I Like Byron, I Give Him a 42...

This past summer I fumbled along as a pastry cook to my chef's irritation. In an attempt to improve my production, he asked me what the greatest American invention was. A rhetorical question, I allowed him to answer: The assembly line. "Set up your assembly line and let it work for you," he told me. I did it because if I didn't I was gone. With time I learned that it took the thinking out of cooking and whenever you can take thinking out of anything you gain in speed.

My last novel, Any Color You Want, took at least nine drafts and a few years. But, that's the way novel writing goes, right? It takes drafts, it takes years. It's not cooking. It's not something that comes out of the oven the same day ready. Right?

Or is it? In Michael Eldridge's screenwriting course he made us fill out character questionnaires. These questionnaires forced us to think long and hard about each character, major or minor, to the point where these characters themselves could have entire screenplays written about them.

In preparation for The Boston Squeeze, a book of baseball short stories that I started writing last summer, I dug up the seven questions Eldridge asked us to consider for each character. I then tweaked what he gave us and built my own assembly line.

But perhaps "assembly line" is not the appropriate phrase. It has a physical, orderly connotation to it. Let's call it mapping. I'll map out each character, story and location three times each because I find my first attempt typically errs on the side of cliché. It takes another two to break through that wall of stereotypes to find the individual.

Once these are ready I won't have to think about each character, story or location. I can just write.

For some, the idea of a literary assembly line is apostasy. Writing should flow, they argue. It should come from inspiration. I do not believe there is one approach to writing. I have yet to attend a reading where an attendee didn't ask the author about their "process" during the question and answer session. I have also yet to attend a reading where an author gave a good answer. By good, I mean a detailed, useful answer. Like Mr Keating in Dead Poets Society, I have no desire to Moneyball writing. But I believe that there are detailed processes available for writers that, if followed, will not only separate them from amateurs, but streamline the writing process.

Another benefit of this system, hopefully, is more consistency. A good writer will retain command over his characters from start to finish; a poor writer loses track of his characters' characteristics. This leads to the characters either saying or doing things you'd wouldn't expect them to or you get the feeling that they aren't characters at all, but rather personifications of whatever clever thought or idea the author just had and can't help but share the story (and character) be damned. Oh have I done that before.

I won't know the results of this experiment till the Squeeze is through, but I'm hopeful.

Progress Update: Sent in Hooey Savvy to the copyright office. Yeehaw.