Lately, I’ve been beginning a lot of my posts with the word “lately.”
Not sure what that says about my mental health, but whatever.
So anyway, I’ve been wrestling (lately) with the idea that maybe one idea is not enough. I’ve got one manuscript that’s nearly finished–let’s not get too nitpicky with the definition of the word “nearly” though–and another one that occurred to me a few weeks ago that I just HAD to write down before it went away, because it was just that good.
Only now, I’ve started to wonder, is this literary duality a form of cheating? Or is it merely the reality that we now find ourselves in, where an author can’t just have one thing going if they want to be relevant? I’ve read a lot of articles that talk about how writers can’t just write these days, how they have to be charming and socially active and not drunk or smelly or off-putting just because they can. (I’m looking at you, Ernie) So does this mean we also have to mass-produce in order to win the game of statistics?
Part of me wants to view it like a horserace, where if I put more than one horse in the running, I’ll have that much greater chance of winning. But then again, I’ve only got the one brain…. So, maybe it’s more like a computer? The more processes I’m running at a time, the slower my brain works? Am I overloading myself, or just coming up with a really good rationale for procrastinating my initial work?
Thoughts?
VP Anderson 
Personally, I’ve noticed my own recent tendency to start a sentence with a single word that really doesn’t add much to the sentence at all ^_~
I prefer to think of a brain like a computer than a horse, but I’m obviously hold a certain favoritism for computers. I also work in a system where I do much better juggling two or three tasks than focusing on a single task. The tasks have to be unrelated though. I can’t write three computer programs at the same time.