Poll Dancing #6: The Results

As part of my overly complex, megalomaniacal plan to dominate (and eventually monetize) the under-exploited demographic of masochistic writers, I recently asked about the type of content you'd like me to spend my precious, rare-as-slushpile-talent free time to create for your ongoing amusement, like some animatronic talking monkey with the switch jammed on benign sarcasm.

Respondents were permitted to choose more than one option, but the poll service counted each choice as a separate vote, making the results statistically meaningless. At least you couldn't vote more than once (unless you're cookiephobic), so we can be reasonably sure that 50+ people voted.

The Question: What do you want to see on 101 Reasons?

The Results:

25% (45 votes) More Reasons! I'm this close to quitting, I just need a push.

6% (10 votes) More Interviews, preferably with people I've heard of.

12% (21 votes) Weekend Updates! I need more stuff to procrastinate and obsess over.

30% (53 votes) Anything, just make it funny. I find your transparent sarcasm reassuring.

13% (24 votes) Anything, just make it cruel. My ego is overtaking my self-loathing.

2% (3 votes) More Polls! I like to know I'm not the only one here.

4% (8 votes) More personal stuff. I'm stalking you, but I'm lazy.

1% (1 votes) Generic blogosphere memes, punditry and other navel-gazing fluff. Got a cat?

2% (3 votes) Give up already. You haven't saved one tortured adverb.

6% (10 votes) Would you review my manuscript?

Total votes: 178

Oh, you three people who voted for 'Give up already', you have cut me to the quick. You are the ointment in my fly. 

Although the methodology is deeply flawed, we can make up some interesting conclusions from these data.

Obviously, most of you want more Reasons, your writerly phantasies having survived #1-14 more or less intact. But can it be true that less than half the people who want funny also want cruel? (Reminds of an old Dave Allen joke, which I will humourlessly paraphrase thus: 'Hurt me,' said the masochist to the sadist, and the sadist said 'No.')

To the folks who voted for Weekend Updates, you may get your wish soon enough. To those who voted for more personal stuff, I say: pick up the damn phone. If you don't know the number, it's none of your damn business.

Manuscript review? If you think your ego can handle a serve of fresh, steaming reality from me, you may as well just keep submitting. The result is the same.

Poll Dancing #6

Well, my impromptu experiment into just how long it takes a moderately successful blog to piss away its audience has produced some solid results: Seven days, from the last highpoint (June 8, the most recent ISBD news story), when I was averaging just under two hundred visitors per day, to get down to less than ten. That's even faster than the drop in box office a Hollywood blockbuster experiences when bad word-of-mouth kicks in.

Just for fun, I thought I'd pretend that I desperately crave validation from a gaggle of smug he's-not-talking-about-me slushdwellers and the random assortment of weirdos who find their way here from Google searches. So, this week's poll gives you the opportunity to tell me what kind of content you want to see more of at 101 Reasons.

With this poll, you can choose more than one option. You could choose every option, I suppose -- but that would be statistically meaningless and redundant, just like your writing. 

Disclaimer: I absolutely will not take this into account when I choose what to write about. Maybe next year we'll look back and see how closely your expectations match my whimsy.

Poll Dancing #2: The Results

Unlike Poll #1, which probed the darkest recesses of my readers' refusal to buy the books that they hope to sell, this poll only probed ... me. I could try to tell you this is really a reflection of your own obsessions, but who am I kidding, this is every side of me, measured in little green bars.

The Question: Why do you think Sean's been so slow to update this month?

The Results:

18% (7 votes)He's already run out of Reasons. He couldn't finish a sandwich.

30% (12 votes)He's reading terabytes of erotic fan fiction for ''research''.

3% (1 votes)I'm sure he's just busy polishing his ego.

10% (4 votes)Someone opened up a can of circular logic on his ass.

30% (12 votes)He's off writing a bloody novel, that's why. He's a fsckin' hypocrite.  

10% (4 votes)Other

• Real life intruded, the way it does with people who don't treat writing like the [truncated by poll glitch, or maybe embarrassment]
• All of the above?
• He's busy struggling for ideas to keep this one note joke alive.
• Herpes.

Total Votes: 40

So flattering to see that my hypocrisy ranks equally with porn addiction.

Stay tuned for next week, when 101 Reasons relaunches as 101 Reasons to Stop Fantasizing About Being a Pornographer. I'm sure the audience overlap will be extensive.

Disclaimer #2

101 Reasons is presented "as is", and is not intended as a substitute for actual writing advice, no matter how clever you think you are at discerning the message in the meanness.

Information is provided solely for writers to better understand the lameosity of their writing and motives, and the utter, nihilistic futility of the pursuit.

Assumptions as to the godawfuless of any particular writer's fiction are purely based on the statistical likelihood that said writer couldn't write a publishable novel if Stephen King handed them a 100 page outline and Salman Rushdie offered to do the second draft.

Sean Lindsay makes no warranties or assertions as to suitability or fitness for any particular purpose, other than the smug feeling you get from thinking that I'm talking to every other writer but you.

Always seek professional evaluation, and if rejections persist, discontinue writing.

Poll Dancing #2

Still alive, still think your fiction could blind little kids. (Really, I'm surprised that President Bush didn't name you in the State of the Union address as part of the "Slushpile of Evil".)

No, I haven't entirely stopped writing about stopping writing. I'm just trying to take heed of Reason 43: You Expect Other People To Read This Shit?

I'm also learning an abject lesson this week about the priority of this blog, in comparison to other aspects of (my) life. The anonymised version will probably become Reason 56: You Have A Family Who've Given Up Humouring Your Time-Wasting Obsessions.

A poll to tide you over, in the sidebar (that's on the site to you RSS readers).

Critical: a Claim

A quick example of the response 101 Reasons provokes:

Blogless reader Cassie mentioned 101 Reasons on Whatever, referencing my post about "all sex scenes are gratuitous". Author John Scalzi demonstrated that he didn't bother reading the link by replying thus:

The blogger's an idiot, then. But I would allow that about 98% of all sex scenes probably needn't be written.

Dude, what I said. Does that make me 2% idiot? I'm all for people calling me an idiot if they think I'm wrong, but don't then tell me you agree with me.

Shouts out to those bloggers who've directed their discerning reader my way:

A Dragon Writes: "This guy is brilliant." But has she stopped writing?

madwriter: "mostly tongue-in-cheek and often has good links, but not always."

Issendai: "It's one-handed reading for writers... who are wearing a sandpaper glove." I'm not exactly sure if the metaphor fits, so I must acquit.

Writing Sya: "Maybe a more accurate blurb would be '101 Reasons Not to Get Published'." But then no-one would read it.

Jay Lake: "fascinating and somewhat hilarious." As one commenter put it, it's better than "somewhat shit".

Midnight Highways: "if you haven’t heard of him yet, evidently you don’t keep up on the science fiction writers-and-aspirants Internet subculture." Ye gods and nanotechnology, if I had to rely on that demographic ...

AntiBlog: Just quotes a couple of paragraphs, which is sweet but really, really lazy. Dustbury.com quotes at length from the same post.

Simon Haynes: "Another blog to read." I'd write some really witty put-down about this, but he sent me a free book. I'm that easy.

Matilda: "Wouldn't have thought any of us needed 101."

Daniel Hatadi, my all-time favourite petrol-jockey-turned-crime-writer, reacted well to being interviewed.

wordweaverlynn misunderstands the concept of 101 Reasons by volunteering a 102nd.

A.R. Yngve: "Is it possible that human evolution is now moving in reverse?"

And extra-crispy kudos to those who've added 101 Reasons to their blogroll:

• A Stop at Willoughby
• Writing Sya
• Viki Babbles
• Writing Aspirations
• Invisible Writer
• Chasing a Starlight
• The Blue Folder
• Straining to Hear
• PubGuy
• Bethanie's Brain

Store credit is due to two men, who have pimped 101 Reasons like they own stock:

Paul T. Riddell, who took up the mission with the zealotry of a Heaven's Gate acolyte, and

Lee Battersby, the link that started it all, and the inspiration for 101 Reasons.

Thanks to everyone who's ridden the bus this far.

Reflections, or All Those Wasted Hours

Judging by the dodgy statistics available to me, around fifty people read 101 Reasons on an average day (after two months of lazy marketing and word-of-blog). Which is cool, because it shows that amongst the Internet's swelling population of self-important poseurs, intellectual cowards and me-too hacks, there are writers willing to share a laugh at themselves this ridiculous hobby. This is the kind of site I would read, if anyone else had been clever enough to think of it, and your continuing readership indicates to me that you wish you'd thought of it too. I respect you for being able to admit that.

Part of the amusement of writing 101 Reasons is the fascinating responses it draws from people - particularly those who only invest a cursory glance through a telescope from their moral high ground.

I expected from the beginning that some readers would "get it", some would think they get it, and some would grab their pitchforks. What I didn't expect was for some to take an each-way bet, taking umbrage at the notion that the site was perfectly serious, while also decrying the "poor taste" of the humour. It's said that criticism says more about the critic than the subject - in this case, it shows how they don't trust their own ability to detect sarcasm.

I was expecting some name-calling, of course - if you can't handle the idea of some random stranger saying nasty things about you for reasons unknown (or known), stop writing - but I also wasn't expecting for some folks to call me a [random expletive] while admitting that for the most part, they agree. That just seems, well, [random expletive] of them.

Still, it's all PageRank to me, as long as they get the link right.

FAQ #2

An update to FAQ #1. With real questions.

(This time FAQ stands for Frequently Abusive Quacks.)

• Is this a parody?

Of what? Just because I sweeten my vitriol with the nectar of comedy, does not mean I don't want to format your hard drive and have you banned from the Post Office.

• Are you just trying to eliminate your competition?

The idea that the 95% of writers who will never be published anyway are competition, for me or anyone else, is laughable. Really, I laughed.

• Your blog is mean-spirited and unnecessary.

And your point is? Your fscking manuscript is unnecessary, and submitting it to agents and editors is mean-spirited.

• But aren't you, like, writing?

What I do is called blogging. That's my emotional defense against this logical paradox, and so far, it's working.

• What if you discourage some young writer who might have gone on to write great books?

I'm willing to take that chance. Anyone who is moved to quit writing by this blog never had the 'nads for it anyway, and the reading world is the richer for their absence.

• But established authors, editors and agents always say "Keep writing, don't give up."

Imagine you're in the business of selling handmade ashtrays produced by a bunch of whiny crybabies who need constant reinforcement that their misshapen, half-baked lumps of clay are wonderful and unique snowflakes. You need a steady supply of new crybabies to make new ashtrays for a fickle public who want ashtrays like, but not exactly like, the ashtrays they bought last year. Would you want to jeopardise your sales, and career, by saying publicly that most of the ashtrays you receive from prospective crybabies are broken, hideous, unsellable crap, and that many don't even seem to understand that an ashtray is meant to be capable of holding ash?

Agents and editors know that if they speak the honest truth, the only people listening are those few talented writers, who will simply go somewhere else. The pondscum who clog the slushpiles don't even read the submission guidelines.

Established authors just don't want to sound like assholes.

I don't have this problem.

A Brief Comment about Anonymous Comments

Anonymous comments are fine.

Anonymous comments which criticise 101 Reasons are fine, provided:

• They're valid; or
• They're funny.

Anonymous comments which abuse the author of 101 Reasons are fine, provided:

• They're funny. (Really funny.)

Anonymous comments which fail these criteria will be publicly excoriated.

Like this one:

Hahaha your gay ass blog just makes me want to even write more. When I write the next bestseller I'll include it in my credits.

Although this would continue the noble tradition of acknowledging the influence of gay ass blogs on the modern bestseller, I'm not sure I want to be given credit for making this guy "want to even write more". I think he's missed the window to write the next bestseller, anyway.

Or this one, which robbed me of my anonymous abuse virginity (it's long, you can skim it):

You're a fracking loser! You, Mr. Blog Owner, need to pull your head out of your a@@! If you spent more time NOT WRITING and less time being a dickhead you'd waste a lot less of your sorry excuse of a life and other people's time. I think this is a deplorable attempt at discouraing [sic] young writers, who don't always write well. It takes time and practice to craft a good story and hone skills. Yes there is a lot of formulaic crap out there and novelists who should STOP. But it doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of people who SHOULD be writing and if they listen to you, I feel for them. PEACE!

Couldn't even be bothered to glance at my name. And, apparently agrees with me.

10 Reasons to Link to 101 Reasons

1. You (secretly) agree that some people should just stop writing.
2. At least one of them reads your blog.
3. There are ditches not being dug, forms not being filed, coffees not being poured, scrapbooks not being decorated.
4. You can pretend it's reverse psychology.
5. There are neglected families all over the world who need your help.
6. You can overdose on too much rah-rah you-can-do-it writing advice.
7. Editors and agents will thank you.
8. You can say you were in on the meme before it hit MetaFilter.
9. The price of paper and printer ink will start to come down.
10. The best thing you can do for a bad writer is give them their life back.

Disclaimer #1

It was bound to happen. Someone was eventually going to challenge me on my own writing experience. (I didn't expect it to be Brutus.)

Now I have to be qualified to discuss stopping writing? Well, I'm an expert on that.

I've stopped writing on a number of occasions, for many different reasons. Specifically, #43, #87 and #91. I've stopped writing on page 2, page 12, page 70, page 113 (of different books). I've even stopped writing after the third draft.

I've never submitted a novel or short story for publication. Why? #101. It's a showstopper.

A Ripple in the Pond

The discussion on Jay Lake's blog about quitting writing has spread to other LiveJournal blogs.

• Green Knight
• Danny Adams
• randomfreshlink
• Jennifer Jackson

I'd love to take credit for this, so I will.

Credit, Where Dues are On Credit

I find 101 Reasons is in the unexpected position of being discussed.

I had anticipated the occasional writer would link here, in jest or derision. I had hoped the occasional writer would leave a comment or two, to lend the topic the illusion of debate. (And that 'occasional writer' knows who he is.)

I hadn't expected anyone to post thoughtful responses to the issues raised here. By god, that caught me by surprise.

First, Mike Toot, who writes guidebooks to Hell, linked here and defended 101 Reasons against the prejudices of the humour-impaired.

Then, Jay Lake, a Writer of the Future (figuratively and literally), who has the most boring website I've seen since 1998, posted supporting argument and commentary, starting a wider discussion in the process.

I mention this because, apart from the ego-stroke (which I'm quite capable of self-administering), both writers raise valuable points, which I'm sure I will steal elaborate on here at some point.

Simon Haynes, creator of Flesh Gordon Hal SpaceJock, has also linked here, and become a frequent commentator.

Writers writing about stopping writing. The seeds have been planted.

FAQ #1

(At this early stage, FAQ stands for Frequently Anticipated Questions.)

This is a gag, right?

I'm deadly serious. I'd break into your house and steal all your pens if I could.

What's your motivation?

I'm sick of reading crappy books. I want to cut them off at the source.

Why do you hate free expression, you Nazi?

Express yourself all you want. Just don't keep submitting it for publication. You're filling the world with shit.

But I can write just as good as lots of books that get published.

You mean you can write just as well as many published authors. QED and whoopee-doo.

Your reasons seem all out of whack.

Do you mean why is there no thematic order? I don't know what stage you're at. If I focus on one category of talentless hacks at a time, you might develop the fantasy that this doesn't include you.

Isn't this just reverse psychology? You want to help improve my writing with useful advice disguised as bitter, spiteful criticism?

Cling to your delusions.

Introduction #1

Most advice about writing fiction (and there is way too much of it) focuses on how to get started, how to improve your writing, how to get published, etc. Some of it is even written by successful, published writers that you have heard of.

Virtually none of this advice focuses on when to give up, when to abandon your ridiculous dreams and get back to paying your taxes.

Face it. Most published fiction is bad. Some is so plain awful that you wonder how anyone wrote it, let alone approved it for publication. Don't tell me it's never crossed your mind how craptacular the unpublished stuff must be.

This blog is dedicated to the thousands of writers out there, labouring in deserved obscurity, murdering forests and supporting the postal system, wondering what the hell they're doing wrong.

I'll tell you. And God help me, I'll make you stop.