Are Dreams Supposed to be "Fun"?

For my co-author, writing his books is his hobby. He wants it to be fun. If it were not fun, then it wouldn't be a very good hobby, and he would find something else to do.

And yet, I was baffled when he asked me, last night, whether or not I was having fun. Yes, I told him: but fun isn't enough.

At the most basic level, why do some people choose (as I have) to at least attempt to live out their dreams? Why is a dream desirable? By definition, the things that people dream of doing are what they believe they will most enjoy, they are most passionate about, and most desire to do.

The standard alternative is to find something to do that you don't hate but that is "just work." This creates a personal dichotomy: your work is not really who you are (usually), but it is a thing that takes up a lot of your time.

Pursuing a dream, by contrast, arranges your time so that it is in maximal accord with who you are.

All pursuits require work. If I washed windows for pay - which I don't want to do - it would be work. I'm trying to write books, which is exactly what I want to do, but it's still work. The difference is that, for me, writing books is fun.

But is fun enough? When my spouse asks me about my work, she doesn't ask: "Did you have fun?" Instead, she asks: "Were you productive?"

When you're in the business of attempting to do what you most want to do in life, having fun is a given. By definition, I chose to go this route because it would the most satisfying and the most fun.

Fun, I asserted to my friend, is not a measure of a fulfilled life. People feel fulfilled when they are productive, when they have accomplished something. In my case, I feel productive when I make progress towards finishing a book. Even if I was a construction worker, and I played a only a tiny part in building something, that is still productivity, and it's more fulfilling than the converse (a lack of productivity).

I also asserted that part of this productivity and fulfillment is tied to bringing my work to its natural conclusion. If I make art and stick it in a closet without sharing it, it has not realized its productive potential. I may have added to myself, but I have not participated in the human community. I haven't added to the discussion of values or the morphing universal ball of creativity in the human consciousness. That is the reason for my goal: to make art to share.

You Can't Keep It All

This past evening, my co-author and I discussed his IP decisions and their effects on my long-term plans. As we talked, I re-visited in my mind why I was troubled by having "wasted my time."

Certainly no creative effort is a true waste, is it? Can't it be asserted that each time you create something, you add to yourself?

My grief over having to scrap my plans had to do with my goal. My goal had been to present what I had created to a wide audience, and now, that was off the table. So, from my point of view, his decision was a setback.

The new clarity about my work's IP issues showed me that I had not advanced toward the goal of any publishing/sale/distribution, and that was disappointing. But had I not advanced in any other way?

One reason I particularly disliked this turn of events is that some of the work I've done is unsalvageable. [For clarity: half of the situation I'm in now amounts to misunderstanding / poor communication between my friend and I, and the other half comes from my (poor) choice of source material. The bit of work I've done that is unsalvageable is directly related to the latter half.] As we assessed the situation, I realized that my displeasure revealed immaturity on my part.

Expecting to be able to use everything you make is immature. Fighting to protect ill-conceived work is equally so. If you checked out the link in my first post, then it's easy to see a major difference between me and a practiced author: she is mature enough to know when she's created something atrocious, and she throws it away. I am new at this pursuit, and I haven't learned to let go. The flat-out truth is, you can't keep it all, and you shouldn't want to.

I knew or suspected when I laid my plans and began work that I had made a less-than-ideal choice of source material. One method of preventing this kind of grief might be a "confidence check": if you feel confident about your plans (and you've attempted to head off any problems you can anticipate), it's probably okay to go ahead and start work. If you have doubts about what you've planned, then you're not ready to invest a lot of effort into creating - you need to re-visit the planning stage. Invest up front to save a headache later.

Sometimes, Nothing Goes According to Plan

Last night, I had a dispute by telephone with my best friend / co-author about source material.

Our conversation was, for me, a devastating turning point. I tried to deny it, but he could tell from my tone of voice that he had, in his words,"taken the wind out of my sails."

The implication of his decision, from my point of view, was to invalidate nearly a year's worth of my work, which was upsetting. For the purpose of this posting, it's not necessary to dwell on the details. I consider that a bad decision I made a year ago in the conception of these plans I've been following is largely to blame for the situation I'm in now. Still, I am disappointed with the results of his decision. What I'm faced with now is deciding what to do next.

The reality is quite simply that the plans we make don't always work out. Imagine, for example, the gut-punch of dreaming up a story that you think is brilliant, writing it, and then finding out - after you're already finished - that it's been done before and you can't use it. (That's not what happened in this situation, but that has happened to us before.)

I have two reasonable options right now, as I see it: 1) I could devote a whole lot of extra work to try to save what I've done from being wasted effort, or 2) I could cut my losses, chalk up the "practice" value of the effort that went toward fulfilling my now-scrapped plans, and figure out something else to do instead.

A third, unreasonable option, is to mope and feel sorry for myself, to hard-stop now that my plans have been wrecked, and spiral downward into a very dark and unhappy place. Since this is, in my estimation, a demonstrably unreasonable response to this situation, it is off the table.

Unfortunately, even if I choose reasonable option #1 in a bid to not feel as though my work over the past year was wasted, some of what I've done is still completely unusable. This is partly my fault: my source material was poorly-chosen, and I should have better-appreciated the dangers of using it. Back when I started this venture, I believed that I could turn the story idea into something worthwhile; it turns out that I was wrong.

How did this happen? At the most basic level, it happened because I compensated for my weakest creative area - the process of idea-generating - by collaborating with someone else who is strong in that area. My best friend / co-author is a visionary, and I have long leaned on him for a crutch in that department. In a display of his usual prescience, my friend had long tried to convince me to strike out my own, apart from his influence, because his writing is only a hobby, not a primary pursuit like it is for me. During our conversation last night, he characterized my decision to rely on his idea-generating powers as a mistake, because I had opted to avoid my weakest area rather than strengthening it.

I've often lamented that I draft/work/create too slowly for my taste. My spouse is fond of a Chinese(?) proverb that essentially states: it doesn't matter how slowly you move as long as you don't stop. This is helpful encouragement when I'm feeling sluggish, but it also applies to this specific situation: the wrong thing to do would be to get discouraged and give up or quit. What I'm doing instead is to re-evaluate everything and choose my next course of action.

A final word about art collaboration: I don't want to denigrate collaborating with others or discourage anyone reading this posting from doing so themselves. In the case of our primary project, collaboration serves us very well - my friend summarized by saying that he felt that for every area he is weak in, I am able to compensate with my contributions. That said, collaboration can also be restrictive. The stereotype that comes to mind is that of rock musicians who cease working together "because of artistic differences." Striking out on your own instead of working with others definitely offers more creative freedom.