Skip to main content

I'm prevaricating again

An author prevaricating recently
I know I've written about this before, but it's important. If there is one thing authors like to do, it's prevaricate. I've never yet met an author who didn't admit to the fact that the moment they sat down to write, they felt a strong urge to do something else. Anything else. Even the dishwasher or the hoovering. Or hoovering the dishwasher.

Some authors have taken this to a fine art. Douglas Adams famously had to be forced to write by locking him in a hotel room until he came up with the goods. But pretty well all of us do it.

The silly thing is that once you get going, it's hard to stop. Once you are writing, you want to keep at it. I know this. It should mean that I want to get in there and start writing right now. But I don't. (Okay, I am writing this, but anything other than the book counts as prevarication.)

At the moment I'm at the worst possible point in the cycle. I'm just about to take the plunge into a new book. I'm looking at a word count of about 500 words (with chapter headings and a few outline contents) and I have to turn that into 80,000 words. It's daunting. Where to start? But I know that my old friend prevarication will be back every day as I get to the point when I've checked the bank account, done the emails, got up to date on Google reader and done pretty well anything else I can think of to prevent myself writing a book.

So here we go. I'm going in. Wish me luck. Hang on, though. I think the dishwasher needs emptying. I'll just get that done first...
Labels:

Comments

  1. cromercrox1 September 2011 at 09:48

    Thanks so much for posting this, Brian. A problem shared is a problem halved. I'm more or less at the same phase of writing as you are (maybe slightly further along - this week's working title 'The Beowulf Effect: Fossils, Evolution and the Human Condition') - just a few thousand words in. But the synopis was almost 20,000 words long so I have a detailed script from which to work. I love it when I'm At It ('In The Zone', I call it), but ... oh ... it's the getting started that's so hard. I have to imagine a dalek hovering near going 'Prevaricate! Pre-va-ri-cate! You Will Be Prevaricated!' Or be with iPad on train and no internettery distractions, such as playing Scrabble on the net with complete strangers, which is really an intellectual version of cottaging.

    ReplyDelete
  2. xtofersdad1 September 2011 at 10:53

    Brian
    Well said..unfortunately prevarication isn't solely a skill that authors have; accountants have it in spades as too do football managers judging by the transfer activity on the last day of the window yesterday.

    I've developed the p- index; which goes along the lines that the tidier the house the greater the avoidance that has taken place and hence the greater the stress levels that have built up associated with non completion of the essential money-making tasks with which they were associated....

    resolution brings the rewards and a supreme relaxation that's hard to describe.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Paul Robinson20 January 2012 at 23:17

    "Prevaricating" just doesn't seem to be the right word for the context. I would have chosen "Procrastinating" as more fitting the situation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brian Clegg21 January 2012 at 15:16

    You are probably right - the downside of blog posts is they tend to be written quickly and the best word for the job is not always chosen.

    However, to be fair, the OED does give as one of the (admittedly secondary) definitions of prevarication: 'stalling or playing for time by means of evasion or indecisiveness; procrastination, hesitation', so I don't think it's a ridiculous word to have used.

    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 2010 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 exp...
118 comments
Read more

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...
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...
6 comments
Read more