Pages

.

Interview with Jim Pethokoukis on robots and jobs




I was recently interviewed by Jim Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute for his Ricochet podcast. The subject was the "rise of the robots" - i.e., what happens if and when technology starts replacing human labor entirely. A transcript, and the podcast itself (if you like hearing my voice), can be found here. The upshot of what I said:

* Technology wasn't as big a cause of declining labor share during the past couple decades as people think Globalization was a bigger culprit. But technology is a much bigger worry going forward.

* Teaching people to be entrepreneurs is one way to stop the rise of the robots from causing horrendous inequality; each person or small team of people can command their own little "army of robots", in the form of a company that they own.

* We will also probably need to resort to some mass redistribution of income. The best way to do this is to have the government subsidize wages, i.e. to pay companies to hire humans and pay the humans more. This is like putting our thumb on the scale against the robots.

Anyway, read or listen to the whole thing here!
reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Why the Fed Should Do More - A Look at Monetary Offset


I have a new article published on Quartz titled on how recent fiscal events have shown the Fed plays still a powerful role in maintaining growth. Thus the interesting question isn't whether the Fed should do more, but rather to ask why the Fed hasn't.

An excerpt:
In its recent minutes, it appears that the US Federal Reserve has been preparing to taper. Yet given the outsize role the Fed has played in supporting the recovery, that would almost certainly be a mistake. Unemployment has been ticking down, yet long-term unemployment is still very high and labor force participation is still low. While the recovery has made progress, it is still not guaranteed, and the Fed’s accommodation will be critical if the economy is to secure the gains it has made. 
The key to understanding the argument is to understand a concept central to economic analysis: the counterfactual. Counterfactuals are alternative histories of what could have been. In military history they are the answers to questions like “What would have happened if Napoleon had won the battle of Waterloo?” In this case, the key counterfactual is “What would have happened to the economy if the Fed hadn’t done quantitative easing?” Throughout this recovery, the federal government has been tightening its belt. Indeed, as MKM Partners chief economist Michael Darda has repeatedly noted, net government outlays have fallen for two consecutive quarters during this recovery, making the recent bout of austerity the biggest since the Korean War demobilization. Had the Fed not offset such a large contraction in spending, the US almost certainly would have been sent into another recession.
This will be my last post here, and I will be continuing to blog back at my home blog, Synthenomics, once the semester is over and things become more settled.
reade more... Résuméabuiyad

How to Make a Story More Visual

Screenwriters resort to a variety of tricks to make stories more visual. I'm convinced novelists should be taking advantage of some of the same tricks, because adding visuality to a story almost always improves it, whether we're talking about a novel, a short story, a screenplay, an epic poem, or what have you.

Suppose you've been tasked with writing a scene in which a reluctant hero has to seek the counsel of a seer or swami or guru. He wants the guru to tell him whether he's ready to accept the hero's challenge.

The reluctant hero has to go visit the guru at the guru's ashram. Except, the ashram is really an inner-city apartment. The question isn't what you will have the two characters say to each other. The question is what they'll do during the scene. Will they sit on the floor crosslegged and talk? (How boring would that be?) Will one sit before a chessboard, rearranging chess pieces while the other stands and chews gum? Will they sit together and stare at a Tarot deck, a ouija board, a crystal ball?

In The Matrix, the guru (the Oracle) isn't a robed, bearded sage (Obi-Wan) but a laid-back, middle-aged black woman baking cookies! That's your first clue: Use the unexpected. Make things have a different appearance than the reader (or viewer) might have been expecting. Sometimes you need to signal (visually) a person's role through costume or stature, directly and obviously (as with Darth Vader), but sometimes it's more effective to do the reverse: dress the powerful in rags, bedeck the unimportant in bejeweled regalia.

Gandhi meets the Queen of England. Who is well dressed? Who has more power over India? Ho Chi Minh meets General Westmoreland. Who's wearing peasant attire? Who's winning the war?

In The Matrix, the Oracle bakes cookies, smokes cigarettes, reads Neo's palm. Neo mostly stands around and does nothing, although, significantly, he breaks a vase early in the scene. He also notices a sign over the doorway ("Know Thyself"). You might ask yourself why the scene was written to take advantage of chocolate chip cookies, cigarettes, palm-reading, a broken vase, and a sign over a doorway in a kitchen. Are these all "just props," or do they contain messages, meanings, special connotations? Ask yourself how you would have written the scene.

It's interesting that in a later Matrix movie, there's a similar scene, in which Neo gets to visit The Architect. It's one of the most laughably ineffective scenes in movie history. Why? The Architect just sits dispassionately in a chair and goes off on a bizarrely abstruse, esoteric soliloquy about the meaning and origin of The Matrix, while Neo looks at TV images of himself. This is an example of a "dialog" scene done poorly, done non-visually. The only "visual" is the wall of TV monitors, which instantly comes across as as sterile and gimmicky. The Architect's speech is totally forgettable. It's memorable for its ludricrousness. In this scene, instead of a picture painting a thousand words, we have a guy in a chair speaking a thousand words, saying nothing.

The scene in which The Architect drones on, semi-coherently, about the design of The Matrix is
arguably one of the most laughable non-comedy scenes in major motion picture history.

In making a scene work visually, you have a number of tools at your disposal, including setting, costumes, props, situations/actions, and the choice of words you (and your characters) use to convey the scene. Try not to think of these items as disjoint Cartesian bits. (To keep you from thinking of them in that way, I'm going to resist the temptation to break them out into bullet points for separate discussion.) Think in terms of the whole. Think "performance art."

Think "performance art" even if you're writing scenes for a novel.

When one character has to give another character bad news (or any significant piece of information), try doing it symbolically, with a visual. Is your character going to leave the country, only she hasn't told her partner yet? Maybe leave a passport on a desktop or dresser. The klutzy thing to do is have Mary tell Bob directly: "I'm going on a trip." How much better is it to have Bob spot the passport on his own and ask: "What's this?" Klutzy followup: Mary says "I'm going away. This is not working." Better: Mary says "Do we have any sunblock?" (Avoid the straight-on discussion.) Better still: "Can you hand me that plastic bag?" In the plastic bag, clearly visible, is a tube of sunblock. (Props, action, implication, possible symbolism. The sunblock implies Mary is heading for sunnier weather, both literally and metaphorically.)

Is someone getting fired at work? The obvious (and not terribly engaging) way to do it is to have the boss buzz the worker on the phone and say "Can you come in for a minute?" Then there's the office scene where the boss gives the you're-being-laid-off speech.

A far better way to handle it is: Mary comes in to her office and finds the desktop clean, sticky-notes gone, her items in a cardboard box. Someone pokes a head around a corner and says; "The boss wants to see you." Cut to: Joe the Boss, sitting at his desk alone in his quiet office, door closed. Maybe he's just getting off the phone with someone. With zero warning, an office chair comes crashing through the plate glass. Mary, eyes blazing, steps over the rubble. "You wanted to see me?"

Gesticulation is often better than a line of dialog. There's a wonderful scene in The Adjustment Bureau (see my analysis here), where Matt Damon's character (a young politician) flirts with his soon-to-be serious romantic partner (played by Emily Blunt) on a commuter bus. The two had met by chance (and snuck a quick kiss in a men's room) a few days before, never suspecting they'd ever meet up again; but now they've met randomly on a bus. The bus has stopped, she gets off, the bus's door is about to close, and Damon knows he has maybe 3 seconds to say whatever it is he's going to say. As the door starts to close, he blurts out, to the woman he hardly knows: "The morning after I lost the election I woke up thinking about you." She smiles sadly and gives him the finger.

Why is that an effective moment? She doesn't know yet if she should have feelings for the guy (even though they had a quick stolen-kiss moment); she doesn't know if he's telling the truth; and if he is, he's screwing up a sweet and precious, spontaneous, largely non-verbal moment by saying something that implies true love, before they've figured out if they even like each other. He's wrecking a beautiful thing by bringing up love! She should be happy, right? No. She's been there before. She knows you can mess up the most precious part of a budding relationship with heavy "true love" bullshit. She's giving the finger not just to the Matt Damon character but to all the stupid, heavyhanded, bullshit-drama crap that messes up so many delicate, wonderful things in this life.

Emily Blunt's single-finger salute said so many things (so many) that would've utterly failed, in straight dialog.

There's the famous T-Rex scene in Jurassic Park where, before we actually see the T-Rex, before the kids-trapped-in-the-car get to stare up at the beast in Lilliputian awe, we learn how big the creature is from a glass of water. We see concentric waves start to appear in the top of the water, in rhythm to the pounding of the creature's feet (still some distance away, off-camera). In this simple manner, we're told visually how incredibly massive the creature is, long before we actually see it.
The Log Lady.

If you have a crazy-old-lady character, you can show that's she crazy by having her say crazy things, but that's the easy way out. David Lynch did it with a log. Who can forget the Log Lady?

If you need to, just put physical obstacles in a character's way. Instead of your character walking across the room to get to another character, put a chair in between the two, and make him throw the chair out of the way so he can get to the other character.

And by the way, you're not still using plain-Jane verbs like "walk" or "look," are you? Your characters should be striding, tiptoeing, trotting, glancing, staring, glaring, etc., shouldn't they? Choice of vocabulary makes a difference. Some words conjure images and activity; some are lifeless.

One final comment. Every movie has what are called "trailer moments." What are your novel's trailer moments? Every novel should have some. Don't you think?

Figure out what your story's "trailer moments" are. And: See if you can't make some of them play well even with the sound off. If you can work irony and symbolism into the mix, too, so much the better.

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Data Visualization -- China Plotting

I spent a good deal of time over the course of the past semester working on topics about Chinese development. A lot of it started from my work at MKM Partners over the summer in which I worked on topics of regional Chinese growth. This eventually turned into a sequence of Quartz articles: one on the growth potential of the inland provinces, another on the overall success of the high speed rail program (which was actually backed up by a later NYT article), and a third on boosting Chinese consumption through a social service led urbanization (which ended up being an important part of the 3rd plenum). I found it an engaging topic to research, and I will have an article in the next edition of the Milken Institute Review on these topics. If you have any thoughts about those articles, please share in the comments below and I'll try to get back to you.

In this process of working with Chinese data, I was faced with the task of analyzing a lot of spatial data about Chinese provinces, and in this process I had to write a lot of R code. After a while, I got annoyed by how long the process would take, and as a result I took the liberty of designing an R Shiny application to help do some of the heavy lifting. Fortunately, these applications are all hosted on the cloud, and you can find the China Mapping Application here:

To give you an idea of how it works, after you upload the csv file you will see a screen like this showing you the data:




You can go directly from there to see the map. This was done using the GADM databases for the shapefiles and then the spplot package to render the drawing. Spatial rendering is expensive, so this should take around 60 seconds to do:


And finally, you can go to the interactive bar chart and observe the distribution of your data. This was done using the rCharts package, which creates javascript visualizations using just R code.


If you want some data to play around with, you can take a look at the two dropbox links on China on my data page.

Anyways, I hope my fellow China researchers can enjoy the tool, and if anybody has any suggestions feel free to tweet me at @yichuanw or leave a comment below.

Edit: For those of you interested, the source code can be found here.
reade more... Résuméabuiyad

More Thoughts on Visual Storytelling

In yesterday's post, I talked about the need to make fiction more visual (something I call visuality), through the use of props, setting, situation, costume, and action.

Good fiction is vivid. It conjures imagery. The weakest thing you can do is describe a scene through narrative exposition. The second weakest thing you can do is have characters "carry" the action through dialog. Good dialog is more than just characters engaging in smart, "dramatic" conversation. A memorable scene is usually memorable because of what happens visually, not orally.
Lina Wertmüller

Some screenwriters advocate writing a silent-film version of a script first, before adding dialog. For example, before finishing a script, writer-director Lina Wertmüller cuts out every line of speech and tells the whole story with visuals. When the story is sufficiently explainable through action, she adds back only the lines of dialog that are required.

Imagine what this allows you to do. When you've got a good visual story, dialog can go to the next level; you can afford to devote spoken lines to subtext, things that aren't being said, the way things are said, plus foreshadowing, back-references, innuendo, irony—you have so many things to do now, with dialog, besides carry the story.

You can try a thought experiment right now. Think of some of your favorite movies (and maybe some of your least-favorite). Which ones would still be tremendously entertaining to watch with the sound off?

Consider the first of the Star Wars movies—a visual feast from start to finish. We know, even with the sound off, that Darth Vader is the villain. The first time we see him, he's all-black, he's giving orders (and others are carrying them out), and the fact that he's a foot taller than everyone else tells us (visually) that all the Imperial soldiers around him are quite literally underlings. (Plus he of course strangles a coworker early on, which tells us this is one seriously bad dude.) The first time we see Princess Leia, we can see (with the sound off) she's being held under duress. The barroom shootout works even without subtitles. The first time we meet "Ben," he's robed, has a beard—it's pretty obvious he's a wise old man with special knowledge. The entire movie works in silent mode.

The later movies in the Star Wars series (later, as in release date) are dialog-topheavy movies that don't work nearly as well in silent mode as the original film.

The first film in the Alien series would make a very decent silent movie. The later Alien films, not so much.

Jim Carrey has been in a ton of movies. Which ones do you remember most? That's right: the ones that are highly visual. The wordplay in Dumb and Dumber is first-rate, but guess what? The movie is still funny with the sound turned off.

I'm not saying the only good movie is one that can be enjoyed with the sound off. Obviously, movies benefit from having sound. I'm saying most stories can be made better by doing the storytelling in a highly visual way.

Tomorrow, I'm going to give practical tips for boosting the visuality of your novel or screenplay. It turns out there are many ways to pry the lid off this particular can of worms.

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Does QE cause deflation?



Oh my gosh. I am really excited. For years, I've been waiting for a chance to disagree with Brad DeLong about something econ-related, and the day has finally come!! It's enough to make me break my blogging hiatus a few days early.

Remember back in 2011 when Narayana Kocherlakota theorized that low interest rates cause deflation? Well, on Wednesday, Steve Williamson made a similar claim, writing that in a liquidity trap, QE will cause long-term deflation. Williamson based his post on this paper.

In a testy response, Nick Rowe called Williamson's post "horribly wrong," lamenting: "What the hell has gone wrong with some of the best and brightest in economics?" Brad DeLong then jumped in, accusing Williamson of mistaking an unstable equilibrium for a stable one. Paul Krugman echoed that accusation.

But David Andolfatto, in this excellent post, showed that DeLong and Krugman's criticisms are misplaced. In a typical New Keynesian model - the kind that now mostly dominates business-cycle theory, and the kind preferred by Rowe and Krugman - it's true that Williamson would be picking an unstable equilibrium. But Williamson is not using a New Keynesian model! Williamson's model is actually quite different. And as Andolfatto points out, there are macro models out there that are very similar to New Keynesian models, but have one small twist that makes the "QE-causes-deflation" equilibrium the stable one!

So DeLong and Krugman have gone too far. They are arguing from their preferred model, and that's fine. But to say - as Brad does - that Williamson doesn't deserve a "union card as an economist" is wrong. And to say - as Krugman does - that Williamson has made a simple "misconception" by forgetting about stability is wrong. Williamson is simply using a different model than the standard model, and DeLong and Krugman have not yet examined that model carefully.

What's more, Andolfatto points out that Williamson's critics should be more empirical and less theoretical in their arguments:
The fact that Japan has spent decades [with deflation despite zero nominal interest rates and periodic bursts of QE] suggests that [such an equilibrium] may in fact be stable... 
It seems to me that the critics should have instead attacked his results and interpretations with empirical facts (or am I too old-fashioned in this regard?). After all, Williamson at least motivated his post with some data (the diagram at the top of this post). And he makes what is potentially a testable prediction (notice the if-then structure of the statement):
In general, if we think that inflation is being driven by the liquidity premium on government debt at the zero lower bound, then if the Fed keeps the interest rate on reserves where it is for an extended period of time, we should expect less inflation rather than more.
Yes. Although macro data is not generally very conclusive, it's important to look at it anyway. Williamson's model, if I'm not mistaken, predicts that QE will cause a short burst of slightly higher inflation, followed by a long period of lower inflation disinflation in the long-term. That seems consistent with what happened after Japan's QE during the Koizumi years. It also seems consistent with what the U.S. is experiencing now. (As for Japan's new Abenomics QE, it is too early to tell.)

Of course, Krugman, DeLong et al. have their own explanation for Japan' s ongoing deflation (and the U.S.' ongoing inflation) - the "secular stagnation" hypothesis. And that's fine. To determine whether QE's failure to cause inflation is caused by a Williamson model, secular stagnation, or some third phenomenon is far beyond the scope of this blog post.

My point is to say that neither theory nor data tell us that Williamson's model is obviously wrong.

(Well, OK, actually, that's not quite true. As Nick Rowe points out, Williamson's model implies that QE will cause a never-ending deflationary spiral. Obviously that's not realistic. But that kind of infinite spiral exists in most New Keynesian models too, if a central bank keeps interest rates too high. Generally, none of these models makes any sense in extreme cases.)

Now, on plausibility grounds, Williamson's model is suspect - he assumes that Congress follows a certain policy rule, and in fact his results depend on Congress acting in that one simple predictable way. That's almost certainly not very realistic. So don't read this post as me endorsing the Williamson model! Then again, New Keynesian models - and indeed, all of modern macro models - contain huge lists of equally unrealistic (and empirically falsifiable) assumptions about the behavior of economic agents. So don't get me started down that road...

But anyway, I completely disagree with DeLong's and Krugman's criticisms of Williamson. They shouldn't have pounced on the stability thing. And as for Nick Rowe, as nearly as I can tell, he's just angry that anyone in the world could have anything other than a monetarist/New Keynesian view of how the economy works. And instead of getting mad, I think he should be engaging with alternative models. (Update: Rowe has a response.)

OK, so now let me move on (as Andolfatto also does) to giving Steve Williamson a hard time. 

In his new 2013 paper, Williamson says that:

1. QE causes low interest rates and deflation,

2. That's a good thing, because deflation is good, and

3. Fiscal stimulus (i.e. having the Treasury issue more debt) would be effective in getting us out of a depression.

Fine. Good. These things flow right out of Williamson's model. Paul Krugman would actually seem to have a lot to agree with in #3! 

BUT, a year and a half ago, Williamson wrote this:
I think some serious inflation is coming, maybe sooner than later. The Fed thinks it can control this with reverse repos and term deposits at the Fed. No way. When will the inflation happen? In line with this post, look out for increases in house prices. The higher house prices will support more credit, both at the consumer level, and in higher-level financial arrangements. The "bubble" will grow, and support the creation of more private liquid assets, which will in turn substitute for publicly-issued liquid assets, causing the price level to rise.
His prediction was based on this 2012 paper.

These two predictions are exactly opposite!!!

(Oh, and to round out the set of predictions, here Williamson argued that because of Wallace Neutrality, QE can't affect inflation one way or the other!)

Maybe Williamson changed his mind about how the world works between 2012 and 2013. Great! Fine! He should write a post about what made him change his mind. 

BUT, what Steve and I usually argue about is the general state of macro - he says macro is in fine shape, I say it hasn't discovered much. I think this reversal supports my thesis. If a top-flight macroeconomist, who knows the whole literature backwards and forwards, can so easily change his workhorse model in one year, and reverse all of his main predictions and policy prescriptions, then good for him, but it means that macroeconomics isn't producing a lot of reliable results.

Sure, I know that Williamson (2012) and Williamson (2013) have different sets of assumptions, and that's why their conclusions are so opposite. But how does Williamson expect us to tell which set of assumptions corresponds to the real world, and which is just fantasy-fun-land? The papers, of course, offer no guidance, which is utterly normal for macroeconomics. A million thought experiments, and no way to tell which one to use. Is this science, or is this math-assisted daydreaming?

Anyway, to sum up, the only person I really agree with in this whole debate is Andolfatto. Which is totally unrelated to him buying me a beer at the St. Louis Fed conference earlier this year. 


Updates:

Brad DeLong responds to me in the comments. Steve Williamson joins in. I'm relieved to find I still disagree with Brad!

Steve Williamson responds to DeLong/Krugman/Rowe on his blog.

Steve Williamson responds to me on his blog. Key quote:
Back in days of yore, my concern was that we could indeed get higher inflation. How? I had thought that the Fed had the ability to control inflation, but when push came to shove, they wouldn't do it. Once people caught on to that idea, we could get on a high-inflation path that was self-sustaining. Of course, since I said that, I've continued to work on these problems, and stuff has been happening. In particular, we're not seeing that high-inflation path. 
So a year of low inflation made Steve go looking for an alternative model to explain the fact that QE wasn't causing inflation. And the feature of the model that Steve changed was his assumption about the behavior of policymakers. That clears things up a bit. And Krugman will be happy to know that Williamson updated his priors. But I think my criticism stands. If one year of data and one change in assumptions can utterly reverse both the prediction ("QE causes inflation" --> "QE causes deflation") and the policy recommendation ("less QE" --> "more QE, and maybe more fiscal stimulus"), I still think this is a teachable moment about the limitations of modern macro. If we have to change our working model of the macroeconomy to fit the most recent macroeconomic event, that demonstrates how silly the whole endeavor is, right?

Scott Sumner chimes in, agreeing with Nick Rowe. So does David Beckworth, who does some quick-and-dirty data analysis. Beckworth and Williamson argue in the comment section.

Tyler Cowen chimes in, agreeing with me.

Krugman has a response. He says that the basic problem with Williamson's model is that there's no explanation for why firms have an incentive to change their prices in response to QE - and hence, no micro-level explanation for why QE causes deflation. That's a legit question, of course. I think that in Williamson's model, QE just lowers aggregate demand by depriving banks of usable collateral (long-maturity govt. bonds), so that they need to hold more cash. That's like a liquidity preference shock, which causes cash hoarding and lowers AD, causing firms to lower their prices. I'm not 100% sure, and it doesn't seem particularly realistic, but that's how I think the model works. It turns out that in Williamson's model, things that increase output decrease inflation. So there is sort of a reverse Phillips Curve, at least when the interest rate is at the ZLB.

Scott Sumner gets increasingly annoyed at Williamson.

More discussion with Brad in the comments.

Brad DeLong responds on his blog. Key excerpt:
[One story of how QE causes deflation] is: (i) people think “there is going to be a deflation; I need to hold more currency”; (ii) people sell their assets to the Federal Reserve, and so the Federal Reserve injects more currency into the economy; (iii) people notice that they have more currency, and think “it would not be rational for me to hold this much currency unless there were a deflation going on”; (iv) people think “if there is a deflation going on, I need to cut my prices in order not to lose my customers”; (v) people start cutting their prices, and the deflation begins. 
This is also a fine story. But it is not a story of the Federal Reserve undertaking Quantitative Easing. It is a story of a self-fulfilling deflationary-expectations panic.
This is true, but I'm not sure that this is what is going on in Williamson's model; in his model, I think the QE (and the weird fiscal policy response that it induces) actually starves banks of collateral, which reduces aggregate demand and causes deflation that way. It all hinges on the way Williamson models the behavior of banks. I'd definitely like to see Williamson explain this part better, but I have kind of run out of time to pay attention to this issue at the moment...

Steve Williamson responds to Krugman. This response is pretty interesting, as you can really see the differences in philosophies of how macro itself should be done.

Karl Smith comes out of blogging retirement to enter the debate on the DeLong side.

Williamson writes a second, longer response to Krugman, trying to explain his intuition. He says that his results come from financial markets, not from goods markets. What's kind of interesting here is that Krugman/DeLong are basically saying that Williamson's model isn't microfounded enough, or at least the microfoundations of firm behavior aren't made explicit enough. Usually, Williamson would tend to be the guy saying "But how does it work?" while Krugman would be the guy saying "IS-LM works, just use it." 

And here is the second part of Williamson's explanation of his intuition.

Bob Murphy chimes in, on the side of DeLong and Rowe. It's kind of neat how this debate has totally shuffled the usual "opinion coalitions".

Nick Rowe has one more response to Williamson, and still thinks Williamson is nuts. Key line: "[Williamson's model] explains why Zimbabwe had hyperdeflation." *ZING*

Yichuan Wang, Scott Sumner, and Tyler Cowen have more. The econ-blogger field continues to be mostly anti-Williamson. 

Iza Kaminska jumps into the debate, endorsing Williamson's ideas and providing her own intuition for why QE is deflationary. 

Ryan Avent enters the debate, taking a rather nuanced position. He presents some quick-and-dirty evidence in favor of Williamson's assertion. 

Tony Yates says who cares if QE is deflationary or not, the point is that it didn't do what we wanted it to do.

Nick Rowe continues to say not-very-nice-things about the "QE causes deflation" supporters.

Tyler Cowen has a great roundup of evidence that QE is, in fact, inflationary. The evidence is not conclusive - evidence in macro almost never is - but it definitely puts Steve Williamson's story on the back foot.

Steve Williamson attempts to explain his "QE causes deflation" idea with a Socratic dialogue of sorts.
reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Visuality: How to Make Fiction More Visual

I'm firmly convinced that a solid understanding of the craft of screenwriting can only improve your fiction-writing skills. Many of the skills of good screenwriting, if transferred to novel or short story writing, make for a much-higher-impact story. I'm talking not only about story structure and dialog-related tricks, but verticality and "visuality"—making a story more vivid by making it more visual.

Visuality is something good screnwriters spend a lot of time trying to achieve. Mediocre scripts, and even some "good" scripts (of the "I like it but don't love it" variety), are often mediocre simply because they lack visual impact, relying too much on explicative dialog to move the story along. When you read one of these scripts, you get the feeling you're reading a stage play.

But even stage plays (good ones, that is) rely heavily on visuals, rather than just dialog.

Kenny Hodges in 1977.
Many years ago when I was working for The Mother Earth News, I came to be good friends with somebody at work named Kenny Hodges. Kenny was a great raconteur (I can't begin to replicate his skill here), and one of the many amazing stories he told was the story of the time he auditioned for, and landed, a part in a Broadway play.

The way he tells it, Kenny and some friends decided, on a lark, to get in line for an open reading for a play. Kenny had never done any acting. He had been a musician (the bassist in the 1960s group Spanky and Our Gang). Many people were reading for the part. The role was that of a small-town hoodlum of some kind; the reading involved dialog between the hoodlum and the county sheriff.

The dialog was fairly humdrum, the hoodlum saying to the Sheriff something like "Oh yeah? Well, you may think you're the big shot here, but you ain't got nothing, hear me? I'm the one in charge of this town. Not you."

People read for the part, one by one, and got told "Thank you" by the director (meaning: you're dismissed, have a nice day now).

I couldn't wait for Kenny to reveal the secret of how he got the part, so I interrupted him while he was telling the story and just asked him. He explained that when he got on stage to read the lines, he improvised. At the critical moment, he held out a fist, thumb pointing straight up, and said (completely off book): "See that?"

The actor playing the Sheriff stepped a little closer, looked at Kenny's thumb, and said something like "What? What's that?" Whereupon Kenny flexed his thumb and pointed to the crotch of the thumb, under the first joint, and said: "That's where you are. Right there. Right there, my friend." In essence saying "I've got you under my thumb, asshole."

It got him the part. The director had the thumb gesture written into the script. (Unfortunately, due to a musical engagement, Kenny—who never seriously thought he would get the part in the play—had to decline the role, and never got to act on Broadway.)

This is an example of the power of visuality—and the kind of thing you should be having characters do, if you're writing a script or a novel.

I'm going to continue on this theme in tomorrow's post, because there's a lot more to say about visuality and how to use it to enrich fiction.

reade more... Résuméabuiyad