Unlikely Sources of Inspiration

A good friend of mine wrote to me to bust my balls about not posting updates here more often. What was interesting about the note was the subject line. It read, "In need of some inspirational words..."

The purpose of this blog was never to inspire anyone. If anything, it's a chronicle of my own quest for writing inspiration. Despite this, at least one person uses it as a source of inspiration. I've written before about alternative places to find inspiration, but now I realize that lists of places to find inspiration miss the point.

As a person interested in the creative process, I'm sure I've read hundreds of pieces on places to find inspiration. Most of them look very similar. Occasionally, I'll find something in one of these lists that I hadn't thought of, but more often than not, I read them and nod. Most creative types experience the same thing. They read these things about what they are supposed to do, and finish them realizing that they already knew it all. The reading isn't really informative, it's comforting. It's reaffirmation.

In that sense, looking to writers and other creatives for a laundry list of places to find inspiration is useless. There is nowhere I can tell you to look that you won't hear and think to yourself, "Duh." The reason for this is that inspiration is everywhere, but it's different for everyone. I read this blog and see a writer struggling with his own limitations. My friend reads this blog and sees inspiration. I never would have thought to tell someone to read this as a source of inspiration. Similarly, I can find inspiration in my breakfast, but I don't think anyone has ever included "Your morning meal" in any list of sources of inspiration.

Inspiration is everywhere, and no one can tell you where to look for it. Be open to it and it will hit you. This doesn't just apply to writers and artists, it applies to anyone who wants to think creatively. You can find the inspiration for the solution of a work problem in the most unlikely places, too. Open yourself up to new experiences - even if these experiences are things you never thought you'd do - and find your unlikely source of inspiration.

And stop reading those list posts. Nodding along never inspired anyone.

Is Emotion Necessary In Art?

Last week, I was reading Lateral Action, one of my favourite creativity blogs, and Mark was writing about computer programs that were thinking creatively. Using algorithms, computers were able to extrapolate patterns to create new ideas that were judged by a panel to be more creative than similar ideas thought up by humans.

I'm a big believer that creativity does indeed happen in an incremental fashion and is informed by previous experience and knowledge. I'm not a proponent of the "muse" school of thought that tends to favour a theory of sudden inspiration of a nearly other-worldly nature. As such, the idea that algorithms could be used for creative thinking was not terribly surprising to me. However, the idea that computers could be "creative" in the same way as humans and produce "art" was more unsettling.

Instinctively, I knew this could not be true, but I was at a loss to explain why. In his post, Mark offered the explanation of critical thinking, and that computers can't critique themselves, but that explanation still didn't feel right to me.

So, I began thinking about the finished product and what it achieves. A computer can be programmed to do something creative. In that context, creative will mean unique and different. If you take any pattern far enough, you'll get to a point that no one has been before, and that's what these computers are doing. They're taking old things and creating new things. The resulting new thing is different from anything else I've seen before, but what is my reaction to it? "Hey, that's different."

A human creating something new will basically follow the same basic steps. He will take his previous experience and create something new that hasn't been done before. Where the finished product is different from what the computer has done is where that product becomes art. Humans can create art. Computers cannot.

Computers can create images, and musical arrangements, and sequences of words, but these will never be art because true art elicits an emotional response. If it doesn't conjure up some emotion in its audience, it has failed at being art. The reason computers cannot cause this emotional reaction is because to do so, the artist needs to inject his own emotion into the work. Computers with the most sophisticated algorithms imaginable can outmatch humans in logic, but they will never have emotion. Without that emotion, whatever is created by a computer is hollow.

Because an artist injects his emotion into his art, and it then causes a reaction in his audience, art is in fact a medium for connecting artist and audience. So, not only does the art differ because it is infused with emotion, but it serves an additional purpose of creating connections. You can't connect with a computer, and nothing a computer creates will have any soul.

In the end, this is all just a convoluted attempt to explain the uneasiness that we feel when we hear that computers can be creative. I explain it as a lack of emotion in the work, and a lack of human connection with an artist. Mark explained it as a lack of critical thinking. Others explained it as a lack of personality. Whatever it is, there is something uniquely human about the creative process. It is something that logic and algorithms alone can't replicate, and whether we can explain it or not, our gut tells us it's there.

That's why, I for one, am not scared that computers will take over the creative world.

Is Obsession Necessary for Success?

Recently, I've been hearing a lot about words like "obsession" and "passion." A good part of that is because Gary Vaynerchuk, one of the most obsessive and passionate guys around, is promoting his book, Crush It!: Why NOW Is the Time to Cash In on Your Passion. I haven't read the book yet, but I have pre-ordered it, and I suggest you do the same. Gary's an interesting guy, and a case study about how to turn an obsession into a 60-million dollar a year business.

All of this talk about obsession, however, has me asking myself the question whether obsession is truly necessary for success? For the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to define obsession as an interest so important that it becomes one of the three most important things in your life. I think that's a fair definition, because some would go as far as saying that obsession is the single most important thing in your life. I think that's too limiting, so I'm being a little more generous. Even Gary Vee would have to agree with me that family is more important than anything else, and yet, no one's going to argue that Gary's obsessed with wine and with sports.

In my mind the easiest way to answer this question is to make two lists. One of things that I'm obsessed with, and a second of things that I've succeeded at. Now, compare the two lists. The simple fact of the matter is that anyone who does this exercise will surely find that she has succeeded at things that she is not obsessed with. I've succeeded at many things in life that I'm not obsessed with. In fact, I've succeeded at things I didn't even like.

Obsession is not necessary to succeed.

So what's the big deal about it, then? Well, let's say we tweak those lists we made earlier. Keep the list of things you're obsessed with, but now compare it to a list of things that you're truly happy doing. I'll bet anything there's a much closer correlation. I know in my case there is. Obsession isn't necessary for success, it's necessary for happiness.

Whether, you're a writer, an artist, a businessperson, a stay-at-home dad, or anything else, being obsessed won't guarantee you succeed at what you do. What it will do is make you happy in doing it. When you're happy doing something, you're more likely to work harder at it, and put in the hustle necessary to become successful.

Obsession isn't necessary for success, but it sure as hell makes it easier and a lot more fun.

Three Dimensions

I have a tendency, that I'm sure is shared by many, to view people as uni-dimensional, especially those that I only know superficially. I visit the doctor, and I see him only as a doctor. I see an actor on TV, and I think of him as just an actor. I talk to my colleague, and I think of her as her job. I read things, and I think of the author only as the person who wrote the piece I am reading.

Obviously, all of these people have other dimensions to their lives. My doctor is also a doting father of three kids. That actor has a personal life, just like mine (okay, maybe not JUST like mine). My colleague goes home at night and has a life outside of work all her own. The authors who write the things I read also have full and interesting lives.

I bring this up for two reasons. First, as a writer of fiction, it's important to remember that your characters should also be three-dimensional. They shouldn't have only the traits necessary to fulfill their primary purpose in the plot. That's boring.

Second, as a person, I have interests and a life not related to writing. I've decided to bring one of these interests and aspects of my life to the internet with my newly launched personal blog: www.adamdistefano.com

At www.adamdistefano.com, I'll be writing mainly about internet marketing for small and medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs. I know a thing or two about the topic because it's what I do for a living. While I'll continue on with 52 Short Stories, as my passion project, you can think of www.adamdistefano.com as my professional blog.

There is still more to me than writing and marketing, but I have opened up another window into my life. As time goes on, who knows how much I'll share online? I don't think I'll ever get to the point where I'm tweeting what I'm having for breakfast. On the other hand, an online diary of a diet and exercise regimen is plausible.

The web is becoming a platform for broadcasting your life to the world (or lifecasting). It's a great thing that audiences get to see more of the writers, artists and creators behind the works they enjoy. It makes for a more intimate experience. But how much is too much? Should a web persona be the full three dimensional representation of who we are, or should it still be a facade?

What do you think? Or would you rather not say?

If You're Not Trying to Change the World, Then What's the Point?

I spent the majority of my life trying to be a realist. It seemed like the thing to be. Realists are self-aware. They don't get disappointed very often. They're right more often than not. They usually get the girl.

Idealists are bright-eyed and bushy tailed. They're naive. They spend their time in their own little world. They're often disappointed. They're not particularly cool.

Is it any wonder I spent so long trying to be a realist? It seemed a hell of a lot easier. Here's the thing, though: It was really tough for me. It was tough for me because I'm an idealist at heart. I think all creative people are idealists at heart. And since I believe that everyone has the capacity to be creative, I think everyone is really an idealist. The problem is that being an idealist is rough, so we try to change ourselves into being realists. That's a mistake.

Realists are rarely disappointed because they set their expectations low. They're often right because they always make the safe bet. They usually get the girl (or guy) because they're settling for the convenient one, and not the love of their lives.

Idealists on the other hand set themselves up for failure because they reach for the stars. They take crazy risks. They chase their soulmates. And, sure enough, more often than not, they fail. But, I've already said repeatedly on this blog that failing isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's a learning experience. It's okay that idealists fail a lot, because every once in a while they succeed. And when an idealist succeeds, he knows he's done something special.

What's the point of going through life playing it safe? Sure, you might not fail as often, but you definitely won't get the great rewards, either. Instead, do something crazy, take a risk, try to change the world. Fail enough times and eventually you'll succeed, and when you do, it will all have been worth it.

If you're not trying to change the world, then what's the point?

Starting right now, become an idealist. Go start working on something that will change the world. If it doesn't work out right away, don't worry about it, just keep plugging away. At the very least, you'll know that you're working towards something worthwhile.

Finish that novel. Start that sculpture. Get to work on that business plan. Find your soulmate. Embark on the journey of a lifetime. Change the world.

Modern Influences

I just finished reading The Road by Cormac McCarthy. I am currently reading Bright Shiny Morning by James Frey. I recently read The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Diaz. These books were all bestsellers. The Road and Oscar Wao both won Pulitzers. Bright Shiny Morning may have partially rebuilt James Frey's reputation as a writer (the jury's still out on that). I'm not saying this to show how well read I am. There is a pattern in all these books aside from their bestseller status or their prizes. They all throw good grammar out the window.

I never used to read contemporary short fiction, but lately I've started reading literary journals to see what is getting published right now. Overwhelmingly, there is a lot of fiction with bad grammar.

Obviously, the authors of the three novels and all the fiction I've read KNOW how to write properly. They're all great writers (except for Frey - still waiting on that jury). This means that they're intentionally neglecting to use quotation marks. Purposely writing run-on sentences spliced with fragments. Mixing verb tenses for a purpose. What's the purpose?

I never learned English grammar in school, but every book or article I've read has said that when you're going to break the rules of grammar or style, there should be a really strong reason that compensates for it. McCarthy is writing about a post-apocalyptic world. Rules of grammar, constructs of society, they don't apply in his world. I get it. Diaz's novel is narrated in the first person. The grammar slips make it seem more authentic? Maybe. Frey's writing a series of interconnecting stories with a loose common thread. He's just trying to be edgy.

What about all the other short stories I've read recently? Do they all have excuses too? I'm not convinced that The Road would have been lessened by the use of quotation marks and punctuation. I'm not convinced that their absence makes the book better. So what is with this trend of throwing basic rules out the window?

I'm concerned that young writers, like me, are going to read this and begin to think that the rules of grammar and style are optional. Or worse, that to get published today you need to do something different to stand out, and that means writing convoluted prose or chucking the basic rules out a window.

Sitting, staring at my fiftieth anniversary edition of The Elements of Style, I wonder if this gem of a book is becoming obsolete. If that's the case, I'm scared, because these rules exist for a purpose. They show the path to clear writing, not just in literature, but in all its forms. Without clear writing, you're losing the ability to communicate. Without that, they're just words on a page.

So, when someone asks me who my writing influences are, I have no problem saying, "Hemmingway." I don't need anything more modern because clear writing is timeless.

Low Information Diet and Creativity, Part 3

This post could also be entitled, "where the hell have you been?"

In a classic case of an experiment taking an unexpected turn, my low information diet had some unintended consequences. In my last post, I mentioned how reducing my information intake freed up my time, but didn't affect my creativity. It appears that I need to add a caveat to that. While cutting out information consumption didn't reduce inspiration for writing, it did remove motivation to post to the blog.

I didn't take into account that posting on the internet is a largely social exercise. I post to my blog, I read others' blogs, it becomes a disjointed and dysfunctional dialog, but a dialog nonetheless. Remove the reading of others' blogs and my own blog becomes me talking into space, and there simply isn't a whole lot of motivation for me to talk into space. The end result was an extended period of time without a post.

This becomes a vicious circle, though, because the blog was my method of accountability for my writing. I updated my progress on the stories, by posting to the blog. Remove the blog, and you remove the accountability. Remove the accountability, and the whole experiment falls apart.

And so it did.

This extended hiatus has obviously hurt the end goal of making it to 52 short stories in a single year, but I'm going to keep plugging away and see just how far I get. Maybe I'll extend the experiment at the end of the year, maybe I'll just see how far I got. Either way, the writing won't stop, and the low information diet has taught me a few things that I'm going to take away from it.

In no particular order, here are the lessons I've learned:

1) I don't miss a lot of the content I used to read daily
2) Despite no longer subscribing to multiple news feeds, and not having cable TV, I'm still capable of feeling well-informed about the world around me. Yes, information is just that prevalent
3) People read this blog, and they complain when I don't update. It's touching, really.
4) A blog's traffic will not die even if you neglect to post for a while.

Also, based on some of those learnings, and on some realizations I came to during the hiatus, there are a few things that will be changing on this blog. Again, in no particular order, here they are:

a) Less time spent on formatting. Pictures might be pretty, and bolded words might draw the eye, but I want people to read this for the content, not for the imagery, and the effort involved in finding those pictures isn't worth the return, and I think my readers are smart enough to pick out the important bits without me highlighting them for them.
b) I need to be less preachy. I re-read some of my previous posts and realized that they were coming off stiff and preachy. I don't talk like that in real life, so why am I writing like that? Going forward, I need to figure out how to start writing in my own voice.
c) This is going to get ecclectic. There are a lot of topics that are tangentially related to writing and creating. In fact, just about everything is. I need to take advantage of that fact more.

Overall, the low information diet was a great learning experience, and I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to simply his/her life. At worst, you end up with too much spare time on your hands. At best, you end up re-evaluating and prioritizing.