Oh, sheesh. The following is taken from what started out as an email (and wound up an essay), and which I have decided to share here.

Before we begin, I find it prudent to make a few introductory remarks. The email is about writing and so is, in effect, meta-writing. Meta-anything always gets confusing and is generally to be avoided. Furthermore, the essay stresses the importance of being interesting without actually being interesting. There are several early indicators of this inconsistency, the most notable being it starts by making a mathematical definition. (Nothing opens an essay with a bang quite like dense mathematics.) But, on the other hand, it also emphasizes the importance of writing that which we want to write, and in the end, this is apparently what I felt like writing.

So, without further ado...


What is a book?

Algorithmically, it could be defined as:

p(x) = "page x"

1. p(1) such that p(1) holds the average reader's attention for the span of an entire page.
2. p(n) such that Engaging(p(n)) >= Engaging(p(1))
3. Max n >= min number of required book pages.

My point being thus: it need not be smart, it need not be well-written, it need not be original, it only must be interesting. Of course, a side effect of promoting interest is usually the promotion of some other attribute--for instance, to be "interesting" a book might utilize a great plot. But a deficiency in some or all writing mechanics need not kill the book or its ability to sell, so long as it somehow manages to compensate for these deficiencies and still be arresting.

I don't have a real good proof of how a book could, say, have poor plot, characterization, dialogue, and not provoke a blind rage in the reader. Yet plenty of books are published and sell well in which I can find no redeeming value. If Transformers 2 teaches us anything, it is that quality has no strong correlation with profitability.

Forget being commercial, there may not even be any strict set of requirements for a book to be "good." Take Asimov, for instance. Flat characters, dull prose, and unfocused plots don't disqualify him as one of the masters; it is his ideas alone that show sufficient genius to grip the reader. The abilities we naturally assume are mandatory for quality--I don't believe they're rigid. There may be purists who insist on some traditional forms but they're probably wrong and only put up mental blocks. The book snob within who insists, "You must fulfill such and such" is wrong. Only on one point must we succeed, only one criterion must we fulfill: it must be interesting.

To achieve that goal it is imperative we be authorized to use any means necessary. Stipulate some talent we lack and we are doomed to failure.

The point is this, mere diversion is not so very daunting a challenge. Each of us periodically has the capacity to entertain for a minute; we do this all the time with blogs and little creations. This is unnotable of itself, the ability is widespread and perhaps even common to humanity.

But the commodification of our writing comes down to length. Anyone might occupy my attention for five minutes, but to hold it for hours on end is exceptional, and I willingly pay for it. The laws of supply-and-demand are at work here; the saturation of blogs cheapens all but the most exceptional, but interesting books are still rare enough to be valuable.

While I may be arguing we have no intrinsic deficiencies that preclude us from writing a good book, it still can be taken as an assumption that writing books is hard. Again, that the market is not saturated, and books still have value, points to their relative scarcity. The only explanation for this is difficulty.

But from whence does this difficulty come? There are probably two basic explanations for this: first, most people haven't figured out how to be interesting, or how to stretch their scraps of worthwhile thoughts to the breadth of a full-length book. Second, at least for those of us who are not professional authors or journalists, the act of writing must be a taxing process.  Many people, I would venture, simply don't have the energy to devote to the task, especially on top of the obligations of ordinary life.

While these are no meager problems, we have a leg up. Identifying the trouble goes a long way towards fixing it, and by clearly seeing the obstacle we have already have given ourselves an advantage.

As a solution, I propose the writing itself should offload its own burden. If the act of composition is more engaging than all other pastimes, we will naturally prefer it over any competing hobbies. If the words we write are so exciting, enthralling, and alive that they are superior to all other competing activities, writing is what we will do. People are naturally pulled towards doing what they enjoy most, so if writing is what we enjoy most it will be what we do. And the act will be the means by which we gain energy, serving as a feedback loop to supplying its own impetus.

Furthermore, this is not only an answer to the second problem but also to the first (the matter of being interesting), so long as our tastes are disciplined and higher than average. If we self-filter, and create inspiring work, then we will not only be easily driven to completion, but when finished will have a product worthy of most men. Even supposing our tastes only ordinary, still we will have created a work that has worth to us. If it was only wrought due to what we suppose as the inferiority of all other choices, then it was the single best use of our time, even if all others despise it.

The writing process seems a formidable challenge, which is why I am attempting to analytically deconstruct it. Hopefully I have adequately supported my arguments, because my conclusions really are quite liberating. Writing need not fulfill any criteria beyond being absorbing, and all other requirements are basically extraneous. Writing should only, only, only ever be voluntarily attempted if it is fun. Else it will exhaust us in the pursuit, and, being only human we can hardly hope to accomplish that which self-defeats us.

If we are savvy, and play our cards right, the means are within our grasp.

I had about five people ask for this. You know what they say about being careful what you wish for...

Tips for Women:

A. Don't give us "tips"; it's patronizing and we don't need your help. If we're really hurting we'll ask our mothers or trusted female friends who have gained our respect.

B. Don't create contradictory situations for us. If, for instance, you tell us we are to "lead" our choices are to either follow your lead (which is not leading) or passively ignore it (which is not leading). In this case if you really want us to lead I suggest you aggressively attempt to dominate us, and maybe we'll fight you for the territory. Otherwise you will simply have to submit to our noninvolvement.

C. You can't change us but you're certainly capable of annoying us.

D. If we're behaving irrationally be logical. Your clear thinking can shame us to our senses.

E. When plotting to win our hearts, remember we're social creatures, too. The girl we spend all our time talking to will defeat prettier, fitter rivals in the contest for our affections.

F. But still, every little bit helps. If you are concerned about your image, you could always exercise, eat healthier and dress sharper; you may double your eligibility.

G. It's a cheap trick but cleaning, doing our laundry, and cooking may create a dependency we're strongly adverse to losing.

H. Be honest, with yourself and with us. If that means making fewer promises, then so be it. But if you are consistently bending your word and breaking your pledges how can we possibly expect you to take any prominent vows seriously?

I. With regards to E., remember that not all guys will consider "talking at" them to be "talking TO" them. But some will and if that's your thing form a relationship with a taciturn male.

J. Remember you are strong, too. If we love you we will attempt to care for and protect you. But a relationship is a war, and prepare yourself to fight for us, to fight for God, and to fight for your children. We (with the exception of God) may need you to save us. When you are called upon to shoulder a heavy burden do not shirk it, but trust God and don't sell yourself short.

K. Finally, don't let your life revolve around finding/maintaining a relationship. Lead a meaningful, fulfilling life with or without a man, that way you will be happy without them and irresistible to them. Plus, it's what God wants.

Across various forums and items of personal correspondence I have given glimpses into my vast stores of advice. These nuggets have been so successful I've decided to gather them here, for the edification of a wider audience.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since I'm feeling generous, I'll drip some pearls of wisdom onto this thread.

Incog's Best Tips For Guys

A. First off, be rugged. Girls love rugged guys. Don't wear shoes; tie rocks to your feet. Also, it's important to have lots of hair. Girls love lots of hair, especially on the chest. If you don't have lots of chest hair, tape moss or bark to your chest; they can be fooled. If you do have lots of chest hair be sure to leave the top five or six buttons on your shirt undone so they can notice.

B. Girls generally get upset, so it is important you know how to pacify them. Keep a puppy on your person at ALL TIMES. That way, when they get upset you can pull him out and say, "Here, have a puppy!" and they will love you. (If asked "What's that bulge under your shirt?" don't answer "It's not a thoroughbred Pembroke Welsh Corgy puppy." That will give it away. Instead, say, "It's not a puppy.")

C. Allow girls to assume you are an immoral rogue. I call this the "Reverse Mr. Darcy Fisticuffs with Han Solo" effect. This will screen out all the vulnerable women who would otherwise fall madly in love with you. Don't worry about scaring off the Perfect Woman; the Perfect Woman by definition is smart enough to see through the act, and the imPerfect Women will be saved from heartbreak. (<--- this is a real technique.)

D. Always use a screwdriver that matches the screw size. Otherwise, you risk stripping the screw head and then where would you be?

*clears throat*
E. Finally, have a clearly defined set of principles, based on the character of God and the teachings of the Bible. This is easier than trying to keep a law book of rules inside your head, and it's better to please God than to please man. Many girls will value this, too, even if you forget to rise when she leaves the table.

End Post Quiz
Which of the preceding is an authentic "Best Tip for Guys"?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.



:
:


The answer is...
F. ALL OF THEM.
This illustrates Tip F. Girls like a boy who is decisive, so when given a set of options always choose from outside the set; this will duly impress her with your decision-making capabilities.


G. If you're going to have more than one girlfriend at a time, don't let them know about each other. Trust me, I've had to learn this the hard way. (These rules are general guidelines and there always are exceptions. Supposing they all really really like you, they can be apprised of the situation and then played off each other. But this technique is a gamble and not recommended for beginners.)

H. It's alright to tell a girl she's pretty, even if you're not interested in her. The converse of this is true also; it is not alright to tell a girl she's ugly, even if you are interested in her. Finally, in any group of women do not pick and choose a few to praise. Compliment all of them or none; like the feral duck women are clever and otherwise will figure out what's unsaid.

I. When you make the acquaintance of any woman, immediately begin antagonizing her. This will sift out the weak ones.

Which of the preceding is true? Tip F. tells us it can't be one of the available options, so the answer is "I. and 4/5 of H. Comparing women to any form of duck is derogatory and in poor taste."

This raises tip J. When describing a woman almost all animal comparisons are unflattering. This, too, I've had to learn the hard way....

K. Women are drawn to vulnerability like moths to a flame. (Moths are not animals.) In order to make yourself vulnerable mention something personal, like possessing an additional toe or never eating mustard. This will irresistibly pull the women to you.

Conversations From Work.

Me: "So, f2 has a data0 of 1, and f1 has a data0 of 2."
TJ: "Monkeys are bananas."
Me: "And yet, every time I eat a monkey I get stares...."

Nathan's thoughts on women:
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that women should wear nothing but evening wear and swimsuits."

Nathan's thoughts on men:
"They just wander around, bumping into walls and knocking over table lamps."