I’m a fan of the blog Writer Unboxed and when I read on the site that they had a FB community page, I knew I wanted to be part of it. During these past few weeks that I’ve participated in the threads, I’ve discovered several new resources, including  The Complete Handbook Of Novel Writing: Everything You Need to Know About Creating & Selling Your Work (Writers Digest). 

The book covers the basics from crafting a story and using descriptive language to breaking through writer’s block, mastering genres and getting an agent. It also addresses a number of issues that concern fiction writers. You’ll find essays from best-selling authors, including Janet Fitch, Terry Brooks, Sue Grafton, John Updike, Richard Russon, Evan Hunter, and J. A. Jance, and a bunch interviews with others, including Kurt Vonnegut and Margaret Atwood.

I’ve only read the first three chapters, but the first essay by N. M. Kelby described me writing Julius before my “Do-Over.” Whenever someone asked me what my book was about I was unable to give them a straight answer because it included too many things that I couldn’t clearly articulate; the story was too plugged up with ideas and themes that kept clogging its flow.

The point I’m trying to make—and hence the title of this post—is that even though every idea that splashes around in your head might be great, you need to restrain yourself from including them all in your WIP. Stick to one theme, one plot and one subplot. Leave the others for your next book and the one after that.

You might think that sneaking in just another concept will make the story better, but it won’t. It will be frustrating to write, your beta readers will be questioning what story you’re trying to tell, and you’ll keep clogging the drain in that kitchen sink. However, if you insist in adding just one more element, heed these words: remember to keep a plunger and some Drano nearby.

My love/hate relationship with Facebook continues. The one thing I keep relearning in the world of social media is to just quit while you’re ahead. In other words, if you get involved in a debate with someone on a thread that you know won’t end well, bow out gracefully and leave it alone. But remember, I rarely follow my own advice as I wrote in The Filter is Your Friend.

For example, a writer friend and psychotherapist had commented that we were taking a step behind when it came to eating disorders when the 19 year old model Karlie Kloss was proclaimed “The Body” as reported in the UK’s Daily Mail. Only a couple of comments criticized the fashion industry’s obsession with extreme thinness, while the majority were jeers towards the model, comparing her to a camp refugee and saying that she was creepy and disgusting. While a few were lamenting why we couldn’t hold Marilyn Monroe’s body type as the favored one.

There’s no question that Karlie is slender, but she has muscle tone and that comes from her training as a dancer. Yep, our Karlie studied ballet at a pretty prestigious dance school in St Louis. I won’t get into the rigors of ballet, but it does explain those very elongated muscles that one person called “spidery.”

The point was that holding Marilyn’s physique as an ideal was off because Marilyn, for a good portion of her career was fat. Not obese, but she carried some heft on her 5’5” frame.  What got me in trouble was I used the adjective “fat,” which among the PC Police is taboo. (Why did I say it? Honestly, it was the first word that came to mind and I was typing quickly.) So I got jumped on it, but I continued to defend Karlie’s weight and my position that Marilyn was fat (with the exception of her Misfits days and in the Last Sitting with Bert Stern). I suppose if I had used “zaftig” or “buxom” I wouldn’t have raised so many hackles.

The next example had to do with Herman Cain announcing he was dropping his campaign for president. The comments strayed to Paul Krugman’s recent op-ed piece, ‘Send in the Clueless.’ I always agree with Dr. Krugman, but I believe  the system is broken—we have the same old players getting recycled from one election to the next. I’m dismayed by the passivity shown by the majority of Americans and also their ignorance about political matters. Except I didn’t phrase it that way, I called them lemmings—just following one another and letting things happen no matter the consequences. What occurred was a back and forth argument that no longer made sense, the specifics don’t matter, but the point I’m trying to make is when it gets into that realm of nonsense there’s no purpose to continue especially if you’re arguing from two very different ideological viewpoints.

Thus, the astute counsel I give to all my social media clients, especially those who are building a platform, is the same advice your wise mother gave you when you were about to meet your girlfriend’s or boyfriend’s family for the first time: don’t bring up politics, religion, sex, or fat, (and dead) actresses.

Facebook seems more frenzied since its latest changes. The new features include a ticker à la Tweetdeck that keeps you abreast of your friends’ latest pronouncements. A “Close Friends” feed where you can add and follow those who you interact with often. In addition, you can subscribe to members who have public profiles without befriending them; you can make your updates public, friends only, or for friends of friends.

Many of these new add-ons I found annoying. I disliked the ticker from the moment it appeared. Thankfully, I found a plug-in for Google Chrome that allowed me to shut it off. I also discovered another plug-in, FB Purity, that has several options to turn off unwanted advertisements, lists, games, tags and a number of nuisance items.

But even after turning off much of the crap, Facebook feels like it has turned into a stalker on steroids mixed with uppers. Are my friends posting more than usual or is it more noticeable because I have a number of people in my  “Close Friends” feed? One writer friend, who is both on Facebook and Google+ commented about the frenetic pace of Facebook versus the sedate nature of Google+ and I agree. After cleaning out 8,000+ emails from my iPhone, I noticed that most of them were generated from Facebook and that it was time, yet again, to change the email settings.

I’ve mentioned that Facebook is a virtual water cooler and an enabler of procrastination. As the Empress of Procrastination, it has become my prime destination to socialize, vent, get my news, watch videos, putz around, share my politics, and so on. And although I’ve bemoaned that I waste so much time on it, there are a few positives: I’ve reconnected with friends from college, made new friends, and found freelance work. But there’s still something about Facebook that nags at me and makes me want to step away: it’s started to have this malevolent feel more like Jonestown and, instead of drinking the water, we’re mainlining the Kool-Aid.

I give good advice. Really, I do.

When I was a PR senior executive, I often told my assistants they needed to watch the tone of their emails to clients, editors and colleagues–even more so if they were feeling peevish. I suggested to keep the jokes to themselves as well as the wry comments, political views or simply sharing too much personal information so as not offend anyone. Sounds good, right?

Yet because I have this certain arrogance there are times I believe I’m above this and I can blurt out or type whatever comes to mind. In other words, I don’t take my own advice and Facebook is the proof of the pudding.

What did I do to get in trouble? Exactly what I told my former assistants not to do. I was having a bad day, feeling peckish and snarky, and I commented on a photograph a friend had posted. My attempt to be clever and poke fun at myself backfired. I also managed to dig my hole deeper after a text message exchange.

Although I emailed a sincere apology, I feel I’ve become persona non-grata. If this had occurred to someone else I would have recommended she pick up the phone and speak to the offended party after that first text message. The tone in the voice would have been interpreted differently and the exchange would have gone in another direction.

As much as I enjoy the Facebook virtual water cooler, I have to remind myself that even though I interact with so many people and I have 200+ “friends,” the rules of written communication also apply to social sites—even if you know the person and you think they understand your jokes.

So heed this advice: Use the filter and your Friends list will remain unscathed.

I am currently in the second week of my New Hampshire vacation. I am sitting in the bunk house of the cabin we have rented for two weeks. There is no internet and cell phone service is very limited (even more so because I forgot my charger). So how did I manage to post this? Via the library’s wifi.

I have to admit that I like the idea of not having to check email every ten minutes and worry about whatever comes up with work, but my obsessive-compulsion disorder is itching to drive to find a hotspot and reply to emails Alas, I decided to give myself only a few hours a day to check email, plan September stories, and take a month-long Scrivener class. The rest of the time is dedicated to reading, writing, longs walks with the mutts, and swimming.

Because I have given myself a couple of hours of internet access that means I usually spend most of my time reading through emails and replying to the ones that are important. I spend little time at the virtual water cooler otherwise known as Facebook. And now that I’ve become a part of of Google+, I think I will phase myself out of FB by the end of the year. Why is that? Although I am friends with a lot of writers on FB from the IWW and I love Sarah, Rebecca, Ann, Myra, Rick, Lynn, Amanda, Gary and Terin and I hope they migrate to Google+ so we can still comment about books, politics, and life in general, there is a cliquish high school quality to FB that I don’t like. Google+ seems to be more serious and grown-up.

Venting and just plain horsing around on FB is very easy to do, but, like email, the tone can be misinterpreted if it’s not properly worded and it can bite you in the ass down the road. I know this from past and recent experience. It’s time I put that foot in mouth filter back on and do some self-censoring. On the other hand, maybe it’s time to leave the virtual water cooler with the junior staff who gossip about celebrities and fashion and go out for a virtual cup of coffee with an interesting colleague who shares the same interests at Google+.

One of my many goals this year is to network with other writers and be a part of the community–both off-and-online.

Patti Larsen, a Fellow Writer member on Facebook, had the brilliant idea to have a blogfest every second Tuesday of every month with a topic we can all write about and read.  The blogfest’s purpose is twofold: getting to know other writers and increasing traffic for our respective blogs.  For this month it’s New Connections. These connections can be just about anything under the sun.

Creating connections or networking is a challenge for me for offline  because by nature I’m aloof, and I have to really force myself to be outgoing. A lot of people have a hard time believing that since I appear at ease in social situations, but since I was 18 years old I’ve given myself these pep talks to engage people in conversation and learn to enjoy myself at parties. And I put on damn good act that I’m a social butterfly, although it takes me pretty close to a week to psych myself up.

Apart from opening my mouth and actually speaking to people at the grocery store, the health food joint, the post office, and the library, I’ve attempted to forge new connections so others can get to know me. This includes changing my Twitter handle to my real name, I’ve befriended other writers on Facebook, and I also joined the aforementioned Fellow Writers group on Facebook. Now I have to take it up a notch and actually socialize in actual venues, and meet agents and editors. Oh boy, my gut already feels like a pin cushion at the thought of approaching an agent in person.

Last summer, with this whole networking notion in my head, I attended a small symposium on getting published that was hosted  by our local library. On the panel were some important editors and agents who live here on this itty-bitty island. After the panel member were finished speaking, it was time to  schmooze and I introduced myself to one of the agents. She didn’t seem to be interested in forming any new connections at all; well, at least with me. It  left me a bit traumatized; no, not really. And to be honest, the two agents who were on the panel were not the right fit at all for Julius.

In any case, I see giving myself a lot of pep talks this year and maybe I’ll actually learn to like networking.

About two years ago at a Christmas party, one of the editors of the local newspaper came up to me and said, “You must laugh a lot at your house.” She was referring to the Ol’ Man who writes two humor columns for the weekly paper. Before I could say anything the Ol’ Man piped in and said, “Not really, she has no sense of humor.” Of course, the editor found this hilarious and for the rest of the night I was known as the one with no sense of humor.

His comment was certainly not worth arguing over, and I admit that what I find funny usually goes over the heads of many people.  When it comes to cracking a smile, I’m a hard nut. In any case, when the Ol’ Man does one of his Three Stooges routines with the silly sound effects I leave the room, and I can hear as I’m walking away that I have no sense of humor. When this occurred a few months ago I finally told him that even as a little kid I could never understand the humor of the Three Stooges, and not once did I ever laugh, guffaw, giggle, or smile at their antics. In fact I usually turned off the TV. That’s how unfunny they were to me as a kid. Then I added that I didn’t think most women find the Three Stooges amusing at all. Which, of course, he said that I had no proof and it was all based on my bias against this great comedic trio.

Now that we’re two months away from the Christmas parties and the editor who knows me as “She Who Has No Sense of Humor” will tell the story (again) of how I was outed as a sour puss, but this time  I am prepared to defend my stance of why I don’t find a lot of what the old man writes as funny (okay, I’ll give him some credit–it’s mildly amusing) and cite my recent, albeit very unscientific survey and conclusion that it’s true women don’t like the Three Stooges.

My sampling was among my female friends on Facebook , and the question was simple: Do you think the Three Stooges are funny? With the exception of one person, who said that a certain character she found amusing, all the responses were a resounding NO. Although the sampling was small, and one man chimed in (with a no) it proved my point that the majority of women don’t find The Three Stooges humorous. In fact, a lot of them offered good comedic alternative like Abbot and Costello, The Marx Brothers, Rowan and Martin.  These ladies obviously know funny when they see and hear it, and the Three Stooges failed miserably.

So this got me thinking of what is funny and I decided to do a small, top of mind round-up of what or who has me made me laugh over the years. Below is my list:

• Jack Lemmon in drag in Some Like it Hot. All his scenes, especially when he really gets into dating millionaire Joe E. Brown.
• William Goldman’s italicized commentaries in The Princess Bride.
• “To War, To War” musical routine in The Marx Brothers’ Duck Soup.
• Peter Sellers mispronouncing English words in the Pink Panther series and getting frustrated when no one one understands him.
• Numerous Saturday Night Live sketches. Most notably the earlier ones like Killer Bees, Land Shark, Samurai, Roseann Roseannadana, most of the newscasts, the Wild and Crazy Guys bit with Steve  Martin and Dan Ackroyd, Tina Fey as Sarah Palin, Jan Hooks as Hillary Clinton (it’s not easy being co-president), Dana Carvey as George Bush (I’m a Jimmy Carter).
• Dan Quayle
• John Barrymore’s over the top performance in Twentieth Century
• Victor Borge’s “Inflationary Language”
• The Jack Benny Show
• Curb Your Enthusiasm
• Seinfeld (Man hands, low speaker, high speaker, close speaker, bad breaker-upper, Master of your domain, Soup Nazi, puffy shirt, and on and on and on)
• George Carlin
• Soupy Sales
• Calvin and Hobbes

On that note I’ll end it with this which sums up of how I feel about people who think I don’t have a sense of humor.

I’m not writing about making a new friend the conventional way such as meeting someone at an event, school, workplace, or a party and hitting it off. No, I mean via Facebook. Now it is possible to befriend someone via this social network and get to know them. I did with Keith and now I work at HAND/EYE Magazine. But do you ever wonder why we “friend” the people we do on Facebook?

I have “friended” people who share common interests with me. Some include people I’ve been in touch via the Internet Writing Workshop. Now I can actually put a face to their emails. I’ve friended other writers as well as some of the artisans that HAND/EYE writes about.

It’s always a bit of a surprise, though, to get a friend request from someone you have no clue why they friended you at all. For example, and I hope he doesn’t mind that I use him to make my point. Earlier today I received a friend request from Matthew Fraser. Mr. Fraser lives in Paris with his two dogs, Oscar and Leo (lucky dogs, Mr. Fraser is included in that as well). Out of curiosity I looked at Mr. Fraser information and he’s very forthcoming.  He included his blog, Throwing Sheep, which I took a peek, his wikipedia entry, which I read. I read a few of his wall posts, looked at his photos of Oscar and Leo, his photo album of Paris, and so on.

The only friend that we have in common is my former magazine writing teacher Sue Shapiro, so I am scratching my head and wondering why he chose to friend me on Facebook. I don’t have the illustrious academic background he has, nor the impressive CV. Is it because my name is Rebeca? (his late wife’s name was Rebecca. Note: spelled with two “c’s”), is it because we’re both dog lovers? Is it because I’ve expressed my desire to live in Paris? Has he read this blog and found something I’ve written somewhat interesting? It’s a huge question mark.

Now don’t get me wrong, but I am very flattered that Mr. Fraser has found me, and requested that I befriend him.  However, intellectually I am completely out of his league. I’m talking his Proust to my Marvel comics. His Arthur Miller to my Marilyn Monroe, his Hillary Clinton to my Bill Clinton (just fooling around on that one). This guy has a doctorate in poli sci.from the Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris, whereas I went to a university in San Francisco that was known more for its PC lefty politics and I had to take statistics three times when I was in grad school!

Some of you might think that I am selling myself short. Maybe. But I wonder with the exception of the actual flesh and blood friends that we’ve connected on Facebook, would these virtual friendships actually click in real life? Is it like online dating? Hook up via Match.com, have some great email exchanges, talk on the phone that eventually leads to dinner and then BANG! You never hear back from the guy or gal because the bar has been set so high that no one can ever meet unrealistic, romantic expectations. Can Facebook friendships evolve into  a strong platonic relationship where you can sit down and have a nice relaxed conversation over a cup of coffee or a glass of wine. Or take the mutts out together for jaunt in the woods. Or that you you can trust that person and confide with him, joke around, or ask them to water your plants or pick up your mail while your gone on vacation?Is it possible?

I guess I’ll have to book a trip to Paris and find out.

Yes, I am beating a dead horse into the ground. I want Scrivener! Well, let me tell you a little story. My Facebook buddy, Rebecca Coleman, posted a photo of the corkboard on her Mac. I was green with envy because I really want a program that will keep me organized.

Writing Outliner has been good, but it’s a little buggy and I just love that Scrivener corkboard. I decided to PLEAD with the guys at Literature and Latte to design a version for PC users, and as soon as I got to their Facebook page, I saw the news: Scrivener is releasing October 25th a beta version for Windows. Hooray! Just in time to learn how to use it for NANOWRIMO.

The official sell date will be in January 2011 and if you participate in NANOWRIMO and complete the 50K word limit and it’s verified by NANOWRIMO, you get fifty percent of the price. So yes, I am participating in NANOWRIMO this November. I will complete my 50K words, and I will have the beta version of Scrivener.

To learn more about the windows version, you can read it all on the Scrivener for Windows page. And if you want to see how it will look, here’s a sneak preview:

I’m counting the days until I get my Scrivener!

Author Nancy J. Parra, one of my Facebook pals, recently posted on her blog, “Resolution–Read.” She writes that as a child she was a voracious reader, reading up to six books a week, but as an adult she’s been reading less, using her spare time to write. For 2010 her resolution is:

To rediscover reading with abandon. I have to read for my Master’s program, but my goal is to read more than that. My goal is to read all the books on my shelf, to read as many debut novels as possible, to read in as many genre’s as possible. In essence, my one resolution this year is to read in hopes of finding the lost joy, the lost wonder and bring it back into my life.  

Fortunately for me I read a lot because of Alvah’s Books, but I understand Nancy’s laments about using her free time to write. Last night, I sat down with my electronic calendar and alloted time for freelance work, writing Julius, this blog, exercise, ESL, French and Photoshop. Where does reading fit in? Not sure yet, but it is a priority.

One of my reading goals for 2010  is to read the two dozen writing books I have collected in the past three years. Today I started Jill Dearman’s Bang the Keys, which according to the back cover it is:

A writing workshop in a book for the concentration-challenged, twenty-first century writer. Bang the Keys brings an irreverant, effective, and erudite approach to the craft and practice of writing. Based on eternal principles that work for scribes of all stripes, this practical compendium contains energetic and original ideas for writers who have become masters at setting their own mind traps. 

Sounds like a perfect fit.  Thus, this week’s reading agenda  is to finish Bang the Keys–I’ll provide a review of it on Alvah’s Books. Moving forward, I’ll read the mighty Writer’s Digest books on craft and review those as well.

Now off to revise chapter three of Julius.