Author: Scott William Carter

Writing, Politics, and Obsessive Tendencies

I’ve been following the Presidential election closely. In fact, I’ve gotten a bit obsessed about it — reading every article and blog out there, following the polls, even animatedly talking back to the radio spinheads when they say something I think is blatantly false (which, unfortunately, is quite often). This obsessiveness is a trait that can sometimes serve me well — like, with writing novels, which requires a certain amount of obsessiveness to be able to stay with a project of such magnitude — but it can also hurt me in other ways. Lately, I’ve found myself thinking about politics more than writing, which is a sign that it’s time to put on the brakes. And that means engaging in a media and Internet blackout of anything related to the election. Cold turkey, in other words.

But first, before I do, I want to go on record with something. I’m not a registered Democrat, but I’m fairly progressive by nature. After having read his book, The Audacity of Hope, and following his career closely the last few years, I believe Barack Obama is, indeed, the real deal. He’s the best hope that America has for turning the page on the politics of the past and really charting a new direction for the country. Yes, he has a knack for oratory which is inspiring. But if you do the research, you’ll see that there’s a real man of substance there as well. Behind the lofty speeches, he’s also a pragmaticist, and after the last seven years, the country desperately needs a little more open-mindedness.

I wouldn’t even feel compelled to say this (I’m reticent to talk about anything related to politics here in Mutterings), but there’s a lot that’s happened in the campaign lately that makes me feel I should. That I should go on record. Maybe this is the childish part of me that wants to someday be able to say, see, I told you so, but it’s also a defiant act in a sense. Because until very recently, I thought if Obama failed to win the nomination, I could still vote for Hillary Clinton. But their actions the last few weeks have made this possibility go from probable to less likely to almost zero. Why? Because I think the Clintons believe the Democratic voters are too dumb to see through what they’re trying to do — which is to engage in Karl Rove style politics, smear Obama with anything that sticks whether it’s true or not, and then win ugly. If you think I’m exaggerating, you haven’t been following this closely.

I have really tried to give the Clintons the benefit of the doubt, since I do want to support them if they become the nominee (and see, I find myself referring to them as the Clintons even without realizing it, as in plural, which should tell you something), but even the mainstream media is finally starting to call them on their game. Not everyone, of course, because they’re pretty adept at playing the victim, but at least a few people are getting a clue.

Jonathon Alter at Newsweek makes this case much better than me in his article, “The Clintons’ Patronizing Strategy.”  Read the whole thing. You’ll see what I mean.

I’m betting Democrats are smart enough to see through their distortions. They’re betting that Democrats aren’t — and judging by the number of people who still believe Obama is a Muslim, because, gosh darn it, they saw it in an email, they may be right. I hope not. There were five glorious days between the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary that gave me hope that the country might be finally ready to turn the page on the politics of the past. I want that feeling back. I hope come November 2, I get it.

But now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, it’s no more politics for me. I’ve got to save my obsessiveness for other things. After all, I have a novel to write.

Look, Ma, I Sold a Book

Got the word from my agent that I can now officially share the news . . . I sold a book!

The Last Great Getaway of the Water Balloon Boys, my young adult novel about two teenagers who steal their principal’s car and end up on a life-changing road trip, will be published by Simon and Schuster.  Edited by David Gale.  Expected publication date of 2010.  Kudos to my fabulous agent, Rachel Vater at Folio, who’s been great through this whole process. 

You can read more about the book here.  In the coming months, I’ll add sample chapters and other tidbits to the page.  I’ll also have some more Mutterings about this whole process down the road a bit.  But for now I just want to say one thing.

Whoo-hoo!

So What’s a Young Writer, Anyway?

There’s some great things brewing on the publishing front.  Nothing I can announce officially yet, but it’s looking very good, so hopefully a Big Announcement will be coming soon.  

When it comes to the actual writing, still working on the Latest Novel, progress is slow but steady (I’m in that dreaded muddle in the middle), and I wish I could talk about this one because I’m very excited about its potential.  Alas, I’ve learned the hard way that I’m one of those writers whose enthusiasm can be easily dampened by early criticism, especially when an idea is still in the molding and shaping stage, so it’s best just to finish the thing and then talk about it.  Once it’s on paper, I’m fine with getting feedback, and in fact find it quite helpful, but then I’ve got something finished and I’ve (at least partially) divested myself emotionally from it. 

On another topic, somebody the other day referred to me as “young writer,” as in, “this young writer here has had some great success so far.”  Now I suppose, in a pure chronolocial sense, you could refer to a 34-year-old as young, but I think I’m getting dangerously close to the point where that adjective can no longer apply.  To me, a young writer would a teenager, maybe, or somebody in their early twenties.  But I guess that’s the point, isn’t it?  It’s all relative. 

Except, when it comes to writing, the term young writer means something quite different.  When people in publishing refer to someone as young, they generally mean new, as in new to the scene of publishing.  And that’s fair enough — except why not just say new?  Well, perhaps because calling someone a new writer implies that they haven’t been writing long, when in fact most writers toil in unpublished anonymity for many years before any of their words see print.  And that’s exactly how I’ve heard that term used — to describe people who are just now getting serious about the craft.  

Of course, I do think there comes a point when a newly published author can’t be referred to as young, no matter the meaning.  I’m trying to imagine a 90-year-old first time novelist being called “a young writer” and I doubt it would fly.  It’s really quite fascinating.  If I was a professional basketball player, at 34 I’d be considered a creaky veteran nearing retirement.  I’d also probably be insanely rich.  This is besides the point, but I felt it worth saying.   

No real point to any of this except the obvious:  words can mean different things depending on the context, and that’s always interesting to a writer.  Even when they refer to the writer himself.   

Recommended Reading:  

Every now and then I’ll pick up a book on writing.  There’s hundreds of them out there, many of them written by writers who’ve really had very little success in publishing, so I do think a serious writer should be careful and err toward how-to books written by writers who’ve either been bestsellers or at least made a good solid living at their craft.  Lawrence Block is one such writer, and I just finished his Spider, Spin Me a Web:  A Handbook for Fiction Writers. 

It’s a collection of many of his best columns from when he was writing regularly for Writer’s Digest magazine, and it’s a fantastic read.  It’s not so much about the nuts and bolts of the craft, though there’s plenty sprinkled throughout; it reads more like a Dear Abby column, covering a little of this and a little of that, Block going wherever his whim takes him.  This may not sound good, but in the end it’s a book that seems to fill in all missing links that other writers miss in more structured books. 

A New Year

It’s been a couple months since I’ve last posted.  First off, Happy New Year.  Last year was an up and down year for me personally, for various reasons, but by no means a bad year.  But I go into 2008 full of vigor and optimism that great things are in store.  My writing productivity was signficantly up over last year, by about a 100,000 words (which probably says more about 2007 than 2008), plus I finished a new book which I’m quite excited about and which my agent has just gone to market with, published a number of short stories in some great places, and got started on another book which really has me stoked.  I don’t like to talk about works in progress, for fear that talking about them will let the wind out of my sails, but let’s just say it’s a book that pushes all the right buttons for me. 

And if I’ve learned anything at all from my years at working at my storytelling craft, it’s to write what you feel passionate about.  Because at the end of the day, regardless of how your story or novel is received, whether it’s published to great acclaim or languishes in a drawer, you want to be able to say you pleased at least one reader — you.  That’s really the only reader you can hope to please anyway, because it’s the only reader a writer truly knows.  And if you write something you like, well, there’s a great chance others will like it as well. 

So as odd as it may sound, that’s my main goal for the year — to write more books and stories I like.  To remember to have fun tellling stories, because if I’m not having fun, then why do it?  And to focus most on what I can control best, which is just putting one word on the page after another.