Side Jobs (a book review post)

This is Dresden book 12.5. At least, that's usually how it's listed. It falls in between Changes (book 12) and Ghost Story (book 13), but, as suggested by the ".5" designation, it is not a novel. It is, in fact, a collection of short stories that fall within the series as a whole with only the final story falling in between books 12 and 13.

This book is a good reason why I don't generally tend to care for short stories and why I don't generally care to like first person very much.

So let's have a writing lesson (yeah, I know it's a book review, but I can't talk about this issue without the writing lesson):

First person is seductive, especially to the beginning writer. It's easy and it feels natural. But, see, it's a trap. When you're writing in first person, the author isn't writing from his/her voice, s/he's writing from the character's voice. The problem, then, is that most authors can't differentiate between their own voice and their characters'. And, you know, that's fine as long as you only ever write the one character in first person. But that's not what usually happens, and it's not what happened here.

Butcher's been writing Dresden a long time. Dresden's voice is distinct. But, see, it's that seduction of the young writer to write in first person, and Dresden's voice is really Butcher's (which is why we get the occasional preachy episode in the Dresden books). It hadn't occurred to me nor would I have ever noticed if Butcher hadn't decided to write from some other characters' POVs in these short stories.

There's a story from the POV of Thomas and, other than that Thomas reminds us that it's him, the story reads just like it's from the POV of Harry. Sure, it's an interesting story with all of the Oblivion War stuff in it, but Butcher should have switched to third person so that it didn't feel like Harry talking.

And there's a story from the POV of Murphy which is only differentiated by the fact that she spends a lot of time talking about Harry and that there are sections describing her hand-to-hand fighting. However, those sections have the exact same feel as Harry describing how he uses magic, essentially making it the same voice. The only other thing is the reference to men speaking Martian, but it's not enough to set the piece apart from all of the Dresden pieces.

A first person character voice should be as distinctive as listening to someone speak in person. Butcher doesn't pull that off, which was more than a little disappointing.

Then, there is the issue that the stories are of vastly variable quality with only a few feeling like they actually added anything to the Dresden world. And when the heck did Georgia become Butcher's Lois Lane? Really, we had to have two different stories about her getting kidnapped? I get that Will and Georgia are the only characters that Butcher has allowed to have any kind of long term relationship and they have to be the default for that kind of story, but, sheesh, damsel in distress much?

All of that said, if you're a fan of The Dresden Files, you'll want to read the book. "Day Off" and "The Warrior" were both very good and, actually, so is "Something Borrowed" (despite the Georgia kidnapping). And, then, "Aftermath" is almost essential reading. Almost. You could get by without it, but it's worth the read to fill in some space between books 12 and 13. And, of course, you get rescue Georgia again.

What Writing's All About

This is going to be shorter than I want it to be... it's late. I'm tired. I'll have to come back to this topic another day. But...

See, here is why you need to learn your own voice when you write:

I held this contest, the Great Chocolate Contest, for people to write stories based upon the Imagination Room from The House on the Corner. It's hard to know what you'll get when you do something like that. But, see, that's part of the cool of doing it. Seeing what you get. How will someone else interpret what you've done, and how will that be different from what the next person does. Seeing the different voices of the different stories that all come from the same place. It's cool.

I had hoped for better participation, of course, but I'm learning I'm not really very good at hosting the contests. I mean, if the BEST chocolate in the world (that I've ever tasted) can only get two people to enter, then I don't know what else to offer. Well, I suppose there's cash, but, man, that's so... uninteresting. Or something.

So, yeah, two entries:
You can find Briane Pagel's entry here. Okay, you can't actually find it there, but you can find his link to it there along with an introduction. I have to say that Briane's story is so Epic. It's nothing I ever would have thought of. And I'm completely saddened over the fact that I did not think of Seal Team i, because that idea is just awesome. You should go read it; you might recognize some of the characters.

You can find Rusty Webb's entry here. He really gave it the full on horror movie kind of treatment, and darn if I don't want to know what's gonna happen with Ricky and Dale. He has another take that I never would have thought of, because he steps backward with the story of the Imagination Room rather than forward, and, now, I want to know how that interweaves with my story.

Seriously, it's really cool to see what people will come up with when you let them, and now I really do understand why Lucas let's all those people write books in the Star Wars universe.

Because there were only two entries, I was able to pick a winner rather more quickly than I thought I would. They both get to win... the chocolate. Well, Rusty will get a proof copy of Shadow Spinner, anyway, since he's doing the cover, and he's already let me know that he wants one with the cover, not the proof cover I have on them at the moment, so he gets chocolate. And Briane doesn't like "real" books; he just likes those new-fangled e-doodads, so he gets to have chocolate, too. The BEST chocolate in the entire world (that I've ever tasted)!

Go read their stories. You won't be sorry you did.

U2 and the Quest for a #1

I love the band U2, of which I've made no secret. I've loved them since the first time I ever heard them. They're my favorite band, and have been for, well, a long, long time. Unfortunately, I missed out on their formative years, because I just didn't listen to that type of music at that time.

I grew up, as most people do, on my parents' music (more specifically, my mother's music). Not that everyone grew up on my parents' music, because I don't remember you all at my house when I was a kid, so I expect that you grew up on your parents' music. My mother was into folk stuff: Simon and Garfunkel; Peter, Paul, and Mary; Bob Dylan. There was a little Beatles thrown in, but I was never into them (my mom still (at least I hope it's still) has the white album and Sgt. Pepper on vinyl). Oh, and the Beach Boys. At any rate, when I finally got into music on my own (at the very old age of 15), I tended toward that kind of music and listened to a "light rock" station that played "hits from the 60s, 70s, and 80s." I was really into Air Supply if that tells you anything. What the station I listened to didn't play was actual rock music which meant that the station did not play U2.

The first time I ever remember hearing of U2 was my junior year of high school. I was dating this girl that was constantly asking me about songs of theirs, especially "Sunday Bloody Sunday." She couldn't seem to hold it in her head that I had never heard of U2 before she mentioned them, and I continued to not try to figure out who they were 1. because she wouldn't leave me alone about them. 2. because her other favorite group was Pink Floyd, and I was certainly not interested in them (thank you very much).

So it wasn't until the release of "With or Without You," a song that the station I listened to would play, that I finally heard a U2 song. I was instantly hooked. I loved that song. I had to know who that group was, and I was kind of not happy to find out that it was U2 1. because my (by then) ex-girlfriend had bugged me about them all the time. 2. because I wished I'd taken the time to see who they were when she was bugging me about them all the time. I dived into all of their older stuff along with The Joshua Tree and 1987 became my own personal year of U2 quite aside from what was going on with them and the rest of the world.

But what did it take for them to finally get my attention? A #1 single. And a #1 single was something that U2 actively sought. They were striving for it. This highlights the question for me of "Is it art if it's commercial?" And that's a whole different discussion, the difference between what is and what is not art, so I'm not really going to go into that; however, it has some bearing on where I'm going with this, so it had to be mentioned.

When U2 first got together, they didn't know what they were doing. Larry Mullen was the only one that really knew anything about music. They were just a bunch of kids that wanted to be in a band. But they practiced hard and learned. Not just learning to make music but learning who they were. That bit, the bit of learning themselves, learning their voice, was just as important as learning how to make music. One was learning the technical skills and the other was learning their specific art, their voice.

Skipping the history lesson, all of this lead to their first album, Boy. Boy and, later, October were received well critically, but they failed to achieve the kind of commercial success that they and Island Records wanted. They were making art, good art, but no one was seeing it. Well, hearing it. They wanted a #1 single, and they set about to get it. They wanted, in short, commercial success.

This is where a lot of people would say they "sold out." They let their desire to be commercially successful destroy their art. (Not that I know if anyone would actually say this about U2, but it would be said about a lot of other people in this position.) It's at this point that a lot of bands, writers, painters, artists of whatever stripe would have sold out. They would have looked around at what was popular and tried to mimic that, subverting their art into something that it wasn't in hopes of becoming popular so that "one day" they could return to what they really wanted to do.

U2 didn't do that. The used their desire for commercial success to drive them to become, well, to become more them. They didn't look around at what was popular in music and try to do that; they just kept pushing to get better. I look at it like what Michelangelo said about his sculpture David, (and this is a paraphrase) "I chipped away everything that wasn't David." I think U2 chipped away everything that wasn't U2 in becoming the band that released three #1 singles from The Joshua Tree. Certainly, they did not pattern themselves after  the things that were popular at the time as often what they were doing was at right angles to what everyone else was doing.

Often people look down on artists that want commercial success. It's as if the desire to be successful somehow makes them less. Makes them, in short, a sellout. Like it's a choice. You can either do art or you can be commercial. The truth is, though, that it's not a choice. Sure, so many of us think that it is that we frequently make it into a choice. For instance, the choice between writing a vampire/zombie novel (commercial) or writing about the long road trip through the desert (art).

The real problem is that too many people never figure out their specific art before trying to get the #1. They don't spend the time discovering their own voice so that they can become more of themselves when they're ready to reach for the goal of making their art a commercial success. Instead, they just strive for commercial success and leave their art behind hoping to go back to it one day.

The truth is that there doesn't have to be a choice. If you know your art, if you've spent time with it, learning it, discovering it, becoming it, when it comes time to achieve, you do that by becoming more "it." You chip away everything that's not "you," and you take your art along with you.

Yeah, yeah, I know, that doesn't guarantee that you get the #1. But, then, nothing guarantees that you get the #1. But, if you do, no one can call you a sellout, right? And you're still you. I think that's the key to all real success and to being happy in your success. The ability to become more of who you are, not becoming something you're not.

Learn your art. Become your art. Become more you.


I really wish I could give you my top 10 U2 songs or something, but I can't get it down to 10. I even like Pop and Zooropa, if that tells you anything. I'll think more about this one and, maybe, give you a top 10 countdown at some point.

Reading to Write

Oh! So many topics to choose from; I hardly know where to begin!
Actually, I'll just go with that "possibly even next time" topic I mentioned last time. Although I have other things I think I would rather talk about, that one is kind of central to all of this. What, though, exactly, is that topic?

You have to read to write.

"What?! How can you say that? I'm sure that's not true."
Unfortunately, it is true. Unless, you know, you hire a ghost writer, in which case, it's not really you doing the writing, even if you do get the credit.

The sad fact about humans is that we almost exclusively learn to do things by copying what other people do. Sure, we can combine those things in different ways, cut out things we don't like, sometimes, even, add on some new bit that no one thought of before, but the initial act was copied from someone else. It's how we learn to walk. It's how we learn to talk. It's how we learn to write.

Heck, it's even how we learn to eat.
My younger son (middle child) decided quite early on  that he was ready for "real" food. He watched us eating and decided he wanted to do what we were doing. He  had his first bite of apple sauce at 6 months or so, and he never went back. For the next year, he would try anything and everything that was put in front of him (ask me the story about the first time he ate a banana, some time). We thought we'd hit the jackpot. Our oldest son had been very difficult with food and what he would and wouldn't eat, so we were overjoyed that #2 would wolf down whatever was put in front of him. Then, he turned 2. And quit eating. Not everything, of course, but gone were the days of gobbling up whatever was put in front of him. He'd learned what he liked and what he didn't and, as unimaginably impossible as it was, became even worse about eating than his older brother. "Picky" just doesn't cover it. And he's still that way.

And that's how we learn to write. Well, that's where it starts, at any rate. We start reading. We read some more. We read some more. Somewhere in there we start copying what we're reading (remind me, sometime, to tell you about my first attempt at a novel (I think I was about 8)), then combining different authors and styles and, somewhere in there, we discover our own voice. We discover what we like.

I've heard people say that you don't need to read to be a writer. I even heard some people say that reading is a crutch to writing, the only way to be a "true" writer is to be uncontaminated by other authors, that you can't have your own voice if you're "listening" to other people that write. Hogwash. It's a good theory, but, you know, it just doesn't work. If you never hear other people talk, you can't learn to speak. I'm not saying that you can't figure out how to make noise, but actual, intelligible speech... it's just not happening.

Not long ago (and I wish I had saved the reference to this when I read it, but I didn't), there was some sort of survey done of some of the most successful authors of our day. On this survey, they were asked to list the top 10 things they believed that a person should do to be successful at writing. That sounds simple enough, right? 10 things. Surely, there must be things in common to be successful at writing! If we can just get those things figured out, more people could do it, right? As it turns out, there were only 2 things.

Wait! What?

Yes. Every author's list was different. Except for 2 things. And, not only were these 2 things on each author's list, they were the top 2 things on each author's list. Everything else was different. Anyone want to take a guess as to what those 2 things were? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
They are reading and writing. It seems sort of redundant to say that you have to write to be a writer; of course, you have to write! But you would be surprised at how many people "want" to write or have that great story inside them, but, yet, it never happens. So, yeah, you have to actually sit down and do it to do it. Or stand if you can work that out. Or lay  in bed at night. But you have to write. And, yes, the other thing is reading. You just have to do it.

I'm sure I'll say more about reading in the future. I believe strongly in it. We all read in my house. It's just the way it is. There isn't actually an option, although 4/5 of us love it, and the 5th one is working on it. She's a bit more kinetic than  the rest of us, so she can have a hard time sitting down for daily reading.

One last thing, when it was first getting around that I was writing a book, there was this person that told me that she couldn't wait to read it. Now, lots of people have told me that (I kind of take it with a grain of salt, because people are always talking about how they should read more or wish they just had the time to read more), but this person, in particular, told me that she couldn't wait to read it because I read all the time and, since I read all the time, she knew it would be good.