On Pseudonyms

In the Guardian, Jonathan Freedland, aka Sam Bourne, discusses why writers choose to publish under pen names.

Freedland’s is a special case, in some respects:

I confess it was not my idea. My agent came up with it when he sent out a proposal and a few sample chapters: he wanted publishers to react to the words on the page, rather than to any preconceptions they might have about me or the columns I write in the Guardian.

But he also notes an unanticipated benefit:

Even if the original motivation owes more to commerce than art, once chosen, a nom de plume can be liberating, taking a writer to places that might have remained unexplored.

It’s something I’ve considered, but have never quite brought myself to the point of committing to it.

How about you? Do you write under a pseudonym? Have you ever thought about it? Why (or why not) did you decide to do it?

Interpreting the Amazon oracle

For some reason, the Amazon sales rank of Outwitting Dogs has been bobbing along above the 10,000 mark for several days.

Since it fluctuates hourly your results may vary, but as I write this, it’s hit 2,357 which is damn near champagne-worthy. Not that my champagne standards are all that stringent. Okay, okay, it’s not even close to champagne-worthy, it’s 11:00 on a Sunday night already, sheesh.

But still. What in Tarnation is Going On?

Has there been a print review somewhere that hasn’t been picked up by Google’s crawler yet?

Anyone have any idea?

This kind of thing doesn’t just happen. This book, The Impatient Gardener, is number 100 in Amazon’s Home and Garden ranking and it’s at 2300 right now. A couple more copies of Outwitting sell, and it’s . . . it’s made a List.

(Actually, it’s already made one list. The Dogwise Top 10 for 2005, but I didn’t find that out until the day before yesterday.) (So I didn’t even get a chance to wonder whether that was champagne-worthy.)

Seriously, if anyone reading this has an idea of what might have raised the book’s profile in the last few days, drop me a comment or an email! Thanks!

New domain: Masters in Seinfeld?

Here’s another book review. The subject, this time, is Seinfeld, Master of Its Domain: Revisiting Television’s Greatest Sitcom, edited by David Lavery and Sara Lewis Dunne of Middle Tennessee State University.

The review appears in the National Post, and was written by Robert Fulford.

Here’s an excerpt of the column to set the tone:

But this latest book notably differs in tone from standard university products. Appreciation and enjoyment, combined with wonder at the cleverness of the program’s writers, set the tone. The platoon of scholars writing the essays understand Seinfeld as brilliant popular art, not merely a specimen demanding intellectual dissection. This means we can admire their insights without giving up our love for the best television farce we’ll ever see.

Enjoy ;-)

“Secular sermons”

In the New Statesman, John Gray critiques both Wolpert (Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast–I blogged about that book yesterday) and Daniel C Dennett, Breaking the Spell: religion as a natural phenomenon.

From ape to . . . theologist

At the London Times, John Carey reviews Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief, by Lewis Wolpert.

Given the growing muscularity of both neuroscience and evolutionary biology, it’s no surprise that some would reduce spirituality to a product of biological evolution. From the article:

Surveys suggest that religious people are happier, more optimistic, less prone to strokes and high blood pressure, more able to cope with life’s problems and less fearful of death than the irreligious. It follows that belief in the supernatural is an evolutionary advantage, and our ability to have such beliefs must, Wolpert deduces, have been partly determined by our genes.

Carey writes that the book has a chicken/egg conundrum; Wolpert fails to clarify which came first: the “causal thinking” that allowed us to become sophisticated tool-makers, or was it tool-making that led to our forebears selecting for causal thinking? Says Carey, “He can be found saying both things in different places . . .”

But there’s a parallel difficulty that Carey doesn’t call out, but is implied in the sentences that follow the excerpt above:

Religious people might rejoice at that, concluding that God has wired us up to believe in him. But for Wolpert, the wiring is no more divine than our guts or toenails, or any other part of our evolved anatomy.

No more divine — or no less?

When good enough — isn’t

Miss Snark fields a question from a writer whose novel has been rejected repeatedly as “not competitive.” The writing is good, the story interesting, and yet the novel doesn’t seem to have what it takes to make the cut.

Here’s a portion of Miss Snark’s response:

I see quite a few books as partials or fulls that are pretty darn good but there’s nothing there that makes me say “aha!” I have to be able to answer the questions “what makes this stand out from the crowd” “what is going to surprise me” when I send this to editors. Business as usual will not do that.

The bar for becoming a fiction writer is, on the one hand, ridiculously low. You like words, you like stories, you own a computer or at least a bit of charcoal and the back of a shovel, and you’re there.

So it’s disquieting to discover that what you’re writing may not be good enough to get published. (Of, if you get a little further, not good enough to sell out your print run. Or, a little further along yet, not good enough to make you a living.)

Miss Snark’s advice:

I suggest stepping back from the project for a bit. Work on something else for awhile. Then go back and really look at your characters and plot. You have to be able to look at your work with an objective eye. That’s the single biggest weakness in writers: they can’t see how their own work looks on the literary buffet.

But (and I’m making an oblique confession, here) maybe that’s not it. Maybe we can see. Maybe the problem is that we don’t want to see. Because seeing means we have to rewrite, and not just smoothing-up-those-awkward-sentences rewriting, but the sort of rewriting that involves dismantling plot or rethinking characters — the kind of rewriting that takes us almost back to the beginning, and that, with a novel we’ve lived with for so many months already that we’re frankly sick to death of it.

But maybe that’s what it takes.

In the Introduction to Writing the Breakout Novel, Donald Maass has this to say:

Great novels–ones in which lightening seems to strike on every page–result from their authors’ refusal to settle for ‘good.’ Great novelists . . . push themselves to find original turns of phrase, extra levels of feeling, unusual depths of character, plots that veer in unexpected directions . . . Is that magic?

Not at all. It is aiming high.

I have to believe “aiming high” is what gets you to the place Miss Snark references — to the novel that “stands out from the crowd,” that is more than “business as usual.”

Evelyn Waugh

Hop over to New Partisan if you have a minute. The piece is by Lincoln MacVeagh and it’s well done and fascinating.

I’d love to have more Waugh on my “next up” book shelf. I have managed Brideshead Revisited, which I admired very much, and a volume of collected letters that’s around here somewhere.

Here’s what MacVeagh writes about Brideshead:

Brideshead Revisited was produced in a mad dash while on special leave from the army in 1944. He wrote the first 62,000 words in less than three weeks and had consciously to force himself not to work faster: “It is always my temptation in writing to make everything happen in one day, in one hour on one page and so lose its drama and suspense. So all today I have been rewriting and stretching until I am cramped.”

The entire novel was finished in just four months and it was published a year later, shortly before Waugh was demobilized, in 1945.

Ahhhhhhh.

Dog book news

Over the weekend, I finished reviewing the page proofs for 101 Dog Training Tips, which is coming out in June.

The book is substantially different from Outwitting Dogs, which I co-wrote with Terry Ryan, a professional trainer. Tips is shorter — 12,000 words — and includes 50 photos, most of which I took myself. Outwitting Dogs came in at around 90,000 words, if I remember correctly.

So I was a bit taken aback when I read my publisher’s description of the new book. They’ve made it sound like it’s a comprehensive training book. It’s not. It’s . . . tips. Sigh. Outwitting Dogs is a comprehensive training book. Tips, on the other hand, is something you’d pick up when you need just a quick idea, or to brush up on your training. It’s more like a checklist. A good checklist, mind you ;-)

It’s funny to feel uneasy and excited at the same time. I’ll be awfully happy when I am actually holding a bound copy in my hand. I remember the thrill when my copies of Outwitting Dogs got here, and somehow, I don’t think that thrill ever goes away.

Oooooh boy, another list of books

Via Miss Snark, the news that The New York Public Library has compiled a list of 25 books from 2005 that we’re all supposed to remember. And read, presumably.

I haven’t read any of them, so I’m heartened that many of the commenters on Miss Snark’s blog, who tend to be an erudite bunch, haven’t read any of them, either.

Anyway, I still qualify for a snob, I think. Off the top of my head, I know I read Fielding’s Tom Jones last year. And London, A Biography, by Peter Ackroyd, and 1491 by Charles Mann. And after I picked up (and read) an amazing 1932 edition of A Shropshire Lad in a junky antique co-op, I bought a copy of The Name and Nature of Poetry and Other Selected Prose by Housman, only I didn’t read all of that. So, half a snob, then.