Last Words

Because tomorrow is my last day of internship and this post will also be my last post, I thought that I should end this blog with something profound....

or poetic....

or both......

and I realized that that's easier said than done (well).

So, I decided to save everyone from unnecessary literary superciliousness and end my blog with a subtle and tasteful advertisement:

EVERYONE WHO'S INTERESTED IN PUBLISHING AND IS EITHER UNEMPLOYED OR WANTS EXPERIENCE IN PUBLISHING SHOULD APPLY FOR THE INTERNSHIPS AT BERRETT-KOEHLER PUBLISHERS, BECAUSE THEIR INTERNSHIP IS AWESOME!!

And I think that's sufficiently profound and loudly poetic. :)

Thank you everyone at Berrett-Koehlers for being absolutely wonderful through and through!

Talent

There are a lot of popular self-help books about finding your talent or your innate potential to be successful. But, I've always thought that talent was an elusive thing, which makes me question whether these books about talent really work. You can't really measure the talent that you have, because at least for me, I am not sure what's considered talent or what's considered "just being decent" at something. I guess the standards also depend on your arrogance or self-expectation level, but I always feel a little conceited to say, "Yes, my talent is...."  The problem is that I feel as if I am lying to myself if I say "My talent is...," as if I am so sure. Because, I am not sure at all, and it's a bit sad to think that I am fooling myself.

This is not a "boo-hoo-i-am-doubting-myself" post, especially because I don't usually doubt myself. It's just that I always think the words "find your talent" is a bit simplistic. Perhaps, it's motivational and inspiring, and just the right kind of consolation for someone who is really doubting their capacity, but just how useful are those words except for getting someone out of an emotional rut? And, do we really want all our self-help books to just be a momentary emotional relief, even if they are bestsellers?  I would appreciate the book more if I could keep it with me and use its advices for my entire life. It is possible that "go find your talent" type of books are just disposable commodity, something that one might read and feel good, but never think of reading the book again. Then, we just get new, find-your-talent books that appeal to other self-doubting people and the vicious cycle continues.

Maybe, instead of looking for your talent, you should just try everything without getting caught up on getting the desired results. And if you fail, you fail. Like Beckett said, "Try again, fail again, fail better." Being good at failing is ironically kind of awesome, because you are good at something that most people don't admit that they are good at. Then, at least you will be one of a kind :)

Seeking Company in Books

On salon.com, Bob Stein brings up an interesting idea about the ideal future of books. To him, the utopia for the future of books is as follows:

"I've become interested in how context informs the reading experience, whereas a few years ago I was more focused on content. I'm interested by how context comes from different places, how it is shaped by different factors. During the Golden Notebook Project [a late 2008 "experiment in close-reading" that featured an ongoing conversation between seven readers that took place in the margins of the novel] I learned a huge amount just watching them read and debate the text. You can bring in various different glosses on a document. It is a richer experience with these different framing devices readily available, being able to see multiple perspectives and points of view at once. In the digital era context is what matters."

Reading a book is no longer only a solo adventure, a time for solitary reflection. Now, the discussion of a book, which we used to only associate with classrooms and book clubs can become an immediate part of a reading experience. However, I don't believe that this can work nicely with any genre. It would be pretty easy to work with fiction, because the beauty of fiction is that it's open to interpretation. Even in non-fiction, perspectives of different people can enrich self-help books, especially when that particular self-help book is about exploring one's personal experiences. (This probably comes up a lot in healing books). If different people shared their own difficulties right at the margin of the book's pages, the content of the book would probably become more inspiring. In other words, the context will enrich the content. However, I don't really see this "perspectives" thing working too smoothly in business books, maybe because business books tend to give solutions or methods that the reader should follow.

Regardless of whether the development of this new context will work or not, it seems like people have the tendency to want to discuss things and share their opinions. No wonder blogs and forums are so popular, right? I see this tendency as another attempt to create a community with other people who are interested in the same thing as yourself, or at least sharing the same experience as you at that moment in time (that is, the experience of reading that same book). More and more, people are losing the ability to do things alone. They feel awkward if they are alone, or at least more secure with other people. I am sure such feeling is not a new, modern phenomenon or anything, because people are anthropologically gregarious creatures.  But, I ask this, are we getting more gregarious, or are we simply getting more lonely so we find ourselves seeking company?

Leaders Make the Future 2nd Ed. Author's Day: Reciprocity

One of the things Bob emphasized during his luncheon presentation was reciprocity in commons- creating. That is, giving something away (such as your intellectual property) and expecting to get something better in return. He did say that this type of commons-creating was more visible in the artistic field than in corporate settings, and I am trying to figure out if I actually understand this whole concept. So, maybe I should try applying this to an artistic common that I've seen.

I kind of see Improv. Everywhere as a common, because not only is it open to participation in all of its events, but it's performances are actually international (like the no-pants-in-public-places day). In a way, the group is giving their creative idea away for free to the public. Then, what are they getting in return?

Well, I guess participation of other ordinary people in their performances and maybe new improv. ideas. But, what is the "better" thing that they are getting in return?

It's hard to define the "better" return in terms of monetary value or profit. In a corporate field, maybe the return could be a better, more improved idea. But, as for comical performances like the ones done by Improv. Everywhere, the return doesn't just come to the group. Instead, it's a better return to everyone who's involved or has watched the performances, because the best return for the group's sharing their humorous creativity is laughter. A return that everyone partakes. Maybe, this is too fuzzy, but I think a similar concept could be applied to non-profits as well.

The Information

This comes from another conversation I had with Jeevan when Amanda came during Author's Day. According to Jeevan, long time ago, people bought something either because they were loyal to the brand or a friend or family recommended it. But, now we make our decisions based on opinions of complete strangers, a prime example being Yelp. I also use Yelp a lot, especially when I am looking for new restaurants to try. It also never fails to amuse me that people yelp about pretty much...anything. You can even yelp a hiking trail behind UC Berkeley. I think examples like Yelp show that perhaps the influence on our decisions has become more democratic. That is, we gear toward things that a majority of public likes, even if the public is a faceless mass with which we are not personally acquainted. When I use Yelp, I usually base my decisions on the overall rating and recommendations that a lot of reviewers agree on, without really caring too much about the individual reviews. I would hate to say that this act is about going mainstream or anything, but there is an appeal in following an agreement made by a majority of people. A sense of security comes with it.



But, what about individual food or restaurant review blogs? (Oh, I go to a lot of those...a lot...) It's definitely the opinions of a single person, but I find myself going back to the same blog and really reading each entry if I like the public persona of the blogger. And this persona tends to come out in their writing style and even the format of the blog. Strangely, it seems easier to trust a public image that I infer from a piece of writing than a real person that I meet. I guess when I meet a person in reality, there are so much more information about them (impression, body language, facial expressions etc.) that I get a little insecure about what kind of person they really are. Too much complexity... wonderful but befuddling :) Regardless, the blogger has managed to market him/herself through the writing, which influences what decisions I make.

Everything does seem to come down to marketing...and if it does, then Yelp could also be a marketing tool, a tool that uses the power of information, even if the information might be what types of dishes are on the restaurant menu. Nowadays, persuasion just won't cut it, because getting information is just as important to the consumers. For example, now that so many people are health conscious, the transparency of the ingredients in food product is crucial. Just the fact that the food product has all natural ingredients is enough to make me want to buy it, even if what the company did was to just list all the ingredients on the product label. If the label was rather secretive (although I am sure that illegal now), I would be a bit skeptical. Who know, I might be chugging down preservatives without knowing.

Making Negative Titles Work

I learned today that one of the common pitfalls of negative titles is that they usually only express a complaint or identify a problem without offering a solution. And people want solution; they are not going to read pages of some stranger's complaint that doesn't necessarily change their lives. I guess such titles could be categorized as "Anti-" titles, where they do not always contain the word "anti-," but their overall message is simply "I-hate-...the government, the institution, my boss, my next door neighbor etc."

But, of course not all negative titles put off customers. One of the examples that Jeevan gave me was Leadership and Self-Deception, which did very well despite the negative tone of the title. But, I have a feeling that this title probably worked, precisely because it was not an "Anti-something" title, but brought up an idea about the human mind. That is, self-deception describes the mind's act of unconsciously deceiving itself. Despite the possibility that the direct link between "leadership" and "self-deception" might painfully pinch the leader egos, you just can't say that the title is anti something. It definitely isn't anti-leadership (at least, judging from the title alone) and what, anti-ego? Oh please, don't let your ego become so vulnerable that it shudders at the mere word "self-deception." And some modesty never hurts in this world.

Anyways, my feeling might be totally skewed because I admit that not everyone is interested in the workings of the human mind as much as I am, but I have observed a trend in which the public's interest in applicable psychology seems to be growing. At least, for a big number of people in my generation, we don't find an appeal in something that's completely superficial, pre-digested, overdone, or kitsch. When novelty on the surface of things becomes hard to find, we dig deeper in order to probe our thinking in ways that haven't been done before. That's why I believe that the movie Inception garnered its popularity partly for the plot's complex psychological concept (other than the fact that it's directed by the awesome Christopher Nolan and stars Leonardo Di Caprio and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, both of whom are absolutely dreamy....but I won't go there and save you some major eye rolling).

Well, to summarize, I think negative titles work when it's smart about its negativity. The negativity needs to refer to a bigger and deeper concept that is just waiting to be spilled out by the book's content, instead of just showing an opposition to something that already exists.

Conditioning

Deshoda listed the 100 most beautiful words in the English language, and guess what the first word is. Ailurophile, which means, a cat-lover! Yes! Now I just want to put myself in a situation where I can say, "Oh yes, I am an ailurophile." But then, most people probably won't know what I am talking about, because it's such an obscure word. As I was going through the rest of the list though, I noticed that a lot of the words sounded French, like "chatoyant" (I don't know French, so maybe that doesn't sound French at all, but to me it did), "denouement" (which I know for sure is derived from French) and "dulcet." This means that the person who put the list together must have been somewhat fond of the sound of French. I myself think French is a beautiful language and I absolutely love hearing it, but I've always wondered why French is such a popular language. A lot of people say it sounds beautiful, but is there a certain sound in French that is anthropologically appealing to the human ears, or are we conditioned to like French because of France's cultural prestige?

If the latter is true, it means that we have been culturally conditioned to like French. This idea sheds some light on the role of myth-breaking when it comes to book content. Books that break commonly believed ideas and throw the society into delicious controversy prevent us from being conditioned by a certain idea that limits our imagination into a tiny little box created by some guy in a suit. It's a necessary buffer from the invisible ignorance that we put over ourselves, invisible precisely because we think we know exactly what the circumstances are, but we fail to find other equally valid perspectives. And, myth-breaking books are popular, because people hate being conditioned despite the fact that they are tremendously vulnerable to conditioning. We seem to be in a constant struggle against the information that is thrown to us; we swallow them like ravenous kids, but at the same time, we want to throw it all back up and say that we are adults who can resist that tempting, but ultimately boring food. But, let me by cynical here and say that we are still eating without really thinking, and our desire to resist being conditioned by a certain idea is smothered by our too easy belief in what the masses believe.

But, going back to French, even if this is cultural conditioning at work, I still love the sound of it. I will just accept that I am being conditioned, despite the fact that this acceptance might make my previous paragraph hypocritical or invalid :)  But, every time I think that French is beautiful, I can't stop myself from thinking about what I've just discussed.

Picture Talk

It would be completely awesome if one of our books became a documentary. I would think that the movie would definitely help market the book. There are some people I know who don't care for (or dare I say, don't even like) reading, but most people like to watch things, whether it's television, movies, Youtube etc. There seems to be something about a visual or a picture that appeals to our senses a lot more than words, which in a way, just look like black, crawling lines on a white surface.

Just looking at myself, I have a sort of a film running through my head all the time. Whatever I write, I see everything in moving pictures first, which I translate onto the page in words. And when I hear or read something, I translate the words into pictures in order to comprehend it. This, of course, happens both unconsciously and simultaneously. If this is a common way of thinking, it could explain why people are so attracted to pictures. Not only do people like moving pictures, but readers also love illustrations, especially when they are reading something dense. But, I am not a psychologist, so I won't get further into speculations.

Now that the digital book market is booming, we have the opportunity to incorporate more visuals into the books. But, no matter how much I like pictures, I would still like to keep my text. There are some things that can only be enhanced or explained by words. For example, take this comic by Dagsson below.

Source

Other than the fact that this comic is hilarious, imagine that the words "Anarchy in the UK" weren't there. It really wouldn't be funny at all, because the words on the bottom make up the punchline. And it still wouldn't be funny if the punchline was expressed by another picture instead of words. You see? People say a picture speaks a thousand words, but there are some things that can be adequately expressed only by words. So, in other words, the collaboration of words and pictures is important.

Why Authors Might Need to Read Their Own Books

It is possible that a writer could write a book on how to live a certain way, but fail to live that way himself. For example, an author could have written about how to be more considerate of others, yet he could be a complete jerk to the people in his life. Hypocritical? Yes. But, also very odd. In the self-help genre, how is it possible that authors write about something that they fail to practice? It's either the author doesn't know what he's talking about and his practical techniques to live a certain way is completely bogus, or, he knows a lot only in theory. This question gives rise to a more interesting thought about the reason we write what we write about. The answer probably depends on the person, the situation, the book genre etc. (the same old "it depends on..." type of an answer, the answer to every question in life that can't be answered in a single sentence).

But, I have a little theory when it comes to self-help books, or at least a book that endorses a certain characteristic or quality to have in order to be an "improved" human being. The author writes about how great a certain quality of a person is, because he admires that quality. But, you usually admire a characteristic that you don't have yet wish to have, or one that you are currently working on to achieve for yourself. (Unless, you are rather conceited and admire only yourself.) This automatically creates that break between that author's "how-to-be-an-improved-person" book and what he practices in his real life. He unconsciously hopes to achieve in his own life what his book achieves as a text; he writes that book, because it is a form of his ideal.  Now, this is just a theory without a single scientific or statistical basis (please don't talk to me about math or science. I might start weeping.) and it can't apply to everyone. And I am sure a lot of authors truly live out the messages of their books. But, I hope that it would be a worthwhile tool of introspection for the authors out there.

Talking to, but not talked to.

I recently rejected a book proposal sent possibly by an inmate (you can supposedly tell, because everything's handwritten in pencil), and it felt really weird sending a handwritten rejection to him/her. Here I was, rejecting someone locked up in a tiny box for who knows how long. But, it's not really pity or sympathy I am talking about here. The person could have committed a horrendous crime, which would probably scare me more than make me pity the person (although, I wonder if that makes me an uncompassionate person, but let's not get into ethics at this point) and I would probably have rejected the proposal anyways even if it wasn't sent by an inmate. The point is, it just felt like I was sending a note to a wall; I would never be able to hear the person's response to my rejection, a response that I would be able to hear if I had called the person. Sure, I can imagine how he or she would react after receiving my response, but that's just my imagination, a mental picture created solely by me. In other words, the real response can't really come to me. Maybe, it's the fact that an inmate is locked up in a cell. I imagine a concrete box with a small barred window, and my handwritten rejection just bouncing off the sharp corner of the box.

People nowadays lament their relationships that seem to be comprised of only one-way communication. They complain, "People just won't listen!" I have a feeling that the concrete box image is also suitable for this type of a complaint. But, just imagine how more alienating it would feel if it wasn't that the other person didn't listen, but that the other person couldn't listen and you couldn't listen to him/her? The one-way communication that comes not from someone's stubborn intention to not listen, but from unchangeable circumstances into which people are coincidentally thrown seems more tragic.

Steve was right!

I was a little surprised when I found out that Steve sometimes doesn't read the entire book manuscript that he is editing. He told me that he does this for some manuscripts, not only because of time constraints, but he can also know what the draft is like just by reading the first 20-30 pages. Of course I believed him, but I wondered if it was just a Steve thing, something that he has acquired the ability to do because of his long experience in book publishing. But, now I can say from my experience that Steve was right about this!

As I was working on my second manuscript review, I realized that for both times of doing a review and just reading the drafts for Author Days, I pretty much grasp in the first 20-30 pages the core aspects of the book that are either good or need improvement. After I set these aspects as my foundation, I pretty much encounter examples throughout the book that fit these aspects. Despite the fundamental flaws that stay throughout the entire manuscript, I have to say that most drafts do get better as they progress. Why is this? I am assuming that it must be pretty difficult to start a draft. Once you are in the midst of an idea, it's easy to write, because the you are swimming in the complexity of that idea, re-arranging its different components as you write them out. But, how do you start about bringing an idea to the table? There might be two big mistakes people make to deal with this problem. They either dumb the idea down for the sake of clarity, because they are afraid that readers won't get it, or the introduction starts off too broadly, vaguely, or with too much complexity crammed into a tiny amount of space. A professor once told me that the introduction is the last thing she writes when she's writing a book. This must be her attempt to start from inside her head and coming out with what her head contains, all wrapped up nicely, instead of opening a door to her own head and being smooshed by an avalanche of her ideas that are trying to burst out.

Walking Through Mud

It is extremely painful to read something very simple for a sustained period of time. You would think that you would be able to breeze through common sense, right? But, oh no, how I have underestimated you, simplicity. Having to read something that is so obvious yet so painstakingly spelled out for you is like trying to walk through a mud pit. Sure, you are walking, but you are pretty much dragging each step and that single step tires you out twice as much as walking twenty steps on grass. But, common sense that is pre-digested for you (if there is anything to digest, that is) and phrased in slightly different ways seems to be the only thing that people are bothered to read.

Then, has the intellectual capacity or at least the intellectual willingness of the masses been smaller than I thought? Has it shrunk through time, because of the hectic pace of life?

Take, for example, The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (non-fiction, right? I think...). Now, other than the fact that the book is dry as sand, it's not too much of an easy read. But, wasn't that book a trade book for the masses? It sure wasn't a textbook for academics. I can't say for sure whether it was popular or not when it was first published, but if most literate adults could digest that sort of a book, shouldn't people now be able to read a slightly not-so-simple book as well? (Seeing that more of us are educated now than during Franklin's time.)

Maybe, it's a time thing; we are just too busy. Yep, I understand. But, instead of trying to read an entire easy book in a couple of hours, couldn't we read a portion of a harder book in that same amount of time? Are we too impatient to not be able to finish a book? This seems to be a willingness issue, our unwillingness to challenge not only the way, but just how much or how deeply we think about the world.

Marketing the Writer Persona

I was reading an article on The Millions about making the media presence of the writers as a vital component of marketing their books. Talking strictly about fiction as the article also seems to do, I agree with the writer of the article on the idea that online presence makes the author into a flat character, like a celebrity whose facade doesn't reflect his or her human complexity, or even the complexity of the book. Just imagine that you are reading a wonderful novel, but from your head, you just can't erase the author's completely corny profile picture on the book's website that manages to reduce the core of the book into a single catchy message. Okay, fine, fiction writers probably don't have reductive websites for their novels, but there's a certain pleasure in going through the threads of a complex novel and perhaps trying to create an image of the author from those complexities. The author stays as the vague, mysterious weaver of words. We might have their biography, but we cannot make them into one dimensional media persona, someone who simply becomes a profile picture to which we automatically connect the book.

Okay, so that's fiction. Now, non-fiction has more danger of having reductive websites with snappy lines like "Do more in Less Time." And I am all for selling the authors and what they stand for in their fields, because non-fiction audience doesn't have the time to be exploring the complex maze of narrative fiction. However, I wonder if this marketing strategy turns the authors into a commodity. Not in the sense that they are disposable commodity; they probably won't be considered a commodity if the books are bestsellers and the authors become so famous and popular in their field that they attract hundreds of speaking opportunities. But, commodity in the sense that they simply become a cover picture for that "message" they stand for in their books and no longer human writers.  They lose that human complexity, and soon I start to see them not as writers, but as brands.

And think about it. Would you rather be human or the label on the Coca-Cola bottle?

Fictionalizing

People generally like stories, so some business books take the form of a fable or contain anecdotes that illustrate their points. In a way, the authors are fictionalizing non-fiction in order to make the books more appealing. If the situation were that fiction and non-fiction are competing for the favor of the masses, then is fiction winning, because non-fiction is taking on a partial mask of fiction? I would like to say so, but I am completely biased, because I love fiction.

Non-fiction lovers will probably disagree with me, because even if the book is in the form of a story, it is fundamentally non-fiction that contains facts or a purpose or message that is applicable to real life. In other words, it is not just an imagination of another life lived by imagined characters. But, if non-fiction must sometimes borrow a form of fiction to boost its appeal, then it is clear that fiction is not dead and cannot die. Even if publishing might be a stagnant industry right now, people just can't get enough of stories. Sure, people can self-publish, but that's still publishing, right? That means, publishing is alive and well, and will probably live on as long as stories exist. Both fiction and non-fiction stories, that is.

Good Books are Not Jealous

As I was resting my poor nail-less toe, I started reading Affluenza, 2nd Ed., because I remembered watching a part of the documentary in my environmental science class in high school. I also think the topic is absolutely fascinating and I myself am trying to live more simply without getting caught up in the world's consumer culture. In one of the sections, the authors refer to Henry David Thoreau, who's famous for his own quest for simplicity in his book Walden. Probably because I agree so strongly with living simply as possible, I got the sudden urge to read Walden, which I have never had the chance to read before.

And this happened when I wasn't even finished with Affluenza. But, not because the book was so boring that I wanted to read something else. If a book inspires you to read another book, then that book is definitely worthwhile. It makes you become interested in a topic that the book is pursuing, instead of limiting your interest to itself, a book that you will eventually finish and never read again. Instead of being jealous of other books, it directs you to them, helping you widen your horizons or learn more deeply about a certain topic. Now, that's some nice book.

The pun is intended :)

Marketing Workshop Day 1

Let me tell you...those cookie plates are dangerous.

Now, as for the more substantial aspect of the marketing workshop...overall, it was pretty awesome. A ton of information that I can't use right now, but I feel like I can apply to them to other aspects of my life that do not necessarily have anything to do with marketing your books. I think that ultimately, you're always marketing yourself, whether it's for a job, networking, or even if just wanting to form a good connection with someone else.

I would have to say that my favorite speaker was Michael Soon Lee, just because he was pretty hilarious. I didn't know that sales tactics that could be seen as "manipulative" could be so lovable.

The talk that was the most relevant to me was Marcia Reynolds talk on speaking. Public speaking goes beyond just book marketing into almost every career out there. And I absolutely love watching TED clips, and have always admired really engaging and inspiring TED speakers. I feel like the key to being a great speaker is being conversational, because that really forms a connection between the speaker and the audience. The audience gets sucked into what the speaker is saying, and of course, it's always nice if the speech is poetic (Eloquent, in one sense. I think eloquence always contains poetry.)

Strangely, despite being an ultra-introvert, I have no trouble with public speaking. Maybe, it's because I love acting, so I never feel stage fright. I guess it also might sound strange that an introvert loves acting, but I actually think acting is perfect for introverts. When you are acting, you are becoming someone else, so there is no vulnerability of exposing yourself. Introverts become freer to act when they are not themselves. That is not to say that I am not free when I am myself.. I am strictly speaking about the feeling that one might get from acting. But, here I am digressing to a completely different topic from what I've started with...

Anyways, I am disappointed that I won't be able to attend tomorrow's workshop, but there really isn't a more urgent concern when you are dragging around a pussing toe. Doctor's appointment, here I come, grimly.

Jeffrey Clements Author's Day and Politics

I had to be extra alert today, because Corporations are Not People is a very politically charged book, so people were talking a lot about politics and people from different parties. And let's just say that politics and I are not the closest buddies. (Whenever I read the newspaper, I go straight to the art/culture/travel and health sections. I guess that's a great improvement from just reading the comic section and looking over the ads to see if there are any sales at Macy's. But, I know, I could do better.)

But, I am realizing that politics is really important in people's daily lives. Not in that abstract sense of politics influencing and shaping our careers, market, etc., which is all true, but in the idea that people actually talk about these things once they graduate being a student. In the world of work, politics sometimes form a part of everyday talk, instead of the usual so-and-so-did-what-last-night trivial subjects that fill most of the conversations between students.

I have to say, I am not particularly interested in politics. (I am actually not interested in a lot of things that most people my age are interested in, but that's a whole new can of worms.) I don't have a t.v. at my Berkeley apartment, but back home, if I do decide to watch anything political, it's always Stephen Colbert Report. Only because that guy can make politics funnier than most standup comedies. (Which are supposed to be funny, but I think they are vulgar sometimes. Sorry if I sound snobby.) So, after realizing the importance of politics, will I start reading the politics section of the newspaper? Mmmm, let's just say, baby steps, okay?

For Once

For once this post is not about books or writing. It's, randomly, about ethnicity.

Not so random, I guess. I was talking to Jeevan about how I don't really consider myself Korean-American, but just Korean, probably because I came here when I was eight and am still superficially in tune with the Korean culture and language. But, I realized that I am not really...anything.

When I visit Korea, it feels like I am in a foreign country, even if I look like the people there and understand the language perfectly. I guess it's kind of like an American being in England or Australia. I am too comfortably settled in the American culture and the setting that Korean culture is like a foreign entity. But, at the same time, I don't consider myself American and probably wouldn't mind living in Korea. (Although it might be a bit difficult for me to adjust, seeing that I am more fluent in English than in Korean.) And, I just found out that I have a slight accent when I speak English, which was new to me. So, here I am, stuck in the middle, not fully anything, not able to fully decide to be anything, because I have two cultures inside my belly that both make my current self.

It's a weird feeling. It feels like I am floating inside a gigantic fish net that's hung from two lonely planets in space.

Revision: Productivity II

I need to slightly revise what I said previously about my writing process. I said that making writing into work makes me not want to write, but sometimes, discipline must be forced if I do not show self-discipline. The internal rule to write certain number of pages a day is pretty effective. As long as it's flexible, that is.

Strangely, I am re-learning a lot of things about myself by arranging my personal thoughts on this blog. As Stephen King said, "I write to find out what I think."

Productive II

Funny thing. I previously wrote about productivity and today, I read a book proposal about how to achieve maximum productivity. The society's obsession with productivity is tremendous, stemming from our dissatisfaction with just how lazy we are. So, why are we so lazy or unproductive?

Maybe, we are so unproductive because we obsess over productivity in the first place. Because there is this stress to be productive, productivity becomes an obligation, a burden, or for a lack of a better word, work. And people tend to get lazy if they think that what they are doing is work. Wouldn't we achieve maximum productivity if we don't think about productivity? If we don't think about how much work we have to get done in a certain amount of time, but just do things step by step without thinking about just how much of a workload we have? The constant pressure to be productive overwhelms us, and that might be why we get lazy. Because, we just don't want to deal with it.

This is coming from a personal experience of writing. If I make an obligation to write a certain amount, that writing becomes work, and I suddenly don't want to do it anymore. But, if I just write on and on without thinking of its end, if I just let the momentum take me, I end up writing more. (But, this is different from writing as much or little as you want. If I have that kind of mindset, I would just write one paragraph a day...). The best way to be productive is to only look at the process of work rather than the work as a whole with its beginning and its end.

Being Productive

Unlike my internship at BK, my two previous internships did not have regular 10-5 work hours at an office. My blogging internship was completely online, in the comforts of my own home (or I guess, my dorm, which wasn't THAT comfortable), whereas my internship at an art gallery was not solely a desk job. (It involved a lot of manual labor...those canvases are HEAVY.) Although my internship at BK is only two days a week, it is safe to say that it's my first so-this-is-what-it's-like experience of having an office job. Although a desk job is not as physically draining as carrying twenty pound canvases, it does pose a sneaky danger. It's really easy to doze off, especially at the wee hour after lunch, just plain space out (which I am very good at, unfortunately), or do personal yet completely unnecessary things on the computer. (But, I am pretty good at staying focused on work, so this one's not too much of a problem.) In other words, it's really easy to be unproductive.


But, there is something nice about being productive. Even at home, I feel this satisfaction of having done something worthwhile. After working on something for hours, I would realize, "Wow! I've been working for so long!" and would feel really good about myself. It's funny, we think that being lazy and not doing anything will make us happy, because we are finally free from the shackles of work. I mean, being lazy from time to time is absolutely enjoyable, but in the end, having something to do makes us happier than not doing anything. I guess the hard part about being productive is actually getting started. At least, that's the hardest part for me.

Used vs. New: The Monetary Value of Books

It is painful for a college kid to buy new books. That is, spend $14.95 on a fiction that I could probably buy for $6 used. Ever since I was introduced into the wonderful world of used books at Berkeley, I just couldn't bear to spend more than twice the amount of money to buy the same book, simply with a newer cover and whiter paper. The only problem is that when there is a book that I really want to buy or have always wanted to buy, but can never seem to find it as used. Then, I arrive at the point of dilemma: To spend $14.95 or to not spend $14.95. I have succumbed to buying new books before, especially for the books that I felt as if I just had to read at that moment, or else I would go into book-withdrawals, or a massive depression (Small things do make me moody, such as the overcast weather, not reading when I want to read, etc.) Even if I cringe as I hand my crisp twenty dollar bill at the cash register, I am still happy enough once I get that book in my hands. So, if it's not so devastating to buy new books and I can indeed buy new books without bashing myself over it, then buying used books is not the only choice for my conscience. In other words, I am ultimately okay buying either used or new books.

Which brings me to the question of what is the monetary value of books? Economically, buying used books is more prudent, because you get the same content for half the price. But, what is considered "expensive" for books? $14.95 is only too expensive, because I know that there is a $6 option somewhere in the world, but in the end, the joy of getting that book trumps all that pain of extra dollars. Poohh, call me a spendthrift, I can't help it with books sometimes.

Literary Ego

My literary ego made me read Proust as my leisurely reading.

As an English major, I have this smug obligation to read famous works of literature just so that I can say that I've read them. Hence, why I forced myself to finish Herman Melville's Moby-Dick even if I think that it's the most boring work of fiction ever written. (Even worse than Steinbeck's East of Eden; although, I think that one has potential, so I should go back to it.) So, when I heard about Proust's epic seven-volume attempt to grasp the passage of time, there was a little blip in my English major brain, and I thought, 'That's it! Time for me to read Proust!' I had heard that it was hard to understand, but oh dear, I really underestimated that French author.

To business books, we are usually "Simplify! Simplify!" Yes, Proust, simplify. No, just kidding. Simplifying In Search of Lost Time would be taking away the major artistic merit of the work. And his writing is absolutely gorgeous, and scarily precise. What a brain to be able to express, in words, a single train of thought that takes less than a second.

Because I admire such literature, I think it's good that I am interning at BK. I am exposed to books that I would probably never think of picking up in the bookstore, and I am learning that not all books are published in the same way.

Okay, I got to get back to the mind-wringing world of Proust. (And no, I will not quit midway through the book. I am going to finish it and feed my ego.)

Editing is not empathetic

My first author's day yesterday was awesome! It felt pretty exhilarating to come out of the narrow shell of academia and meet people working in the real world. My favorite meetings were the editorial meetings (good thing that I am an editorial intern), just because I actually love editing. (Yes, I actually get pleasure from editing. Hmmm, something tell me that I'll feel just fine with this internship). Well, more specifically, I like editing other people's works. Maybe, this is that cruel, hidden streak in me, because I feel no remorse in telling people they could fix this and that in their manuscript that they've poured their sweat and blood into for a long time. As for my own writing, I love watching it improve as I edit, but I have to admit that it's one of the most mentally painful experiences of my life. It's quite difficult to be objective with self-editing, because you are so personally invested in your own writing. But, I think we always forget that when we are simply editors. I think it's crucial to bring an objective perspective to editing a piece of writing, but we also easily forget that the piece is like the author's baby. If we criticize it ruthlessly, it's like insulting their child.

Constructive criticism is a way to not only make the editing process productive but also to take into consideration that it is decent etiquette to be respectful to other people's writing. It is just plain rude to say that something is crap without giving sufficient reason or ways to improve it. In a way, it's a tool for empathy, to connect with the authors in striving for the same goal of improving the piece of writing. But, the fact that I get pleasure from editing other people's works, because I have the opportunity to be objective and be productive with criticism, seems to distance me from the author's feelings. This is necessary for editing well, but it does show me that editing is not the emotionally kindest or most sympathetic act that one could do. But, I guess the karma comes when we have to edit our own works and pull our hair out.

Short Story Misfortune

In The Millions, Paul Vidich wrote an article about the declining popularity of short stories in the publishing world. Because the world now offers so many other things to do like watch television or get real time information through the internet, people no longer subscribe to magazines and the short stories that are published in weekly magazines or in sections of newspapers are becoming the thing of the past. Thus, the prudent reason to not publish short story collections:

"Publishing executives today don’t expect collections to sell (because they haven’t in the past), so they aren’t marketed, and this cycle of low expectations and insufficient care creates a self-fulfilling outcome: collections don’t sell."


That is, unless the stories are written by someone who already has a well established writing career or popularity that would guarantee that his collection would sell. I am a bit disheartened to hear this plight of short stories, because I am afraid that it would give even less chance for new aspiring writers to get their works published. Writing a novel is both mentally and physically straining, and a difficult task to even the most experienced writers. I am convinced that writing shorter works might be a good stepping stone for aspiring writers to launch themselves into the writing career, or shall I say, get their feet wet. But, if rejection from the publishers is all they get for their first volume of short stories, simply because, regardless of the writing skill or content, the format of the book is a collection of short stories, then what kind of message are these writers getting? Some might not even attempt to write longer works, because they think that if they failed at short stories, what chance do they have with novels?


Short stories do have different form of narrative from novels, so maybe, you might be horrible at writing short stories but be the next Dostoevsky. (Or, you could be like Chekhov and refuse to write novels, because you are definitely the short story guy). But, it's scary to see that the world is restricting itself to certain length and form of literary works. Short stories, novels, plays, and poetry all offer something unique in their own form, and the extinction of one is like the extinction of a language. Just imagine that we all spoke the same language. How boring would such world be?

Somehow not complementary

I was introduced to the interesting and detail oriented world of permissions in publishing. It is definitely a hostile and possessive world, too, if the rule of thumb is that you can't make money off of someone else's idea or property. If you do, then it's most likely straight to a lawsuit. Of course, I understand the hostility; I mean, I would be more than a little peeved if someone took my idea and used it as their own. But, right after learning about permissions, reading a manuscript about caregiving and creating a goal that is catered toward others and not to yourself gave me a funny feeling. It was as if I was introduced to two jarring ideas.

Yes, permissions and thinking about others are two completely different things. And, you can act for the benefit of all while maintaining you rights and keeping the things that you have rightfully earned. However, in the idea of being a caring person, I don't quite the see the aggressiveness that we show in suing others or being possessive.

Then, I wonder, isn't the aggressiveness in defending ourselves and protecting our rights just a part of human nature? Like lions that bear their claws in order to protect their territory? But, wanting to be caring, gaining a sense of fulfillment in realizing that your actions take others into consideration is also a part of human nature. Our feelings seem to traverse the bipolar spectrum of "Me only" and "I love and am generous to everyone" and make us into paradoxical beings.

Who would have known that publishing would remind me once again of the iffiness of being human.

First Day

Hmmm, how do I put this eloquently...my first day at Berrett-Koehler Publishers was...

Information. Overload.

I am dead tired and ready to knock out at 9:00 p.m. But, it was just enough information to excite me and not overwhelm me. And Holly was a wonderful trainer, so I feel like I have a thorough enough background information to kickstart my role as an editorial intern for the summer. I am also sure that I will have a better handle on things after a couple of days. I do have many weeks to go after all and I am excited to get started!

But, because I have a personal ambition and pressure to be a good intern, I do have two (slightly exaggerated) concerns as of now. Because I love to exaggerate and savor unnecessarily dramatic situations, here are the worst case scenarios:

1. Considering that I am the type of person who forgets what he or she said five minutes ago, I am afraid that I might forget to do something crucial that Holly taught me. For example, I'll forget that I even have a bk email and will never check it for the entire summer. (Okay, that's too exaggerated and has a slim chance of happening. But, you get my point). Or, maybe I'll reject the proposals, but forget to record them. I would have rejected fifty proposals, yet the spreadsheet would look the same as it did three weeks ago.
2. I haven't attached all the names to the faces of their owners. So, maybe Jeevan will tell me to go see Kristen and I will go see Dianne or Cynthia. Or, I will be standing in the middle of the hallway looking pathetically lost, because I don't know which office is the marketing and sales office. And, maybe the other employees will look at me with kind but pitying eyes and worsen my embarrassment...

I guess just the usual concerns that come with the first day of training (and the usual exhaustion). I think the best cure for this is to dive into the work and see where it goes. I think it's going to be fun!!