You're certainly on to something, Scott, and I hope the book finds its happy place - either in process or when you pull back, give it/yourself a break, and hold it up to the light to view with perhaps a different grid.
Because the tone, pacing and structure of "The Ghost of my Father" was so compelling [to me as a reader, a son and a dad], consider casting the "Rules" content in that kind of frame. Teach us what you've learned about life, but do so in the context and passion and rhythms of your own life, your relationships, your conversations, your pain, etc. The drafts have done that a bit, but I'd like to see much more.
Thanks Steve. I could definitely make it more personal. The way it is now was less a deliberate choice and mostly about trying to find the simplest way to test out this premise at all.
One regret about Ghost of My Father was how serious it was. I know that sound strange - it was a serious subject - but my family had a great, albeit dark, sense of humor and I did not capture it at all. I found it hard to find a way to be funny without seeming mean, as my father was still alive when I published it.
For this rules project so far I have a similiar feeling - life is funny/absurd to me and I'd like to capture more of that in this project.
Thanks for the backstory on how you approached/wished you'd approached TGOMF. That makes abundant sense - I went through similar dynamics as my mom faded and then died.
I wasn't writing a book, but trying to pull together a memorial service and journal that captured both her and her family proved to be a bridge too far.
As I look at those times in the rear-view mirror, I wish I'd involved my siblings and some close family friends more. I think they would've given perspective, objectivity and presentation that would've been helpful.
Rules are very difficult topic! I admit I found it hard to read through your drafts. Your writing is great, but being generic tends to make it feel much less instructive.
By contrast: KK’s Excellent Advice For Living feels very very personal, not because it doesn’t contain generic rules, but because it FEELS personal – as a reader my reading experience fluctuates: “wow spot on I so resonate with this!” Followed by “this is bullshit I guess it fits him well.” KK’s advice is short: take it or leave it, your call dear reader.
I’d also put the Great Mental Model series of books as your “competitor”. Those are books that talk about: rules; context of use; exceptions; personal advice.
Do I want to read a few hundred words on “do it anyway”? No I don’t — unless you’re NOT really talking about it! Context gives rules their practical meaning/value.
I’d be really interested in your take on how you CONSTRUCT your rules, rather than what rules you talk about. Rules are everywhere, in much concise books.
Or a semantic or relational map of your personal rules. The learning would be huge: how did Scott relate one rule to another? What was his thinking process? Why does it work or not work for him?
Rules are dots. It’s not the hidden dimensions within it (think of string theory!) that matter, instead its how it relates to other dots.
Or contrarian or comparative takes: the lesson a reader can take is to learn to find their own way towards or around it.
Or a more consumable format. Case in point: the “101 Things I Learned” series. I don’t consider myself as the primary target audience, while I’d have concerns if you expect some readers to read for 3 minutes on something entitled “be amazed by everything”. Not that I don’t think you have anything great to say (your writing is great, as always), but that more people’s first reaction could be “duh? As if I don’t want to?!”, which could equally be the impolite reaction to “do love world peace” or “you shall not cheat”. There are way too many “spiritual thought leaders” chanting generic slogans out there.
One suggestion from Shawn was to make this a meta-book, where I help the reader come up with their own rules, rather than just prescribing my own. Then there it's more about teaching how to think about rules, than just a list of them.
It's an interesting idea. Reminds me of Po Bronsons book What should I do with my life? That didn't offer a single answer, but explored the tradeoffs good and bad of the ones specific people took.
You're certainly on to something, Scott, and I hope the book finds its happy place - either in process or when you pull back, give it/yourself a break, and hold it up to the light to view with perhaps a different grid.
Because the tone, pacing and structure of "The Ghost of my Father" was so compelling [to me as a reader, a son and a dad], consider casting the "Rules" content in that kind of frame. Teach us what you've learned about life, but do so in the context and passion and rhythms of your own life, your relationships, your conversations, your pain, etc. The drafts have done that a bit, but I'd like to see much more.
Thanks Steve. I could definitely make it more personal. The way it is now was less a deliberate choice and mostly about trying to find the simplest way to test out this premise at all.
One regret about Ghost of My Father was how serious it was. I know that sound strange - it was a serious subject - but my family had a great, albeit dark, sense of humor and I did not capture it at all. I found it hard to find a way to be funny without seeming mean, as my father was still alive when I published it.
For this rules project so far I have a similiar feeling - life is funny/absurd to me and I'd like to capture more of that in this project.
Thanks for the backstory on how you approached/wished you'd approached TGOMF. That makes abundant sense - I went through similar dynamics as my mom faded and then died.
I wasn't writing a book, but trying to pull together a memorial service and journal that captured both her and her family proved to be a bridge too far.
As I look at those times in the rear-view mirror, I wish I'd involved my siblings and some close family friends more. I think they would've given perspective, objectivity and presentation that would've been helpful.
Rules are very difficult topic! I admit I found it hard to read through your drafts. Your writing is great, but being generic tends to make it feel much less instructive.
By contrast: KK’s Excellent Advice For Living feels very very personal, not because it doesn’t contain generic rules, but because it FEELS personal – as a reader my reading experience fluctuates: “wow spot on I so resonate with this!” Followed by “this is bullshit I guess it fits him well.” KK’s advice is short: take it or leave it, your call dear reader.
I’d also put the Great Mental Model series of books as your “competitor”. Those are books that talk about: rules; context of use; exceptions; personal advice.
Do I want to read a few hundred words on “do it anyway”? No I don’t — unless you’re NOT really talking about it! Context gives rules their practical meaning/value.
I’d be really interested in your take on how you CONSTRUCT your rules, rather than what rules you talk about. Rules are everywhere, in much concise books.
Or a semantic or relational map of your personal rules. The learning would be huge: how did Scott relate one rule to another? What was his thinking process? Why does it work or not work for him?
Rules are dots. It’s not the hidden dimensions within it (think of string theory!) that matter, instead its how it relates to other dots.
Or contrarian or comparative takes: the lesson a reader can take is to learn to find their own way towards or around it.
Or a more consumable format. Case in point: the “101 Things I Learned” series. I don’t consider myself as the primary target audience, while I’d have concerns if you expect some readers to read for 3 minutes on something entitled “be amazed by everything”. Not that I don’t think you have anything great to say (your writing is great, as always), but that more people’s first reaction could be “duh? As if I don’t want to?!”, which could equally be the impolite reaction to “do love world peace” or “you shall not cheat”. There are way too many “spiritual thought leaders” chanting generic slogans out there.
Or could it be an interactive reading experience? Case in point: https://mearsheimer.ai/
Great feedback. Thanks Noah. Let me digest this and check out some of your references and get back to you.
One suggestion from Shawn was to make this a meta-book, where I help the reader come up with their own rules, rather than just prescribing my own. Then there it's more about teaching how to think about rules, than just a list of them.
It's an interesting idea. Reminds me of Po Bronsons book What should I do with my life? That didn't offer a single answer, but explored the tradeoffs good and bad of the ones specific people took.