writer writes. And, if you really are a writer, nothing can stop you. You’ll write anywhere, under any conditions, you’ll just do it. It’s that simple.”

So what can we take away from Mr Davin’s article on Harlan Ellison’s writing?

I think it is this:

      • Writers write. They don’t make excuses. They just write.
      • Writers don’t need to re-write. They just need to get it right the first time.
      • Write fast. By writing quickly, one captures the muse’s inspiration before it evaporates. The work generated from the creative side of the brain is always better than the work from the critical side of the brain.

I know writers, including some who are to me very dear people, who spend more time giving excuses for not writing than they spend in writing. Now I can understand that. Because I was one of them.

But I broke out of that self-defeating dynamic thanks to an article by Lawrence Block in Writer’s Digest. It was the most valuable advice I ever got out of that magazine. We procrastinate, make excuses, for a reason. Find the reason, conquer it, and you will no longer procrastinate. 

I no longer procrastinate. I did so because I was afraid of failure and affirming my parents’s opinion of me that I’d never make it as a writer.

I got rid of that fear once I realized that what they thought didn’t matter. I discovered that only what I thought mattered. Since coming to that realization, I’ve been writing like a crazy man. And I’ve discovered that there are people out there who like what I write. The naysayers are rarely right.

Ellison was on the money: writer’s write.

Ellison was also on the money when he said: no writer needs to re-write. Just get it right the first time.

I can say that I am mostly there. My first draft is basically the story. I do some tweaking and minor editing, but nothing major is ever changed. One does not need to re-write to make the story better. Write in the heat of the creative brain. And follow Heinlein: don’t re-write (that is, keep the critical brain out of it), unless an editor tells you to.

I found Mr Davin’s article to be profoundly inspirational. Harlan Ellison was living proof that all those sacred shibboleths are merely words. Follow them if you want. But you don’t have to. And you might end up a better writer if you don’t.

Comments are always welcome! And until next time, happy one-draft writing!

Share This!
Facebooktwitterpinterest

Plagiarism and Ghostwriting

This past week I got two emails from writers referencing the Brazilian romance writer who employed ghostwriters to produce books for him or her. (I don’t know the writer’s gender.) Apparently, the writer was trying to feed reader demand. In the process, it seems the ghostwriters plagiarized the works of some 20 authors.

I feel sorry for the Brazilian. He or she was trying to meet reader demand and make a buck and got burned.

In the wake of this scandal, writers, it seems, have been impugning the age old practice of ghostwriting. One of the writers who sent me an email even went so far as to call ghostwriting dishonest when it comes to fiction. But not nonfiction. That logical disconnect I don’t understand. 

Whether we’re speaking of ghostwriting fiction or nonfiction, the so called author is claiming the work is his or her own creation, when in fact it isn’t. Or is to only a minimal degree. Logically, if ghostwriting is immoral for fiction it should also be immoral for nonfiction. Either the practice is immoral or it isn’t.

Plagiarism

Personally, I think plagiarism is wrong. Just like I think reproducing a Chippendale and then trying to pass it off as the woodworker’s original work, or even as an original Chippendale, is also wrong. Plagiarism = Forgery.

In Western culture, at least modern Western culture, we respect the original work of the artist and seek to preserve the creator’s right to earn money from that work if he or she so chooses.

However, I do think this attitude is peculiar to contemporary Western culture. It wasn’t always that way in our past. And other cultures don’t necessarily share our view. But that is a discussion for another post.

But where does plagiarism stop? Is it plagiarism if one sentence gets copied? I suppose it can legally be called plagiarism, even though the copier didn’t steal the entire work of the other author and pass it off as his or her own. And the “stealing” of one sentence hardly threatens the creator’s livelihood. 

Nevertheless, we don’t look kindly on that sort of thing. We want creators to be 100% original. Which, of course, is impossible. There is nothing new under the sun, the Preacher reminds us.

It is interesting how attitudes change. In the Baroque period, copying another musician’s work, with the intent to improve upon it, was common practice.

Bach copied (or transcribed, if one prefers) numerous concerti of Vivaldi and other composers. The Bach transcriptions were for organ and harpsichord. The originals were for string instruments. To my ear, the Bach transcriptions didn’t improve much, if any, on Vivaldi’s original work. Was Bach in fact a plagiarist? Probably by our standards. He would have been hounded out of today’s music industry. His work banned. Hm. Something to think about.

But in those days, thoughts on creativity were different. Composers even borrowed from themselves! Because they were often under tremendous pressure to produce. They were after all employees, for the most part.

In the Baroque period ideas were free for all to improve upon. By today’s standard, however, almost all of the composers in that era would be guilty of plagiarism.

Back then, copying each other’s work was how new musical forms were shared and musical styles spread. This sharing, in an attempt to always improve, wasn’t considered plagiarism. And thanks to Bach’s “plagiarism” we rediscovered Vivaldi and his massive body of wonderful music.

Very interesting how times have changed. Isn’t it?

Ghostwriting

Hiring someone to create a work of art is a time honored practice. A ghostwriter is simply a writer who is willing to write something for you for a fee. It is a form of work for hire. The ghostwriter gets paid, and the one doing the hiring gets his or her name on the work as the author.

To suggest that there is something morally evil about ghostwriting fiction is to announce to the world one’s lack of understanding what a work for hire is.

Alexandre Dumas used many assistants and collaborators — none of which, to my knowledge, got their names on the covers of his books. Does that bother any of us today when we read a novel by Dumas? I hardly think so. It certainly didn’t bother the readers then, who couldn’t wait for his next novel to appear.

HP Lovecraft ghosted short stories for Hazel Heald and Zealia Bishop. Were those women immoral for asking Lovecraft to do so? Was Lovecraft immoral for accepting the jobs? I think all three were satisfied with the arrangements that were made. The women got their stories, and Lovecraft got money that he badly needed.

Or what about Kipling and Haggard? Those two fast friends often spent the day writing together. If one got stuck, the other helped his friend out. So how much of Kipling is Kipling and how much of Haggard is Haggard? I suppose we’ll never know.

There is nothing wrong with ghostwriting or with claiming a ghostwritten novel is yours. It’s the very nature of work that is contracted for hire. 

For the ghosts, our friendly Caspers, it’s often a good deal. A ghost can earn up to $25,000 (or even more) per book — which is far more money than most writers ever make on a book. The person for whom the ghost wrote the book will probably never get his or her money back. If anything, hiring a ghost is probably closer to financial stupidity than immorality.

Derek Murphy has a very good blogpost on this subject. It’s well worth your time to read.

Pressure to Produce

Sometime ago a writer was publicly complaining he’d like to take a break. He was tired. I urged him to do so. He replied he couldn’t because he needed the money and his fans wouldn’t let him.

He sounds like a candidate for burnout if I ever heard one.

But the pressure to produce, especially for those writers who are selling their work in sufficient quantity to pay the rent and put food on the table, is considerable. Even to the detriment of one’s health.

It is true the indie mantra is to write fast, write lots, and publish often. If you want a chance at making money.

Why? Because the world of indie writers and readers is the 21st-century version of the pulp fiction era. Success came to the pulp writers of the ‘20s, ‘30s, and ‘40s by following the above formula.

For example, Erle Stanley Gardner wrote 100,000 words a month, month after month while holding down a full-time job as a partner in a law firm. He assigned himself that grueling word count because he wanted to ditch the law job. Which he eventually did.

William Wallace Cook produced many hundreds of works of fiction, drama, and poetry for over 20 years to put food on his table and a roof over his head. Writing was his only source of income. He’d quit his job when one month the payments for his stories were greater than his paycheck. He tells his story (under a pen name) in his book The Fiction Factory.

H. Bedford-Jones was called King of the Pulps (until he passed the title to Gardner) due to his prolificity.

Edgar Wallace, who was dictating complete novels in 3 days back before World War I, was at one point said to have penned a quarter of the novels published in Britain.

Before them there was Anthony Trollope, the Victorian Writing Machine. While working full time for the post office, Trollope wrote 2,500 words in 2 1/2 hours every day. That’s 912,500 words/year. Trollope felt that was enough for any writer. And even when Trollope quit the post office, he never wrote for more than 2 1/2 hours each day.

Also keep in mind, one secret of Trollope’s prolificity was that he didn’t revise. He wrote finished text. When the final word of the novel was penned, he simply sent it to the publisher.

And Lawrence Block, for an example from the post-pulp era, wrote over a hundred novels under pen names during the ‘50s and ‘60s before he started to make it to the big time. Under his own name, he has produced dozens of books to put a roof over his head and food on his table. Writing has been his only job for his entire adult life.

In today’s pop fiction world, demand for books seems insatiable. Some writers write fast enough to keep up with demand. Others cannot.

If a writer has a great idea for a novel, but realizes he or she may not get around to writing it, and gives that idea to a ghost — what is wrong with the practice? The writer is happy, the ghost is happy, and the reader is happy.

How is ghosting any different than when a big-name writer, who has an idea for a book or a series, asks someone to write it for him or her? And then shares the authorship — thereby promoting the less well known writer? The big name writer probably had little input into the work, but that doesn’t stop us from reading.

What is wrong with either scenario? It seems to me this is a win-win situation.

In a very real sense, it is readers who are driving writers to produce faster and faster. Because readers want books!

Where I’m At

I think plagiarizing entire books or sizable chunks of a book is wrong. When it gets down to words and sentences, I think things start to get very gray. But best to play it safe and not copy.

Plagiarizing ideas is an even trickier area. After all, there is nothing new under the sun.

Many authors copied the Cthulhu mythos and added to it. Were they plagiarizing? I don’t know. Lovecraft, himself, was okay with it. He didn’t seem to think it was plagiarizing. On the other hand, if he had, then the Cthulhu mythos probably would have died with him.

Still, to be on the safe side, it’s undoubtedly best not to copy an idea as elucidated by a particular writer without the writer’s permission. Unless the writer who’s copying is going to personalize it to the degree that the idea becomes “new”. Or at least unrecognizable as to its origin.

Concerning ghostwriting, I don’t think it’s wrong. Would I use a ghost? No. Why? Because I love the process of writing. Hiring a ghost would deny me what I enjoy most.

I’m interested in your thoughts. Comments are always welcome! And until next time, happy reading!

Share This!
Facebooktwitterpinterest

Four Years

November marks my four year anniversary as an independent author-publisher. And they’ve been four super wonderful years. I’m very much looking forward to year 5.

I’ve published 28 books, with number 29 coming out by year’s end. If I’d gone the traditional publishing route, I might still be looking for an agent. Screw traditional publishing. It’s the indie life for me!

Now I’d love to write that I just bought that Rolls Royce I’ve always dreamed of owning with my royalties from this year. Unfortunately, my desire has greatly outpaced my earnings.

Am I disappointed? I’d be a liar if I said I wasn’t. But I’m only disappointed a teeny-weeny bit. Why? Because I have 28 books, soon to be 29, available for people to enjoy. I’m making some money. And people, at least some people, like my stories. Plus I’m doing what I always wanted to do and loving it. What more can one ask for?

I’ve learned a lot these past four years and I’m hoping the next four years will at least allow me to buy a Ford Focus. 🙂

While all that sounds optimistic, fundamentally I’m a pragmatist. In the end, what works is what counts. I’ve read dozens of books, articles, and blogposts by writers as to what works and what doesn’t. I don’t focus on the fads or the gimmicks or the golden parachutes. I look at what truly works.

For indie writers, there is one refrain that has been constantly sounded by virtually all the successful writers — and it’s simple: write fast, write in series, publish often, and build a mailing list. Those 4 things are what virtually all successful indie authors have done and are doing.  Sure there are exceptions. But they are the exceptions.

If you are an indie writer and aren’t writing fast, aren’t writing one or more series, if you aren’t publishing often, and you aren’t building a mailing list — then you will almost certainly fail. It doesn’t matter how good your writing is. Indie readers want lots of books, because they tend to be voracious readers, and they want them in series. It’s that simple.

Self-publishing today is easy and gaining in respectability. And I’m glad. For anyone who wants to write and publish a book, now that person can. There are no longer any gatekeepers stopping people. We can tell the world whatever is on our hearts and minds. We can tell the world all the stories we want to. And that is a good thing.

Marketing, however, remains the bugaboo — for both indies and the big corporate publishers.

Finding one’s audience is the real challenge for any artist or entertainer who hopes to make a living producing art. And fiction writers are both artist and entertainer. And this is where a mailing list can help the writer. Because a mailing list is really a list of those who like your work, or are at least interested. You won’t get that from Amazon or Apple or Barnes and Noble. They keep the email addresses to themselves.

Marketing in some form is essential to getting our name and our work out in front of potential readers and buyers. A mailing list is simply a voluntarily captive audience, as it were. There are other forms of marketing, and they should be used. But you writers, don’t neglect the mailing list.

For the curious, I’ve earned the following royalties for my efforts:

2014 (2 months) $113.48

2015   $233.87

2016   $231.04

2017   $212.53

2018 (through October) $280.53

Those earnings came from the sale of 513 books, 35 borrows, and 23,202 page reads.

As you can see, I’m no mega-star. No bestseller. No award winner. But I’m not ashamed of those numbers. Thus far I’ve achieved all that with but 4 weeks of paid advertising done at the beginning of this year. The bulk of my sales and page reads came from free advertising venues.

My fan base is tiny. And I do mean tiny. But it’s a start and I continue to be excited and encouraged with every sale and page read.

For the coming year I’m going to focus on the indie formula for success. I plan on writing lots, at least 1,000 finished words a day and hopefully I can push that to 2,000 or 2,500 on a consistent basis.

The old pulp formula, which is now the indie formula, is alive and well. Publishing 3 books in 3 months proved it to me. It’s what has given me my best year ever. I had sustained sales for 4 months after the third book was published. If I’d had more ready to go… Who knows, I might have been a bestseller.

I’m also going to work on building my mailing list. I’m a believer in the 1,000 fan theory. Which is this: all an artist needs is 1,000 super fans (those folks who will buy whatever you put out — books, recordings, cups, sweatshirts, etc.) to make a living from his art.

To find those fans, I’ll be using such avenues as Prolific Works and BookFunnel: giving away a free copy of a story in exchange for an email. The process is slow and tedious. Many unsubscribe right away. Many drop off in the first few months, and many never open an email. I’ll cull from the list those who are unresponsive. Leaving the folks who are hopefully interested in my books.

I love writing. I love being retired so I have the freedom to write all day if I choose. I wouldn’t have it any other way. Life is grand.

Comments are always welcome. And until next time, happy reading!

Share This!
Facebooktwitterpinterest