I am splitting my large (>30k word) documents. I have to write this plan so I can remember:
- >30k>50k> :: don’t separate, leave as is in a single document (The Survivalist and all 30K documents fit here)
- 50k, 60k :: split into 25k or 30k pieces as the document dictates
- 90k :: split in 30k piece/thirds
- 100k :: do the other ones first then come back and decide how these should be split (as 30k pieces?)
I can remember this but prefer not to—so it lies here.
That’s my writing station: coffee, cat, wireless headphones and a phone, which I’ve used to write the last two books. Keeping myself minimal. And Davina’s right outside the frame.
each day when I finish my writing. It takes a couple hours to write, then I get 10 minutes of elation (like a runner’s high—it’s a breath-oriented high). After that 10 minutes is over, I’m back to my usual state for the rest of the day. It’s hard: It feels like a low. It’s impossible to get past until tomorrow, at the finish of tomorrow’s writing.
998/1000 book agents are not agents at all. They’re academic sifters looking to find a certain book they have imagined already written and they’ll publish that.
An agent read the beginning of Lacy and she said: “You’re mixing tenses here. To correct your work, change all tenses to past tense and I’ll read that.” I said: “The tense changes are intentional and important. They let me deliver something more alive to the reader.” The agent stopped talking to me after that—didn’t even respond to my email!
That’s some bullshit there. I’m simply illustrating that there are a lot of people whose eyes are closed to new things and therefore they have trouble finding them. It doesn’t matter: Make original stuff anyway. It’s fun and it seems like something people are meant to do.
Playing with a method for calculating pi to an arbitrary number of places
The only place I could find this method was in Wolfram’s book of formulas. It was credited “pers comm” (or personal communication) and the Wolfram editor called my method bullshit and would not discuss the person the formula came from or the mathematical origin of the formula—they presented the final recursive formula with no relationship to geometry or anything else.
This is an example of how some people won’t even listen to you unless you have a PhD after your name.
I consider myself to have an MFBA (Motherfuckin’ Badass) degree so I work in whatever fields I want, sometimes working on a problem (which most consider unsolvable) for years without any sign that a solution is possible. Here is some work on the factoring problem (a problem people believe is unsolvable) that represents zero progress by me:
People consider the factoring problem to be unsolvable. I consider it both solvable and unsolvable, hence I have justification for spending time on it (and I am compelled to say that methods invented while attacking unsolvable problems themselves have value). To that majority of people who consider factoring unsolvable, it is literally crazy to work on it. So let me tell you, I am crazy. I’m all in. I try to unsheathe myself from every belief possible to make it possible for me to work on whatever type of problems or projects.
That’s beginner’s mind. I would hate to have gotten a PhD and lost my beginner’s mind. It must be scary for your education to sit on your left shoulder telling you never to fail! As many have said, the greater your failure, the greater your success. Academics need to release themselves to fail. It is liberating.
Those are two words I almost universally want to avoid, except when one of them is perfect in a sentence within its context.
Normally, they’re both extra/trash words. Sentences are usually stronger without them. But in dialogue or monologue, sometimes just or because become necessary to render a character or tone or mood of a situation.
The word because can almost always be eliminated—when B follows A, because is implied: “A because B” is most always better stated as “A B.” The reader adds in the because.
And just: “Girls are just panty dropping freaks.” That sentence really needs the just—it suggests a limitation at a bound. I think (for me, in general) that justs who do not suggest this cropping at a boundary can be removed.