Coen brothers

The Vanessa Williams Rule

In the mid-1990s I conducted interviews for a small entertainment newspaper. The editor was a friend who knew my tastes, so he gave me assignments I’d enjoy. I interviewed a pre-Titanic Leonardo DiCaprio, a rapper-turning-actor named “Marky Mark” Wahlberg, the art-house rocker Jim Carroll, and other artists who whose work was at the time considered edgy or who hadn’t yet made it to the top.

One day the editor called me, because he was in a bind. The newspaper had committed to doing an interview, but there was no reporter free on the day it needed to be done . He asked if I could do it.

“Sure,” I said, assuming I’d be meeting some up-and-coming Method actor or a rock ‘n’ roller who shunned the public. “Who do I interview?”

“A star,” he said. “Vanessa Williams.”

I rolled my eyes.

It wasn’t personal. Vanessa Williams is, in fact, a gifted performer. I’m just not a fan of Top 40 dance music and ballads.

I’d grown up listening to The Plasmatics, Sham 69, and Killing Joke. Raw, angry, bracing, countercultural noise. My friends and I would slam-dance to those groups in crumbling, dimly-lit, Manhattan punk clubs which violated every safety code on the books. Slickly orchestrated love songs performed by beauty contest winners and me just didn’t mix.

Still, my friend was in a jam, so I took the CD Vanessa Williams was promoting and got to work.

I had a week to prepare, so I listened to her album a dozen times. I doped out the lyrics, and studied its musical progressions. I also did my scholarly research by searching the Internet, and paging through back issues of People and Us. All told, my Vanessa Williams studies must have added up to twenty-five hours. It was time-consuming, but I drafted my interview questions and was ready. I’d become a Vanessa Williams expert in a week.

The morning of the interview, though, the editor phoned with bad news. Williams’ PR person said a scheduling conflict had arisen. Williams was sorry, but she had to break our meeting. There’d be no interview.

Here I was with a head full of Vanessa Williams knowledge, and nowhere to use it. I felt like the professor of a dead language who had no one to teach.

Of course, I was able to use my newfound expertise to  review her album (I gave it an “A”). Yet I was still disappointed I’d wasted so much time cramming for a subject that’d be of no future use. I vowed never to let that happen again.

In my mind I called it “The Vanessa Williams Rule.” Simply stated, the rule read: “Don’t take on a project unless you’re going to love the process, because the expected endpoint may never come.”

In other words, the journey better be worthwhile, because the destination may vanish before you reach it.

I got the chance to invoke the rule the following week. The editor called me with another star interview. I held my breath and prayed it was with Mitch Hedberg or one of the Coen Brothers. Alas, it was with Shannen Doherty.

Like Williams, Doherty is talented at her craft. But I’m not a 90210 guy, and I didn’t want to study to be one — especially if the objective might unexpectedly pop like a soap bubble.  I passed, and instead interviewed Marshall Crenshaw. Not as glamorous, but more my style.

Since then, I’ve used “The Vanessa Williams Rule” as a business rule. If I’m asked to write a book or work on any type of project, I divide it into “process” and “result.” For me to take the gig, both parts have to be meaningful and fun.

It’s a good rule, I think. Try using it yourself, and tell me how things go.

Book Surfing, or "How to Get Good Ideas While Cleaning Your Room"

For me, thinking divergently is a mania. I do it as much as possible. That is, I push myself to see things from odd angles and slam together ideas that don’t conventionally connect. (Steve Woodruff might say I’m restless.)

Because of this self-induced push to be creative, I’ve come up with some curious ideation techniques. I call them “situational techniques,” because they help you use your immediate surroundings to produce ideas.

One situational technique I often use is book surfing. I stumbled upon it years ago while organizing my home office.

My office was a mess. The bookcases were jammed with hundreds of books. There were so many books, in fact, that they spilled onto the floor. What’s more, the subjects were shuffled together: fiction, science, sports, psychology, poetry, history, magic, pop culture. Finding a specific book was rough. When I wanted to read one, I first had to recall its thickness and jacket color, and then I’d go on a tedious and uncertain hunt.

After one particularly frustrating hunt, I pulled the books from the cases, piled them in the center of the room, and started to shelve them in a more logical order. Doing that required that I think about each book’s content.

Would I, for instance, ever again open this copy of “The Executioner’s Song,” or should I donate it to the library? Would I more likely read Ray Bradbury’s “Zen in the Art of Writing” if I shelved it with the author’s novels and stories, or if I put it with the other books I owned on writing technique? What about my copy of “Send ‘Em One White Sock” by Rapp and Collins? When I first read it, I’d found many of the strategies useful. What were those strategies again?

In giving each book a cursory look, ideas started coming to me without much trying.

I got ideas based on a book’s content (“Bradbury says to write a story out of ‘pure indignation.’ So, if I were to write such a story, I’d write about the time . . . “) and title (“‘Send ‘Em One White Sock’ is actually one of many tactics in the book. So, if I were to write a book about positioning and wanted to title it by a single intriguing tactic, I might call it . . . ”).

The ideas also came from picking up two unrelated books at once (“Hmm, ‘Moneyball’ is about using metrics to measure a ballplayer’s ability, and then there’s ‘The Collected Screenplays of the Coen brothers.’ If I combined these two, I’d get a statistical way of measuring a Coen brothers’ screenplay. Or, I’d get a dark, funny screenplay about a baseball statistician”).

By the time I’d shelved the last book, I’d written down 87 ideas I didn’t have when I started my impromptu project.

Why, then, does book surfing work and how can you surf, too? First the reasons:

Reason #1. To get ideas, we regularly need to fill ourselves with new thoughts, stories, and experiences. That way, we have a fresh inventory of stimuli to draw from. The more information we take in and actively think about, the better we’ll be at using it.

Reason #2. The randomness of the information coming at you keeps you on your toes. It’s almost like attending an improv class. You’re forced to deal with what comes up.

Reason #3. In my version of book surfing, reorganizing my books really was the primary goal. Coming up with new ideas was secondary. The pressure to create, then, was off.

Now that you understand the purpose of this exercise, I challenge you to stand in your office (even if it’s on top of your book piles) and come up with three new ideas to write about. Send me photos of you amongst your books, and I’ll share them with blog readers.