Social Media: Rabbit Hole Or Regroup Help?

I participate in social media in pretty much all the ways, and most of the time when I'm on one or the other I see writers talking about how they're supposed to be doing something else... probably writing. There are plenty of methods for blocking yourself from using Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest (you name it) but the easiest one is plain old self-control.

But lately I've come to question whether it's actually necessary.

I love social media and use it to my advantage - and I don't just mean directing readers to my books. I have a certain word count I want to hit every day when I'm drafting, and it's rare that I actually hit it in one bang-out session. Typically about halfway through there's a moment where I simply don't feel like writing anymore. Sometimes I even know what's going to happen next, but it doesn't matter. The candle has been lit, yes, but it burned down to the end of the wick and all I've got left is the little nub of blue flame that's about to be drowned in wax.

In other words, I'm just not on fire at that point.

Like all writers, there are times when I have to force myself to write. I actually make the announcement to the boyfriend, climb the stairs like Anne Boelyn at the Tower and treat opening my laptop like a reverse guillotine. It can be that hard.

Once I'm there, in front of the computer with the WIP up on a Word doc, I know I can't walk away. I won't have the fortitude to go through the process of putting myself in front of it again. But I also don't want to make words when all I'm running on is that little tiny blue flame.

So, I open up a browser screen, and I see what everybody else is up to. Sometimes I just hit up Goodreads for a little bit and look at books I want to read. Sometimes I scroll through Tumblr, check Facebook for any notifications, hop on Twitter to commiserate with other writers.

And you know what? The laptop is already open. The Word doc is hovering behind the browser, letting me know that the word count for today isn't hit yet. My flame rekindles as I give myself a little time away from the WIP, and when I return the next bit of dialogue is more natural than it would've been otherwise, the next step in the plot more evident than it would've been if I slapped something together for the sake of forward movement.

I didn't leave my computer. I don't have to force myself to sit back down in front of it. It wasn't a rabbit hole of distraction, but a much needed regroup - one I take everyday.

So don't treat social media like the anathema to your creativity. It might be the gasp of oxygen that you need.

Warning: CONTAINS IMMATURE CONTENT

As a school librarian I have many, many days when a patron will walk in and announce that they hate books, or that reading is stupid. And that's fine. They're probably into something that I think is incredibly stupid, and I usually tell them that and we agree to disagree. Then I go about attempting to change their mind, because that's kind of my job. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail. And to be fair, sometimes they change my mind too. *cough* Dark Souls *cough*

I find myself in the position of defending books very often, and occasionally it's hard to know whether I'm doing it as a writer, reader, or librarian. Lately a lot of people have been talking about the amount of adults reading YA. I've seen figures as high as 77% of the teen titles sold are being bought by adults. And I think that's awesome. 

I don't care if 77% of the world is only reading the back of cereal boxes - they're still reading.

What does bother me is when readers - of any age - get upset about teen characters being immature. Because I'm a reference geek I went to the dictionary for this one, and the truth is that in most cases the word immature is being used correctly.

Yes, most teen characters lack the characteristics of adults. They're supposed to. 

But teens also retain a sense of wonder that most adults have lost, and I include myself in that some days. The daily grind of going to work, paying bills, worrying about the bottom line, graying hairs, flagging energy... all the elements of real life that in some ways dull us to our own emotions and the awesomeness of just being alive. 

Being alive means having experiences that we learn from - good ones and bad ones. We make a lot of wrong decisions when we're young, which is how we develop into adults who make rational choices. I work with teens forty hours a week. I see decisions being made every day, the conclusions they thought were perfectly logical falling down around their ears. 

So when characters behave that way in books I'm not surprised or frustrated. It's because they're not finished or perfected, not completely grown or developed.

And that's why they're interesting.

A Place for Purple Prose

It was a dark and stormy night...

No really, it was. This was last week, and as things got a little nasty outside my mind turned to that much maligned phrase. We all know it. Even people won't don't move in literary circles will toss it out every now and then, and they know it's supposed to be said in a melodramatic, self-effacing tone.

But for whatever reason I suddenly became curious as to why? And who said it in the first place, other than Snoopy?

So a little bit of searching and I landed on the Wikipedia entry for the British novelist Edward Bulwer- Lytton, who coined this phrase with the opening line of his 1830 novel Paul Clifford. So, it is real. It's not just a joke that someone made up to mock purple prose and is now found in the mouths of just about any wiseass on the eve of a storm. It is, in fact, the beginning of a real book.

But wait - there's more. Here's the whole sentence:

It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents — except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.

Now, let me be the first to admit that if the wiseass I referred to earlier were to quote this entire sentence rather than just the first seven words I'd be impressed.

Secondly, I admit to kind of liking it. Yes, I do. I like this sentence. But I like Victorian literature, and I know I'm not alone in that. Would this sentence work today? Should the opening line of my next YA novel make use of semicolons, dashes, and parentheses all in one go? No, it shouldn't. No agent would sign off on it and no editor would buy it.

But does that necessarily make this bad writing? Is this sentence worthy of being mocked by every person who has a TV but has never read a book nearly 200 years after it was penned?

I don't think so. Yes, it's over the top. Yes, it's flowery and more than a little self-important. But, take a moment to divorce yourself from the choppy, single-serving easily digestible content of my blog post that surrounds this little snippet and picture a slow pan to the right on this scene and Vincent Price doing the voice over.

Not quite so funny now, is it?

Sometimes I think we've lost our connection to what is or is not good writing. Social norms define what is in or out at any given moment. And right now, Bulwer-Lytton is most definitely out, and probably will never come back in. But I don't think it necessarily means that there is no time or place for this style of writing.

And for the record, even though you may not know his name Bulwer-Lytton also coined the phrases, "the great unwashed," "the pen is mightier than the sword," and "the almighty dollar."

So let's cut the guy a break.