The four habits of successful writers

Could You Be the Next John Grisham?

Part II: The 4 habits of successful writers

There is no list of habits that will turn you from a frog with writer's block into a prince with a book contract. But here are four qualities that all successful writers have.

1. You need to be yourself, and you need to believe in yourself.

You have something to say in a way that only you can say it. And this is the essence of writing that works: great ideas, stories, and themes expressed in a unique voice. Great writing is not just about pretty language and daring word choices, though these often help. It's not about punctuation, either (although good punctuation also doesn't hurt). I know one author who's published more books than I have fingers. She uses commas like a chicken goes after corn, poking them in places they don't belong. But she has smart ideas and outlines them carefully. And this is why she succeeds.

2. You must have discipline.

For three years, John Grisham got up at 5 AM every morning to write, then went to his day job at a law firm, where he worked 60 to 70 hours a week. Here's how his schedule might have looked: Write from 5 AM to 8 AM. Go to the office and work from 9 AM to 9 PM (or later). Repeat. This means he wasn't watching Must See TV or brooding at a café, thinking about what a great writer he could be if only he had the time and didn't have to go to work every day. Rather, he was writing every day, for years. This was a sacrifice. But I bet he wouldn't change a thing.

3. You have to like reading.

This goes without saying. Read books on writing, and read good books, period. Your writing will improve.

4. You must have patience and courage.

Not only might it take you three years (or longer) to write a book, but it also will take you years to make it through the system.

I used to work for a best-selling author who never set out to become famous and widely read. He wrote many things and shared them with people he knew. Eventually, one of his essays made it to the hands of a literary agent on the other side of the country. She asked him if he had anything else like it. He did, of course: a lifetime's worth. This body of work became several books.

On the surface, his story sounds like a fluke. And it is, sort of. But had he not been writing his whole life, he would have needed to work for years to produce what he did. If you don't have this kind of patience, this kind of confidence in the goodness of your work, then the writing life isn't for you.

Click for the whole article.

Here we go again : Drug manufacturers and Fraud

Court Allows Suit Against Drug Maker

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/washington/04scotus.html?ref=health

WASHINGTON — A 4-to-4 vote on Monday left the Supreme Court unable to decide a pharmaceutical pre-emption case that was argued a week ago.

The tie vote, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. not participating, will permit a lawsuit to proceed against the Warner-Lambert Company, the maker of a diabetes drug, Rezulin. The plaintiffs are 27 diabetes patients from Michigan who suffered liver damage while taking the drug. Rezulin was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1997 and withdrawn from the market three years later at the agency’s request.

A tie vote at the Supreme Court automatically affirms the lower court’s judgment. In this case, the federal appeals court in New York had rejected the company’s argument that the reasoning of a seven-year-old Supreme Court precedent barred individual damage suits that are based on the claim that a drug manufacturer obtained F.D.A. approval through fraud. Affirmance by a tie vote resolves only the particular dispute, without setting a precedent for other cases.

* * *

This case, Warner-Lambert Co. v. Kent, presented a narrow slice of the broad pre-emption issue that the court will take up in its next term. In that new case, Wyeth v. Levine, the question is whether the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of a drug’s label precludes individual damage suits based on the claim that the label failed to include sufficient information or adequate warnings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/washington/04scotus.html?ref=health