Obsidian Sync

I mentioned back in July that I'd started experimenting with Obsidian as a PKM. I'm still using it, and liking it a lot. It's the right balance of lightweight and freeform but with enough features around linking, search, and graphing that I find myself using it more and more in preference to Notepad++.

Notepad++ remains a more powerful editor overall, and there are things that I find myself needing to do quite regularly in there in preference to Obsidian (like editing multiple lines, doing macro edits, applying RegEx-driven changes) -- but this doesn't feel like an issue at all, because I can jump straight out from a note into Obsidian into Notepad++ with just a couple of clicks.

For my day job, I'm still using Notepad++ more. There's less interlinking and need for a 'knowledge base' right now in the things that I work on, and my preference for smaller rolling project work is to use folder structures in Windows/Dropbox that store all the information for a project in one place. If I'm doing something major and long term, I'll generally spin up specific project spaces for it, but for smaller stuff, it's much more expedient and useful just to throw a bunch of web links, text documents, and other media into a sorted folder hierarchy.

I've sprung for a month of Obsidian Sync to try it out. I do find this mildly annoying. I pay for Dropbox and have had zero problems so far syncing Obsidian Vaults between Windows machines using it. I also already use some apps on my phone which just hook into arbitrary Dropbox folders. There may be some technical angle that I'm missing, but I don't see why the Obsidian mobile app can't just hook into my Vault and handle sync via Dropbox.

I don't, in fact, resent paying for software. Obsidian is very good and fits my needs very well. The mobile app is also excellent. That doesn't come free, or even cheap. But there's a mental disconnect for me in paying for a subscription for something that, on paper in terms of what it's meant to offer, I feel duplicates another service that I pay for. The cost for Sync would be ~90% of what I pay for Dropbox, which is a far more generalised service in terms of where it meets my needs.

This is a mental blocker, rather than anything else. In many ways, I'd rather pay a more nebulous generalised service fee than for something that feels unnecessary. But maybe I just need to write it off as not really paying for the Sync service as much as paying to support good software development.

(I was having reasonable success using my existing lightweight text editor on my phone, Byword, which connects to Dropbox folders. I could edit and read my Obsidian notes with only medium friction using this, which was just about fine for my needs. As I've used more of Obsidian's specific features, that's become less desirable though. And for some reason, my Byword seems to have entirely lost its ability to pull in system-level usability features like autocorrect, word suggestion, dynamic key sizing, etc., which has made it considerably less usable.)

The Lion Razor and When to Stop

Skimming over notes about decision razors yesterday, I stumbled back across the 'Lion Razor'. 'If you have the choice, always choose to sprint and then rest' Which broadly describes a lot of how I work. It's not always the case, and not always healthy to do things that way, but I definitely tend to be either 'on' or 'off'. It loops back to a few things I've written on here before:

  • The Four-Hour 'Rule' -- the idea that we only have so many hours of good, effective work in us per day, so using them intentionally and well is better than dripping yourself out over the day.
  • Timeboxing -- including the idea of 'fixed-schedule productivity' and the Parkinson Principle. Curtailing the time in which you plan to work can be far more effective than assigning more time to it and using it all less effectively.
  • Enabling Deep Work and Time Models in general. My deep-work schedules aren't suitable all the time, both due to the specifics of the work and also just where my energy is at on any given day. But it's turned many mediocre works days into excellent ones when deployed effectively.

On that last point, actually -- I do have various tools and systems for getting the work done when I feel like How to Write When You Can't|I just can't. That's part of any job, and certainly part of Being Creative Uphill|doing creativity as a job. It pays (literally) to know how to push yourself through when you're struggling.

But also: it's important to know when that's necessary, and whether it's a good idea or not, even if you can. I definitely feel the effects when I'm working against myself like that. There's a cost, and it comes due. Sometimes, that's the better way of doing things. Sometimes, you have no choice. But other times, it's better just to stop for a while.

(Also Cassandra's latest newsletter, Trust the Process, spoke me to a great deal on this.)

Principle of tactu levi

Something I was batting round yesterday was the idea of a razor for making the 'lightest touch' change to a thing in preference to looking for a more developed solution. This has kept cropping up for me in the context of making revisions to work in response to edit notes. Sometimes, a small, almost lazy-feeling change will satisfy the note and resolve the issue, even if there may be more sophisticated or involved approaches that might address the issue somewhat better.

The 'somewhat' is the key factor there. Obviously, if a small change is underbaked or doesn't work, it's a non-starter. But there's the notion of 'good enough', and virtue in not breaking apart a piece of work more than you have to (because you'll have to stitch it back together again afterwards).

I keep wanting to call this 'de minimis', which means something different. Or perhaps 'the principle of least change', which Google seems to conflate with the Principle of Least Action.

Looking into it further, I realise this is really a broad reading of Occam's Razor/the Law of Parsimony. I've internalised that as 'when deciding between a set of competing equally likely probabilities, choose the one that relies on the fewest assumptions', but a more general reading appears to be 'it is futile to do with more what can be done with fewer', which is exactly what I'm describing here.

Perhaps 'tactu levi', as in tactu levi recenset scriptor -- 'the writer revises with a light touch', by analogy with 'de minimis', which is a shortening of de minimis non curat lex -- 'the law does not concern itself with trifling matters'.

(Also my Latin is exceedingly, embarassingly rusty, so it's perfectly possible that I've mangled my own formation here somehow.)

Invisible Cities

Invisible Cities, by A Winged Victory for the Sullen is my current go-to working album of choice. One of those albums that I've listened to dozens of times, but only through looking it up for this post did I learn its original context: 'the stunning score to the critically acclaimed theatre production directed by London Olympics ceremony video designer Leo Warner'.

I have a playlist which contains a long run of music like this, plus some other soundtracks and weirder ambient music. At current count, it's 13 hours long. I do occasionally prune and rearrange things, and it's certainly not designed to play all the way through, but it's a decent catalogue of music into which my brain can disappear fairly reliably.

Seasons, Energies, and Phasic Time

I talked about seasonality a bit back in Monochronic time. I never felt particularly attuned to seasons -- time has tended to be a general wash. But the last few years, I've really felt it. Why?

Changing weather conditions. Summers are a lot warmer, beyond the threshold of 'unremarkably tolerable' that they used to be for me. Hotter -- dangerously ever-hotter -- summers throw seasons into sharper relief for me. I long for summer to end, and autumn to arrive.

Birds. The first singing of the chiffchaffs, later the wrens. The arrival (and departure) of the swifts. The change in their behaviour. By our macro seasons, yes, but also by the local 'seasons' or phases of climate and human activity and whatever must pass for the bird calendar.

Self-awareness. I'm a creature of routine and habit. I tend to optimise my time and my space and my routines to let me do all things I want -- or need -- to do. There's an element of smoothness to this time -- both in a positive and negative sense. The smoothness of everything happen as and when it should. And the frictionless horror of something that you can't get purchase on, sliding from one thing to the next. I'm more and more aware, though, the cylical and season nature of my own capacities, interests, and energies. This leads me to reflect more and more on the phasic nature of time, and the benefits of seasonality and variability.

Well-Worn Tools

Radio silence on here last week, as I was on an actual holiday. I'm bad at downtime and find travel disproportionately stressful, which does make me take less holiday and less advantage of holiday than perhaps I should, but this was very nice.

We were in Dubrovnik, right at the end of the season, which meant that, despite being half-term week, it was (comparatively) quiet. We got lucky with the weather. I don't think I would have particularly minded rain, as I don't holiday specifically for the sun, but we in fact had fortuitiously glorious weather all week.

I'm now sitting at my desk trying to brush the cobwebs off my brain. As much as I find it hard to switch into downtime and get my head out of work and routine and process, going back is hard, too (albeit less stressful than the threat of travel). There is comfort and power, for me, in routine and systems, and it eases the transition -- makes it more like picking up a favourite tool, the handle worn just into the right shape. It sits comfortably in the hand, but still feels a little heavier than you remember, and you worry, briefly, that you might have forgotten how to swing it. (You haven't.)

Time to start swinging.

The misery machine

It sounds like Musk in on course to actually buy Twitter, barring and further chicanery or legal shenanigans. (I'm planning for the fact that it will happen, but also assuming nothing, given who this involves and his track record on actually ever doing anything.)

I know this is more complicated for a lot of people, and I'm not going to hand wave it away and be like 'and nothing of value was lost', because that collapses a lot of different things that people do get out of Twitter. But also, I do think the world would be net-better-off without it at this stage.

Sure, Twitter was (comparatively) nice once. The problem is... well, the problems are many. Twitter gets held up as this bastion of free expression, the new public square, etc. etc. and it's obviously not any of those things. What Twitter is that makes it seem like it might be that is a) an early-mover social media site that didn't set walls between different groups of users and b) generally very poor at all the horrible business model stuff that social media sites cleave to. That latter point particularly does not mean it's not doing all those things -- just that it's been sufficiently, historically bad at it that it sometimes seems like these factors don't impact how it operates.

Twitter is not the public square. We are sorely lacking for those kinds of third spaces that aren't owned or commoditised by private interests, but a) it is owned and commoditised by private interests, b) public squares aren't meant to be that honkingly big and undelineated. It sucks that we're in a position where this is presented as a credible third space while being really almost but not quite entirely unlike one.

If Twitter goes away, either de facto or de jure, I think the world as a whole will be better off for it (with the caveat that there's no one clear replacement for the role that it plays -- I think that's a good thing but obviously this argument doesn't really work if some new horrible interest just picks up where it left off).

Once again: that's not to dismiss the fact that it would still suck for a lot of people. People who depend on or have various needs met by Twitter will lose out -- I'm not denying that. But part of the point is that... we don't get to choose what happens to Twitter, even collectively. Because it's not our space, and that's precisely the problem.

I'd be sad to see it go (I'm using 'go' here to mean 'change irrevocably if a significant enough number of influential people abandon the platform' rather than, like, be shut down, though I guess that's technically a possibility), but mostly out of a sense of nostalgia for what I remember it being once upon a time. Honestly, Twitter for me these days is mostly a misery machine.

Garbage fire of the vanities

Scheduling this to go out later in the day after writing it in the morning might have interesting effects in these times. We shall see.

Look, I don't really have anything to say yesterday. Approximately 90,000 things happened yesterday and so my brain was in a constant ping-pong state all night.

UK politics would be deeply funny, in a schadenfreude-laden way, if the outputs and outcomes for real people weren't so bloody bad. But still, hopefully the other clown shoe finally drops soon.

Yesterday was also a weird confluence of animal interventions. We've been hunting our favourite pigeon since Saturday, as she had a strung foot. We managed to grab her and sort it at last, and as a bonus, she doesn't hate us now. We also saw a grounded pigeon on the way to an event and had to divert to get it to a rehabber. (It's upsetting seeing them on the ground at night -- they can't get home and they're just huddling and hoping.) And then we had to try to keep two dogs from cornering a baby fox.

Our 'idiot fish' in the quarrantine tank doesn't seem to be learning how to float any better, either.

The title of this blog seems a little appropriate now that it's 70% about animals. Oh well.

Monochronic time

The Diminishing Returns of Calendar Culture.

This caught my interest yesterday (originally via the superlative Sentiers newsletter). It covers a bunch of varied ground, but particularly contrasts the tendencies of 'monochronic' and 'polychronic' time and the things they enable and disable (or valorize and denigrate).

This resonates a lot with me, and taps on a point that's cropped up a lot over the past few years, which is that our assumed social structures around time, work, and output aren't in any way 'natural' -- they're things we have adopted (or, really, had imposed upon us), but which it's hard to regard as anything other that 'water' (as to a fish). The article name-checks ADHD specifically, for instance, which is an example of something which is not necessarily an issue for someone in and of itself -- it becomes an issue when they're required to fit into a narrow social box designed for an entirely different neurotype.

By contrast, I think I am actually very well set up for a monochronic working culture. My own brain weirdnesses play some part in this, but they definitely make me very good at the demands of monochronic work (at least without some of the self-defeating negative cruft the article gets into) and also monochronic structure makes my brain feel good.

(It's not always personally good for me, in that the more I have been able to lean into these tendencies, as powerful as they are, the less flexible I have become in other spheres.)

Privilege and situational flexibility obviously play a role here. The article does get into the various social assumptions around what has enabled monochronic time to become what it is to us, namely, depending on and/or rendering invisible certain other forms of labour, usually around caring and maintaining (e.g. all those famous novelists who were famously prolific, but had their wives acting as their combined secretaries and homekeepers).

I -- at least as far as I can honestly see -- do not depend unfairly on other people's labour to work this way. But there are always other vectors of privilege at work that let me devote all this time and energy to working in this manner and the latitude and autonomy to change how I work.

I'm running out of time for this post (case in point -- I'm time-boxing this blog draft so that I can move on to the next thing in my schedule at the appointed time), but I've also found myself starting to think more seasonally in the past couple of years. This might just be an aging thing, or derived from a greater understanding of the flex and flux in my own energy levels, but I'm more aware of wanting to turn the dial up and down at different times of the year. Something to read on and explore more.

Metamanagement: more of everything you mean to do, less of everything else

Part one of the Narrative Hyperobject is 'Metamanagement' which is my needlessly fancy way of saying 'the bit the contextualises all the other bits for me'. The process as a whole is a set of phases any creative project or deliverable I've worked on seems to have gone through.

The boundaries between those phases are permeable and my divisions of them somewhat arbitrary, but these are the ways in which it has made sense for me to chunk up my tools and thinking.

Those phases, then, are:

  • CONCEPTING/IDEATION
  • DEVELOPING
  • BREAKING
  • DRAFTING
  • REVISING
  • FEEDBACK

This is not linear. One does not start at the top, 'concept' to completion, then advance. It's looping and self-referential. Sometimes you have to step backwards or reach ahead. Moving back to a previous phase with new inputs. But there's a notional trend line that tells me where, really, I am with a given piece of work at any given moment, and thus which hat I need to be wearing. I have, it seems, a lot of hats, and many need to be stacked on top of one another.

If I were to make a heat-map of the phases, the bulk of time and energy would be spent around BREAKING and DRAFTING. They also often end up being the 'least fun bits' in terms of effort expended to positive feeling about self and work. But they're trunk-legged and necessary.

Each of these phases has a smattering of tools and techniques I find useful to apply, plus a bunch of lenses and filters I use to squint at things and try to diagnose problems and either pre-empt them emerging at a later phase, or fix something that's already manifest.

A lot of this division also represents a form of psychological trickery. Or possibly sensible expectation management. I know what things should feel or look like at a given phase, which has the benefit of making it easier to handwave a way (to myself) the bits that still feel rubbish or wonky or worrying because it's not the time for figuring that stuff out yet.

I suppose all of this comes down to the general maxim I realise I try to bring to everything, which is trying to do more of what you're meaning to do and less of everything that you're not meaning to do. Which includes drawing boxes and boundaries round things you will mean to do (and need to), but don't mean to do just yet. Something can be important without being important yet, and if you try to solve all of the problems at the same time, you don't solve anything.

The Narrative Hyperobject and exploding your own head

#narrativetoolbox #narrativehyperobject

Morven looked her up and down. “You haven’t asked the question yet.”

“What question?”

“Well, different people ask it differently. I figure you don’t make it this far without being at least a little open minded, but most folk can't just reboot their worldview at the drop of a hat. So even though the company makes no bones about what it does, and even though they take you through all this in orientation, people always have to ask. They can't help themselves."

"Ask what?"

"Is this magic shit for real?"

Nomi frowned. “Well, of course it is.”

“That simple, huh?”

“CCI is a three-billion-dollar business. You don’t get that big without having something to sell.”

Morven snorted. "Then I've got a bridge you might be interested in."


I have a long-neglected novel kicking around that's about 30% through a major redraft. One day, I will get back to it, but realistically, that will not be for a long while.

The central conceit is 'magic is real, magic has always been real, and Silicon Valley has finally gotten ahold of it and is selling it as a service'. You can probably imagine how I'd feel about that.

Magic in the book, at least at time of writing this, is a vastly complex mental contortion, pulling energy from Elsewhere and constructing a sprawling mental model to manage and direct that flow to produce effects in the physical world. 'Props' help -- physical artefacts or magic circles that represent tangible analogues to elements of the model. But, fundamentally, a practitioner has to build, hold, and manipulate some hideously complex system in their mind, without screwing it up and exploding their own head.

(One of my rough sketches for this idea was: if the Craft Sequence is 'what if magic were law?', this is 'what if magic were architecture?'.)

I bring this up for no reason that really has anything to do with the book. I made the connection because I felt like I reached this point with my own mental model of 'how writing works' (which is, in fact to say 'how my writing works'). I had so many scattered pieces of insight and tools and lens and a sense of process that I just stopped being able to hold it all in my head at once. Which meant I wrote it down.

Obsidian was great for this, actually -- building a navigable, wiki-style map of my writing process, with all the little nooks and crannies to stash 'sometimes advice' without getting in the way of a clear process. Now, I literally walk through it whenever I'm working on something, recognising the step between phases and reading the traveller's notes I have written to myself.

I introduce this concept here because I might talk about various bits and pieces of it in future shards. Hopefully without exploding my own head.

Anyway, here's an unpolished quote-dump from the WIP manuscript which I haven't touched since squints May last year.


The walls, floor, and ceiling of Remote Viewing Suite 3 were polished obsidian. Vast panels of the stuff, unbroken except for some clever affordances to allow the door to open, and sixteen recesses where shard-like slivers of the rock had been meticulously cut out and extracted.

It must have cost an unthinkably large amount of money, and CCI had four others just like it. Every time Morven came into one of the rooms, she couldn’t help but feel genuine awe that people had been able to make one of these – mixed with the pit-of-the-stomach disgust that came with understanding the social politics that meant anyone could afford to.

Combine that with what these rooms were used for, and she pretty much wanted to throw up every time she stepped inside. Vertigo induced by intersecting ley-lines of capitalism.

Morven placed four candles on the floor, lit them, then closed the door. The polished black glass cast cascading reflections. It didn’t magnify the dim light of the candles as much as refract them into infinity, a thousand points of light insignificant against a vast, swallowing blackness. Morven was surrounded by uncountable images of herself. In the unbounded space of the viewing room, her red hair was black, her normally pale skin dark. The expressions that looked back at her were not kind. She looked away reflexively.

She laid a thick aluminium bar in the middle of the candles and painted a trail of silver-infused ink to connect candles and bar. Remote viewing over any distance requires intense amounts of energy, even if you were just doing it through the compact scrying mirror that traditional practitioners usually preferred. Powering a whole room was a different order of magnitude altogether. These items were Morven’s safety valve. Next to it, she set a handheld audio recorder she’d checked out from the desk when she’d turned over her bag, which contained all her electronics.

...

Morven marked out a set of geometric glyphs on the wall in the same silvered ink. She took her time. Normally, she’d be building her mental model while she laid in the physical geometry, slowly gathering the energy she needed for the working, rather than performing a big draw all at once, but the viewing suites required such a high throughput of energy that she’d have to start big, and it wasn’t worth the risk of starting that until everything was set up.

She settled herself in the middle of the room, candle circle on her right, recorder close at hand to her left, and checked everything one last time. Satisfied with the physical arrangements, she closed her eyes and began to focus. She spent a few minutes just breathing, clearing her head of anything outside of the room. Then, she began laying down the foundations of the working’s mental model.

She reached out with her consciousness, and in her mind’s eye, she saw the great wilds of energy swirling around in what she had come to call ‘infinite arcane space’. She represented herself as a tiny dot, insignificant against the roiling storms, but still a gate through which that power could be drawn.

In her mind, she wove together an architecture of silver conduits that would haul in the energy, with locks and irises and channels that would direct and control that flow. She built great sweeping pools to hold the energy and distribute it wherever she needed. The whole form stood in her mind, a complex, revolving pattern aligned with her intent. She touched each element in turn, and then, finally, she was ready to begin.

Slowly, she opened the floodgates.

The charge rushed into Morven’s mind, so quickly at first that it threatened to overrun her model, to drown out her control and crash through her physical form and shatter it like glass. She breathed, refreshing her mental image and relaxing, allowing the energy to pour into the great pools. They filled quickly, and her brain began to itch, aching to release the power building there.

She tested her insurance policy. With her eyes still closed, she opened her connection to the candle circle, sending the power down through the silvered ink at her feet. Through her eyelids, candles erupted with violent fire, flare-bright. The first time she’d tried that in a viewing suite, her eyes had been open, and she’d almost killed herself. The mirrored space had made the light dazzlingly bright, enough of a shock to threaten the integrity of the model in her head.

The power-sink worked, the metal bar warming and thrumming with energy. If things started to spin out of control, she’d have somewhere to dump the power aside from her own limbic system. She throttled the connection, and the candles dimmed, the excess energy she’d dumped there escaping as heat and light.

Morven reached out to close her connection to infinite arcane space, to stem the influx of power, but the reservoirs were filling too swiftly. It was time to put the gathered power to work.

She opened her eyes and shunted the energy towards its real purpose – the silver glyphs on the glass all around her. It spidered out from the marks over the surface of the obsidian, a spreading cloud of inky black erasing the reflections until Morven seemed to float, suspended in a void.

She took a breath.

Across the city, the first set of sibling shards – pieces cut from the obsidian of this room and planted on-location by CCI field staff – began to vibrate. There was a set of these out there for each of today’s assignments, forming a sympathetic connection which Morven could exploit to focus her working.

Black gave way to bright white and then resolved into an image: an office building seen from above – a hawk’s-eye-view from just below the clouds, rendered in full 720 degree panorama over the entire room. Morven hovered in space above a city block, brushing aside a small revolt as her eyes and inner ear fought over conflicting information.

She revolved the model in her mind, as if the whole thing were mounted on a gimbal, and the world shifted in response. She was a disembodied eye floating in space, an entity of air and vision, able to move and observe as she chose – at least within the boundaries created by the sibling shards. She groped to her side, hit the ‘record’ button, and began narrating what she saw with the clinical boredom of a dentist or mortician.

Once the recorder was set, she let the last vestiges of being a body in a room melt away. She took a moment, revelling in the feeling of flight – of unfettered movement through air. She descended, sliding unresisted and unseen through the ceiling of the office block, clipping through the ducts and HVAC conduits, until she was on the top floor that housed the boardroom and executive offices.

Then, she went to work.

The Four-Hour 'Rule'

Here's a good writeup from a couple of weeks ago but Julian Simpson on time management. This is one of those things I'm always interested to hear other people's processes/thinking on, even when it's very different from my own.

The post references the '4 hour rule/not-rule'. I can't remember where I first came across this, but I think about it a lot. The idea is that most people only really get an average of about four hours high-quality focused work in a day. The exact figure varies up and down, and it's not necessarily about four contiguous hours.

It's also one of those things that may be faintly apocryphal, in that 'fits rather too neatly in a Malcolm Gladwell book' sort of way. But the underlying point feels truthy to me, which is that there is nothing scientific about the eight-hour workday, and you (I) can get a lot more mileage from a shorter number of intense, highly focused hours than a larger number of less-focused ones.

Key to that is 'intense, highly focused'. It's not a case of just putting fewer hours into something. It's a case of using those hours ferociously and not trying to treat all available hours as having equal valence.

In practice, this doesn't work out to me working four hours a day and then stopping. There are several reasons for that:

  1. I worked a salaried job with contracted hours
  2. My personal tolerance for this is generally, in fact, higher than four hours
  3. The 'rule' isn't meant to describe four hours of contiguous time -- it's four hours over the course of a day.
  4. When I've done it in the past, I've found maintaining that level of output for five days a week more exhausting than treating time in a fluffier, less structured way. (And also get about twice as much done.)

What is generalisable from this, though, and what I use with abandon, is not treating working time as some fluffy, amorphous mass where every available hour is equivalent to every other hour. The headlines of this for me are:

  • Time-boxing. Usually 90- or 60-minute windows where I shut off all distractions and just disappear into some large piece of work.
  • Intercut these with 'unclenching' time where the goal is only smaller tasks, or occasionally wandering down to the kitchen to eat a little piece of cheese. (The point is not laziness or procrastination, it's to do as little as necessary to make the next focus-box maximally effective rather than half-assing both and calling it productivity.)
  • Consider the structure of the week. Right now, Wednesdays are usually meetings/sundries days, which is ideal, because the same level of focused intensity isn't possible, and it breaks up the week nicely. Other times, I know I just don't have the same level of focus in me, and don't try to force (and so structure my time differently to get the value out of it that I can).

Which is to say: being intentional with your time and how you work and mostly not kidding yourself too much about what you can and can't do are perennially useful.

Dictionaries of record & writing tools

No blog yesterday. I'm trying not to fall out of the habit, but also not holding myself to it if it's genuinely an impediment/means the expenditure of additional energy/time I don't have. My ideal is to draft these notes first thing in the morning, at the end of my usual spin-up routine, which would be ideal -- my brain is up and running and I've usually got some random things that I'm thinking about, but I'm not too mired in the specifics of the day just yet.

Anyway, dictionaries.

I came across this post, of which point 3 links to https://jsomers.net/blog/dictionary. The thrust of that post is that modern dictionaries tend towards more pre/con-cise and clinical language, which is useful in some ways but is a loss in others. There's mileage for sparking thought/finding the right words, particularly in a context where you're aiming for a richness in your language, in something more ornate.

The post specifically recommends Webster's 1913 dictionary, which you can find online here.

I'm adopting this immediately; I thought I'd also share some of the other tools I use:

  • I keep a copy of Roget's Thesaurus (a 1987 printing of the 1852 edition) on my shelf for similar reasons -- it has an arcanity/datedness to its language and word choices that I find useful for fiction or for naming things slightly obliquely.
  • Fowler's Modern English Usage. I have a hardcopy of the most recent edition (I think). Really useful for answering specific questions/seeing a breakdown of specific oddities of usage.
  • Oxford Dictionary of Etymology. Feels fairly self-explanatory.
  • The Penguin Guide to Punctuation. I don't 100% agree with absolutely everything in there, but when I'm not working to an external style guide, this is what I most often use for consistency.
  • Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. Not a language reference in the same way, but very, very useful.
  • All of these I have in hardcopy. Technically, searching things up is much faster digitally, but a) I like having them on my shelf and the tactility of them, and b) there's an element of serendipity, also, that you can only really get from flipping through a book and spotting adjacent entries.
  • These other things I use digitally. The most common ones I have mapped to quick searches via my browser bar, so I can e.g. type 'def catenary' into my address bar and jump directly to the relevant page).
  • I use Google Definitions (just 'define x' in Google) as a quick-and-dirty lookup. I mostly use this to confirm a definition I already know to make sure I'm using something correctly, or sometimes, to check the spelling of a word that I suspect falls outside my writing program's bailiwick. This is mapped to 'def x', so I often hit the following sequence of keys quite fast:
    • WIN + 2 (switches to Firefox)
    • Ctrl + L (jumps to the address bar -- if my currently open tab is discardable) or Ctrl + T (open a new tab to use)
    • def word
    • Alt+ tab back to previous program (or occasionally alt + shift --> n to minimise the browser so it's not lurking in the background)
  • Power Thesaurus. It's excellent. Mapped to 'syn x'
  • Wiktionary for digging more into the background of a word and related elements. Mapped to 'wikt x'.
  • Now, Webster's 1913 Dictionary. Mapped to 'webst x'.
  • I also have a handy pdf of 'Gary Gygax's Extraordinary Book of Names', which is a surprisingly useful resource for... well, anything that involves naming.

More resets

CN: food, fasting, restrictive eating

I was talking yesterday about Reset buttons -- a few things I didn't quite get onto in the time/space I had.

First, something more in line with what I was talking about. Every three months, I set aside an hour or so to go over the last little while, consider what's actually happened, and reflect on where I'm at. I call it 'quarterly reflection and planning', which sounds inanely corporate, but I'm yet to come up with anything better. And, really, that is what I'm doing.

I go back through my record-keeping systems to remind myself of what's actually happened -- my journal, my calendar, and a few other specific info-keepers. What happens almost invariably is that a) I am surprised that things that happened near the start of the period didn't actually take place much longer ago ('that was only' three months back?!'') and b) things that happened ~3/4 weeks back didn't happen, like, the week before. Every time.

It's a useful exercise, partly just because it aids remembering and recalling what has actually happened, but because it's a good opportunity to check in with yourself and see how you are (aren't) faring. My journal tends to capture lots of very 'soft' information like if I feel it worth mentioning how knackered or overwhelmed I am. Which, when you read back over things at once, can be pretty stark. A useful warning indicator.

I also turn towards the goals I've set myself at the start of the year, and think about how those are going. I mostly don't do 'output' goals any more -- though maybe I'll revisit that next year. They're more practice/process goals that help me, at times like this, think about my priorities. For me, this time is less about identifying deficiencies per se and more about recognising when I'm over-prioritising, say, my creative goals over more general and important human ones.

The other 'reset button' is a monthly fast that I do. I've been doing this since the end of last year, and find it to be a nice 'digestive reset' (as someone who often has issues with digestion) and, perhaps more importantly, a reset of intentions for my general practices around eating... let's say 'eating well' because there's a lot that collapses.

I've generally made this a 24-hour fast, which is really a small thing and pretty readily achievable (In conversation about it, people often seem to me to wildly overestimate the impact or unpleasantness of it. Unplanned paucity of food is unpleasant. And not every aspect of fasting is pleasant. But it's demonstrably a net positive for me personally.)

What this gives me, above all, is a reset point. Making it a longitudinal habit means that I always know I've got a 'catch' point that I'll reach, which helps me feel more relaxed about my intentions and processes the rest of the time. I think that is a common thread in a lot of what I do -- establishing reflection and reset points that help me be less preoccupied and rigorous the rest of the time. Knowing that there's a time for that, and that it will arrive in due course.

Reset buttons

The blog's been taking a back seat the last couple of weeks. Presumably in a Smart car or a pickup truck or something where the back seat is notably absent. Various reasons that I won't bore you with here, because they're very mundane, but can be boiled down to negative things (fatigue and too much to brain over) and positive reactons (not beating myself up about not doing absolutely everything on my list if it helps with that).

Anyway, I like writing these notes, and am trying to make sure I keep doing it. But sensibly, y'know?

I like Mondays. I'm like the anti-Garfield, in this. I'm lucky enough to enjoy my work, and the start of a week represents a kind of reset point -- a reset of intentions, a fresh-ish start, even if the actual happenings and practices the week will bring might be anything but. It makes it more plausible, for instance, that I can hit the reset button on something like this blog, forgive myself lapses in habits, and crack on regardless.

I like the sprint structure of working for much the same reason -- more strongly, if anything. For the uninitiated, to explain briefly and simplistically: sprints are a system for organising workload, working time, and work assignments, devised for software development. An archetypal sprint would be a two-week period -- everyone involved has a calculable amount of working hours, and each task is estimated. Therefore, you can be assigned an amount of work which -- in theory at least -- matchs what's actually achievable for you. Obviously, there is slippage and drift, unexpected illness or overruns, but fundamentally, it gives you a) a view into your next two-weeks worth of work (with, ideally, no surprises that throw that off), b) an amount of work that should be proportional to your actual time, and c) a sense of priority and importance within that.

Sprints work really well for my brain. I like the short-term predictability, without having an excessively long path laid ahead of me such that it becomes predictable and boring. I can sit down and figure out how best so structure my time over the coming sprint to handle this specific workload. Which feels like a fun little puzzle, sometimes -- knowing which tasks will require what sort of working structure, what sort of headspace. Arranging them to try to manage energy over the course of a sprint (by e.g. trying to avoid stacking all the most intense writing days next to one another).

It also provide an ebb-and-flow cycle between sprints. No matter how well or sub-optimally a sprint is going (or feels like it's going), you know that, eventually, you're going to tie a bow on the whole thing and move on. It's like a mental clearing-out, for me, setting a thing aside and getting somewhat of a fresh start. It also lends itself well to iteration and reflection -- being able to look back on a discrete period of work (collectively as a team but also individually and from the point of view of craft) and use the rhythm of the cycle to operationalise the things you learn.

Related to this, one of my most successful habits is my weekly whiteboard. Each Sunday, I run through a checklist of things to review and prep for the week ahead, organise my brain and digital workspace, and writing it all up on a physical whiteboard. The physical thing is strictly duplicative, but it's a nice touchstone throughout the week, and a physical marker of things. Each Friday, as I'm wrapping up, I unwind all that, wipe down the board, and stow things away until it's time to start again. Reset buttons. Burning away the old.

New Year is an important time for me, for much the same reasons. Taking time to reflect on the year that's gone, and setting intentions and preparing, at leisure, for the year ahead, has an outsized impact on my brain. The ability to burn away the old and begin anew, but in continuity with what's gone before. Reset buttons.

Kettymology

I had cause to look up the etymology of 'kettle' the other day (the cause being that Olivia asked me what the etymology of 'kettle' was). My intuitive guess was that it was more Old English than Latinate or Greek, and while that didn't turn out to be too far off, the answer is actually much more interesting.

From Wiktionary:

From Middle English _ketel_, also _chetel_, from Old Norse _ketill_ and Old English _ċietel_ (“kettle, cauldron”), both from Proto-Germanic *katilaz (“kettle, bucket, vessel”), of uncertain origin and formation. Usually regarded as a borrowing of Late Latin catīllus (“small bowl”), diminutive of Latin catinus (“deep bowl, vessel for cooking up or serving food”), however, the word may be Germanic confused with the Latin: compare Old High German chezzi (“a kettle, dish, bowl”), Old English _cete_ (“cooking pot”), Icelandic kati, ketla (“a small boat”). Cognate with West Frisian _tsjettel_ (“kettle”), Dutch ketel (“kettle”), German Kessel (“kettle”), Swedish kittel (“cauldron”), Swedish kittel (“kettle”), Gothic 𐌺𐌰𐍄𐌹𐌻𐍃 (katils, “kettle”), Finnish kattila. Compare also Russian котёл (kotjól, “boiler, cauldron”).

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kettle

The key information there is that first sentence: 'From Middle English ketel, also chetel, from Old Norse ketill and Old English ċietel (“kettle, cauldron”), both from Proto-Germanic katilaz (“kettle, bucket, vessel”), of uncertain origin and formation.' Contrary to my guess, there is* a possible Latinate component, but it sounds like that's disputed/possibly a namespace collision/something that had an influence on an existing word rather than stemming directly from there.

All the sources I've looked up have repeated the Latin angle, though I wonder how 'strong' that is, given that it seems to always be couched in terms of 'it is usually consider to come from...'.

Pure speculation, but I like the idea: what if there are just lots of similar words for 'kettle' in different language that sprung up separately? It's slightly more plausible than it might sound. 'Mama' and 'papa', or slight variants thereof, are really, really common terms for 'mother' and 'father' in a bunch of different languages. They're false cognates (i.e. words that appear to share an etymology or have influenced one another's development, but which in fact have evolved separately) -- because they're just really basic sounds that babies tend to make early on, and which therefore people have assigned those referents to.

'Kettle' is hardly such a foundational concept as a parent, although [insert joke about British people's love for tea here]. But, kettle means, in a more expansive sense, a cooking vessel -- often the words that it stems from meant 'cauldron' or something similar. Very basic forms of cooking vessel.

The 'mama' and 'papa' thing stems from early language acquistion in infants, but also presumably in people as a species, since we assigned the referents to those sounds. The brain development that makes us Homo sapiens is fundamentally bound up in cooking. Cooking food yields more energy from the same items and also broadens the supply of things you can consider edible. This fundamental technology freed up excess energy, which fed into cognitive development. We think, because we cook.

(Related fun fact: a big reason human childbirth is so, uh, dicey and the reason our babies are so useless compared even to the more altricial animal species is because... our brains and heads got so big proportional to the rest of our physiology. We ('we' I say) bake 'em as long as we can, but they just can't spent that long inside our bodies relative to the rest of our development.)

So, I can imagine a version of events where 'kettle' gets assigned a fairly primal word that appears as a false cognate.

Imagine, I stress, because this is definitely pure speculation -- the excuse to throw together some interesting ideas around evolution, etymology, and technology. It is almost definitely: not actually the case.

Writing tests are bad

I saw a tweet about — well, not writing tests, strictly, but taking tests as part of applications for jobs or contracts. But I choose to make this about writing tests.

I hate them, and remain salty about them.

The logic behind them seems to run thus:

  • We want to hire the right people
  • Evaluating writers is hard
  • We want to know they can write our specific thing
  • So as well as asking for a portfolio, we’ll get candidates to compete some bespoke work assignment so we can gauge their expertise and make sure they can write OUR thing

My problems with this are manifold.

  1. Most competent games writers can write most game forms/styles/genres. Some will be better at some and worse at others, granted, but I feel like you’re not actually solving a problem with these tests most of the time. (Or: if the thing you are trying to test for is 'baseline competence at their craft', this is the wrong way to go about it.)
  2. Most of the time, you’re not going to get better or more information than you get from a portfolio, unless your test is very well put together and carefully thought through.
  3. It generally amounts to the hiring company trying to mitigate risk (of hiring the ‘wrong’ writer) by gathering additional information. Which is not inherently bad! It’s actually sensible! The problem is that a) I’m sceptical about the quality of the information received and b) they do this at the expense of the candidate -- by having them bear increase risk and invest more time and labour instead.

This is not to say that these tests are never useful. I’ve seen some that are, and have, once or twice, enjoyed the experience. But the vast, vast majority I’ve engaged in or seen colleagues engage in have been colossal wastes of everyone’s time.

Here are some things I’ve had, or seen come out of writing tests:

  • Company just ghosts candidate
  • Company goes silent for long period before announcing that, due to strategy changes, they’re not hiring for this position any more
  • Company tells candidate their submission isn’t something they could ship outright (which is an absurd success metric for a cold-read writing assignment meant to get more info about the candidate)
  • Company returns feedback on writing test, parts of which contradict the original brief or treat as essential criteria which were absent from the original brief
  • Company progresses candidate, before later taking issue with quoted rates being ‘too expensive for their budget’, despite their being a known/knowable issue before moving ahead with a writing test

Many of these aren’t about the tests per se — they’re general problems with hiring processes. But their bullshit factor is greatly compounded by the fact that the company has had writers invest hours or weeks of their time speculatively, leading to an absurd amount of wasted effort. There's already a great power asymmetry in these processes; this makes it so much worse.

The instance I am still most personally salty about is a company which told me they were finding too many candidates weren’t ‘at the standard they wanted’ when it came to do writing tests after completing several interview rounds. This was losing them too much time doing interviews, so they moved their writing tests earlier in the process, before interviews. This means they were giving it to dozens of people, almost entirely speculatively. And this was a writing test which demanded, at minimum, several days of work. This is practically a moral hazard issue — how much of people’s time we’re they wasting to ‘solve’ a problem of their own by pushing the cost and risk onto other people?

‘Solve’ in scare quotes because I can’t imagine that this helped them much. Surely they were burning far more time on this than just doing interviews. Going over writing tests is time-consuming!!

And, some additional salt: given their offensively overscoped test and their approach to it, I’m not remotely surprised that they were having that original 'issue' with people not delivering the results they wanted after interview. I suspect that had a lot more to do with the test and what the company was looking for than any strict deficiency in the candidates. I found the whole process so incredibly sour, and it reflected so poorly on the company and its processes that I'd quietly warn away anyone considering working with them.

(This also gave me the thought that bad hiring processes will tend to persist because they tend to select, naturally, for those candidates who can endure at least that level of bullshit without giving up. Assuming a company's hiring processes are reflective of the company more broadly, if you can get hired by them, you've passed through the flaming hoops of process required to get through the door in the first place. Which means your tolerance is at least that high. An idle thought and a sweeping generalisation/rule of thumb, at best, but I think it has nonzero explanatory power for the interia of bad processes.)

Salt aside, how would I fix this? Well, I’m mostly just going to refuse writing tests in future as flat policy, with the specific caveats below. They waste my time, and where I have the luxury of choice, I don’t want to work for anywhere that starts out the relationship by wasting my time. But, that aside, here are some things I'd be looking for:

  • I am paid for my time. This doesn’t strictly make the test better, and it would basically be unheard of to get actual full working rate for a writing test. But it’s a risk mitigation measure — it means my time is less wasted and the company is willing to actually put their money where their perceived need is, which reduces asymmetry.
  • The test seeks to solve some specific problem which is not just ‘can you write?’ (I can) or ‘can you write our specific thing?’ (which this is not a meaningful way to evaluate). Too many companies seem to give writing tests just because they can, or because they feel they’re supposed to. And they’re often the worst ones, because they’re unfocused or overscoped. The test, of course, then has to actually be well designed to support this objective, but this is ‘Step One’.
  • The test should be scoped to be comparable to the amount of time I’d spend on an interview. If I can genuinely do it in a handful of hours, I’ll be less grumpy about it. But that’s hard to get right, because if it’s technically achievable in a few hours – but you’d produce something way better by spending, say, four days on it, then you have to start second-guessing whether other people are going to actually stick to the brief. Put another way: if people feel they can maximise their chances of getting the gig by overworking (even if that contravenes the strict brief), they are going to overwork (which hurts them and, potentially, those who don't overwork by comparison). The hiring company cannot abrogate the responsibility of creating this dynamic.
  • The test should not produce any material the company could use, and explicitly not sign over any rights for them to use anything so produced. Maybe if they’re paying full rate for the test, they can make an argument for this, but then I come back to: are you really doing a writing test or just outright hiring someone for a short engagement? Because those are different things with different parameters, and trying to do everything all at once is to the detriment of all of them.
  • The test should be given to as few candidates as possible. Waste the minimum of aggregate time.

If several of these things were true, I’d consider doing a test, even now. But generally, I think they are a bad investment for all involved unless the company practises great care and attention.

You can, in fact, gauge someone’s writing ability by samples and past work. If you lack that expertise, hey, consult with someone who does have it to help you evaluate candidates. A writing test will give you a little more insight into what someone is like to work with — but is a terrible instrument for that. Figure out, above all what problem you are actually trying to solve and what information you are trying to gather and find some better way, because it’s almost definitely not best solved through a writing test.

Something I didn't get into (because I wrote this in bed at 6am while not sleeping) but that is also salient is: writing tests also affect what candidates you're getting in the first place. This is both in terms of 'busy, well-qualified people don't have three days to spend on your test' and 'many people have personal circumstances that preclude this' e.g. kids, financially strained, chronic health conditions around other commitments, and so on – and that second group disproportionately includes marginalised people. Beyond all the other moral considerations, you'd better be certain your writing test is adding value to your hiring process if you're willing to limit your applicant pool in this way.

Know, don't tell

Blogs still somewhat erratic while I'm balancing various things. An idle thought, today, on the subject of preserving mystery while avoiding vagueness or unspecificity.

Know, don't tell.

Yes, it's cute, after that oft-misinterpreted writing truism. But I think it's a useful thing to remember. You don't have to explain everything on the page -- it's probably boring if you do. But you should know the answers (or at least one reasonable version of the answers). If you don't have that, what you show in the work is going to hang together less well and by generically 'mysterious' without feeling like it has meat behind it.

Unexplained things can feel deep, iceberg-like. Or they can feel weightless and insubstantial.

So, know what you're on about. And then hoard that information like a dragon.

Unexpected Listening

A small blog to make up for missing yesterday. I was brain-wiped after spending all day on something, and then had to pick up a couple of small things which claimed what energy was left. I set myself a low bar for coherency/interest for this blog, but there is a point beyond which it's just typing nonsense into a screen.

Here a few albums from my main work playlist ('Softly Dreaming'). I update it intermittently with things of the same ilk, and occasionally rotate stuff out. Generally I like stuff that is nebulously weird-ambient or weird-classical.

Two Sisters by Sarah Davachi (https://sarahdavachi.bandcamp.com/album/two-sisters)
Described by Olivia as sounding like 'distant angry traffic jam crossed with mournful bagpipes', which I take as a strict compliment. I really like it, anyway.

Drone Mass by Jóhann Jóhannsson (https://johannjohannsson.bandcamp.com/album/drone-mass)

The Undivided Five by A Winged Victory for the Sullen (https://awvfts.bandcamp.com/album/the-undivided-five)

Ghosts V: Together by Nine Inch Nails (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts_V:_Together)

Enjoy unexpected listening.

Breaking and drifting

I was sick last week, hence skipping a bunch of posts. I am now crosseyed from finishing up a draft of something, so this may be rambly and unfocused.

I do a lot of front-loaded work before approaching any piece of writing. If you want to use the traditional false dichotomy, I'm very much a plotter, not a pantser. (I struggle to imagine that anyone working a day job in games writing can really be a pantser in all contexts, given the common requirements of brief-driven narrative, but that's an idle thought.)

By the time I start drafting in earnest, I should -- in theory -- already have produced one or more detailed breakdowns of what I'll be writing. Specifically, breaking down plot, story, and scene information into the form-specific narrative units I'm working with. For the Fallen London content I've been working on today, for instance, I produced a spreadsheet containing the various storylets and branches, with details of the narrative function each, plus notes on what mechanically it would need to do.

I usually, at this point, feel like I have essentially written the story, but for the actual 'getting words down' bit. That's partly a false feeling -- I haven't, in fact, written any of the story yet in terms of visible final output. But it is also partly true, because the work of solving those narrative problems and proving that the whole thing can exist, theoretically, and occupy the shape it's meant to, is a big part of the intellectual work. I'm even able to pinpoint gaps or redundancies across the units and adjust accordingly, before having set down words in earnest.

The balance for me is in working out what work should be front-loaded like this, and what can't be. You could, in theory, map out everything, in perfect detail, without ever writing a word of final-output content. But at that point, you may as well just be writing the story, so get on with it.

The exact point of diminishing returns generally depends on the complexity and scale of the project. For instance, I don't need to spend several days breaking a spreadsheet if the final output is intended to be simple, short, and sweet -- I can probably just sketch some scrappy points out on paper and go. But even with the most complex projects -- where there are lots of moving parts and where you'd better know how those parts are going to move ahead of time, lest you decapitate someone important -- there's only so much you can accomplish in the planning stages. There are certain things that only become apparent through the actual writing -- things that you thought would work that don't; things that are way better than what you came up with that only became manifest when you're down in the weeds. The map is not the territory; it is an abstraction and simplification. If the map were detailed enough to fully describe the territory, it would just be the territory.

To put it another way: the planning stages are about sketching and designing the narrative, but there are always exigencies that present themselves in execution that no sketch can capture. At some point, you're better off just getting on with it and seeing what breaks rather than trying to design something that won't break to begin with (because: you can't).

This was all sparked by thinking about scene framing. I might go into more detail about that another time, but when I'm breaking stories now, I spend a lot of time thinking about scene framing: Where is it set? What's happening -- especially outside of the mainline story beats? Where do the audience and the characters enter the scene? What do we find when we arrive? These are all ways of having a scene do more work, focusing it, putting pressure on the characters to make things less boring, and generally sharpening the writing and storytelling. Understanding the high-level function and effect of the scene is one thing, but you can fix -- or improve -- a lot by reconsidering the framing. So I try to nail down that in the breaking stage.

BUT things are always different when I sit down to write a scene. There's the matter of 'drift' -- it might be days or weeks since I broke the scene originally, and I don't have the same imagination of it loaded so readily in-memory. It's important to recapitulate what it's meant to be doing. But it's one thing to have planned myself a good location setting for a scene when breaking the story. It's another to conjure a clear mental picture of a physical space to contain an action scene, for instance. I could do all that work with the rest of the breaking. But that's a level of vividness that's hard to record, and most useful when I'm ready to get the words down, so it would probably be wasted effort.