Skip to main content

Writer's Toolkit #1 - The Dog

There are many things that are useful to a writer in their craft. One that is not as obvious as many is a dog. You might wonder what possible benefit a dog can bring - in fact there are several.

The first is company. If you are a full-time writer, the chances are you will spend a lot of time alone. Dogs give just the right amount of presence without getting in the way of the writing process.

Second is exercise. Writing is, inevitably, something of a sedentary occupation. Having a dog about the place forces you to get out of your chair a couple of times a day, come rain or shine, for a walk. This might not seem so welcome when it's pouring down (the last few days we've had sun and it has been glorious), but the dog's great strengh here is that it forces you to get past the 'can't be bothered when it's so miserable' syndrome. You have to take that walk.

Finally, there's creativity. The dog itself doesn't do a lot for this, but it's a side effect of those regular walks. I'd say at least half of my best ideas for books and things to put in them have been dreamed up while out walking the dog. It's essential for this to work that you don't take a mobile phone, that just causes distractions. With either a notebook or a recording MP3 player to jot down any thoughts you've got yourself an idea factory.

Of course, a dog is for life, not just for writing - but they genuinely help.

Comments

  1. Brian - of course, as one owner of a golden retriever to another, I heartily agree. I was initially opposed to getting a dog, but Mrs Scribbler (a homeworker, who edits an online magazine for a charity) convinced me with, essentially, the two arguments you've advanced above - companionship, and exercise.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And don't forget the creativity - as we've shared a panel on creativity in the past (I don't know if Clare also has a dog), we know scientifically that 2 out of three creative experts have golden retrievers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yup. That's got to be statistically significant, that has.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cats, of course, actively hinder the writing process by stepping on your keyboard or playing with your pen.

    ReplyDelete
  5. They're also much harder to take for walks.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'd imagine they could be used to keep your feet warm too - that's got to be a bonus

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope