Skip to main content

Playing the writer

My Starbucks 'office'
As I type I'm sitting in our local chain coffee shop (what the hell, it's Starbucks). I've a fairly quiet day, so I thought I'd play the writer for once and have breakfast and work here a while, as I'm told this is what real writers do.

On the whole, though, I'm not sure it works for me.

Don't get me wrong. It's great having the sort of job where you can decide to have a leisurely breakfast and a quick peruse of the paper, but when it comes down to real work, I'd rather be sitting at my desk at home. Here there's background music, chatter, barista rattle... how is this supposed to help me concentrate? I brought with me the copy edit of my next book to check over, as I thought this might be the sort of thing I could do in a coffee shop, because it doesn't require the same level of concentration as writing, but even that I'd prefer to do in a comfy chair at home.

I can only think that those who do get all excited about working in a coffee shop miss the hustle and bustle of people around them. They want to be with people. And I can understand that. It's why I so enjoy giving talks and the like. But for writing I want peace and comfort. I only have music playing if I'm doing something brainless like the accounts - otherwise I work in silence.

So this isn't for me. But I'll still enjoy a read of the excellent i newspaper and finish my coffee before getting back to the grindstone.

Labels

Labels:

Comments

  1. Peter Cook26 October 2012 at 08:53

    Different strokes for different folks Brian. I enjoy working on trains and in cafes. I find it easy to 'disappear' into my own world on such things - strange for an extrovert I guess. I also find that distractions such as music help me focus, but then again I rarely listen to the music while I work.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg26 October 2012 at 09:44

    I do enjoy working on trains and on cafes when away from home - that's different. But this was literally the coffee shop across the road - and I couldn't help but feel it would be better to take the 5 min walk back.

    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...
123 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

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