Finished my third novel—after seven long years

I finished a complete draft of the novel I have been crafting on and off since 2016.

Though I met my goal to finish by 2024, the new year marks seven years and counting since I published my second novel, Goddess of the Night, in late 2016.

Fans of Californication could draw parallels between my situation and the lapse between Hank Moody’s third and fourth novels—a lapse humorously compared by Hank’s critics to the decade Guns N’ Roses spent producing Chinese Democracy.

For those who haven’t seen it, the Showtime drama revolves around Hank Moody’s writers block. In his writing, as in his life, he is his own worst enemy. He self-sabotages every break Hollywood gives him, every relationship he forms, every chance he has at forgiveness.

Hank Moody’s process differs from mine and that of many others. In the show, Hank will go months, if not years between writing stints until inspiration bursts violently from his consciousness like rain from cumulonimbus clouds. These drug- and alcohol-infused creative thunderstorms last a couple days and nights, culminating in a polished draft of a literary fiction bestseller.

Lessons from drugged-out literary luminaries

History is filled with rumors of authors similarly pulling substance-aided all-nighters. Using cocaine, Robert Louis Stevenson wrote 60,000 words in six days. Ayn Rand fueled her creative spurts with Benzedrine. Hunter S. Thompson used dextroamphetamine and, later in his career, cocaine.

Missing from these stories of drugged-out literary luminaries is the hard work involved behind the scenes. Take it from an ADHD writer—amphetamines are no substitute for routine.

Perspiration is more important than inspiration

Later in the Californication series, even freethinking, freewheeling Hank Moody tries to teach his daughter that libertine behavior does not make one a writer. He acknowledges the blood, sweat, and tears that stain every manuscript.

He tells her, “The only thing that makes you a writer is gluing your ass in a seat and getting what’s inside your head out on paper. Everything else is a pose.”

Bestselling author Gillian Flynn aptly echoes Hank’s sentiment, “There’s no muse that’s going to come down and bestow upon you the mood to write.”

Not even the psychedelic muses of the Beat Generation.

Putting in the time

With his novel stolen and his screenplay residuals spent, Hank takes a job at an all-girls private college. He tells his classroom of ingénues and aspiring authors that being a writer is like having homework every day for the rest of your life.

All novelists would agree.

In On Writing, Stephen King discusses sequestering himself in his office with the door closed. His instructions to himself and to his family are that unless the house is burning down, he is not to be bothered. King also writes every day of the year except Christmas. Then, he admits he is lying. He also writes on Christmas.

Overcoming self-imposed obstacles

To finish my latest novel, I had to invent my own writing routines—only to have them interrupted by life dozens of times. I had to work around day jobs and night jobs; depressive episodes, dermatomyositis, and multimillion-dollar proposal deadlines; dying friends and dying relationships; and worst of all, the pandemic—the antisocial shitstorm that made parasites of the masses and paralyzed my creativity for a year and a half.

After failing to reach my goal two years in a row, I partnered with my therapist to overcome my own specious barriers.

I bought a new (used) laptop and installed nothing on it but a Linux Mint instance and basic writing software. I adjusted my work schedule. I hunkered in my living room at dawn, before the world awoke to interrupt me. I found new coffee shops with better hours and policies that weren’t written by the Chinese Communist Party.

Most importantly, my therapist and I set a goal he held me accountable to—500 words per week.

After enough mornings, afternoons, evenings, and weekends, I finally hit my goal in December 2023. I finished my novel two weeks ahead of schedule.

Internet censorship: Getting Facebook to do what the government cannot

Under the auspices of truth, harmony, and justice, in my novel, When Love Speaks, the government threatens to shut down any publisher or broadcaster who will not censor their own for printing or airing anti-establishment rhetoric. If this sounds familiar, it’s because, as Glen Greenwald tells us, that’s exactly what the Israeli and US governments are doing to Facebook.

US senators call for laws that would ruin the internet

Irish journalist Danielle Ryan also reports US Senator Chris Murphy tweeted that hate-speech instigators like Alex Jones use sites like Facebook to “tear our nation apart.” He called on tech companies to “do more” than take down controversial websites, adding that democracy’s very survival depends on privately led censorship.

Ryan warns us Alex Jones may be among the first, but he won’t be the last. His ban is about normalizing internet censorship and controlling truth.

A leaked memo drafted by US Senator Mark Warner, Ryan adds, proposes regulating social media. Warner wants to protect consumers by forcing Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon, Apple, and others to verify identities and locations of accounts, to do more to determine which accounts are “inauthentic,” and to “label” bot accounts.

Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner wants to make social media platforms legally and financially responsible for what their users say and do.

Worse, in a proposal only a nonpracticing Harvard lawyer could devise, he wants to make social media platforms liable for state-law torts (defamation, false light, public disclosure of private facts). Under Warner’s proposed law, if Alex Jones libels Hillary Clinton in a YouTube video, then Clinton could sue YouTube and its parent company, Alphabet, for damages.

Such a law would ruin the internet. It would make platforms and content providers legally and financially responsible for anything anyone says or does using their services. Courts would be clogged with disgruntled corporations suing YouTube for negative product reviews. Pissed-off parents would sue Facebook for high-school rumors. Politicians would sue Apple for dishonest podcasts. Every dollar these companies make would be spent litigating. Even if they won every case, those kinds of operating costs would finish YouTube and Facebook. Competing platforms would never stand a chance.

Using Facebook to Censor controversial content

Facebook and YouTube do not have to provide contemptible trolls like Alex Jones a platform. Tolerating free speech is not the same as the right to a microphone.

But one cannot help but wonder if the government is forcing Facebook to do its dirty work. How else does one explain Mark Zuckerberg’s change of heart?

On July 18, 2018, Facebook’s CEO defended allowing InfoWars and Holocaust deniers on his platform. He said remained committed to keeping Facebook an open platform.

“As abhorrent as some of this content can be,” Zuckerberg said in his July interview, “I do think that it gets down to this principle of giving people a voice.”

Barely a week later, Facebook banned InfoWars and Alex Jones. A company spokesperson told journalists that Jones and InfoWars violated their terms and conditions. In other words, Facebook banned both for hate speech—a term so baffling, convoluted, and presumptive that neither Zuckerberg nor the US Supreme Court can agree on its definition.

The First Amendment keeps the American government from censoring its citizens. But if Facebook won’t stand up for its own rights, how can we expect them to support ours? Has Zuckerberg become the establishment’s stooge?

Architecture, free speech, and the fight for the individual soul

When Love Speaks -- a novel by Tobin Spratte

A single week of news could do more to sell my books than a decade of marketing to family, friends, and anyone who will listen.

Click here to buy the Kindle version of When Loves Speaks. Click here to buy the printed version.

This week, a pair of Bostonian architects have come to the defense of brutalism while conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has been censored by Facebook, YouTube, and Apple on the grounds that he incites violence and hate. My first novel’s themes have come to life.

Alessandra Burley and the politics of architecture

When Love Speaks is a romance between an architect and an opinion columnist. The female protagonist, named Alessandra Burley, works to restore and rebuild century-old homes along Colorado’s Front Range. She loves architecture that glorifies the best of humanity and dislikes the abstract, inhuman appearance of modernism. She would agree with Donald Trump on one thing: Brutalist architecture is ugly.

The J. Edgar Hoover FBI Bulidng in Washington, DC, uses cold, post-World War II aesthetics to convince individuals their soul no longer belongs to themselves but to the state.
The FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover Building in Washington, DC, embodies the underlying ideological message behind brutalism: Your no longer belong to yourself. You are no more your own man (or woman).

Brutalism evolved in post-World War II Europe from forms created by the Swiss modernist Le Corbusier. Steel wasn’t widely available following Europe’s costliest war, so architects and engineers built structures from concrete. The movement, explains Mark Pasnik, is about an ethic rather than an aesthetic: Be honest about your materials, show them for what they are.

Thank you, Ellsworth Toohey.

The movement caught on in the 1960s and 1970s and represents what Alessandra Burley sees as the architectural antithesis of human decency and liberty: Function over form, matter over mind; the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Brutalism’s proponents hardly disagree. Pasnik and Chris Grimely state the movement “became synonymous with the modern international bureaucratic order” (it’s all over Washington, DC). They write:

“Concrete buildings recall a time when our country invested in the civic realm [that is, when government elites invested in themselves], when government could be a positive caretaker of its most vulnerable people [when communism was most popular], when the nation could sincerely express collective aspirations and openness through monumental structures [when people were easier to control by giving them bread and circuses].”

For men like Pasnik and Grimely—men who worship the state as though it were God and praise the J. Edgar Hoover FBI Building as though it were Rome’s colosseum or Chartres’s cathedral—these are good things. To them, the individual matters not in an age where her body, mind, and soul can be crushed by a single concrete block.

As another of my characters, Argentine architect Miguel Estrada Ramírez, tells Alessandra Burley, “All architecture is a reflection of politics. All buildings demonstrate ideological goals.”

Brutalism exists to convince you your soul is dead and remind you your opinion no longer matters. Its message is clear: Get in line for your bread and embrace your government-controlled future. (But first please fill out forms GSB-1071 and GSB-1074E.)

John Cartwright and the politics of free speech

John Cartwright, the columnist in my novel, is willing to die to defend the freedoms he holds dear. He finds himself in trouble after the government passes the Brandenburg Act, a law named for the US Supreme Court case which limits speech that incites imminent violence.

But unlike Alex Jones, John Cartwright is a moral man. He would never harass Sandy Hook families. He would never spread rumors about Hillary Clinton and a pizzeria-based child sex ring. He would never interview much less vote for Donald Trump. He harbors hate only toward those who would keep men and women from living and thinking as they choose—whether they call themselves Christian democrats, communitarian republicans, libertarian paternalists, progressive liberals, constitutional monarchists, neoconservatives, or communist revolutionaries. To Cartwright, these roses by any other name still reek of power and control.

In response to Jones, free-speechers on both the right and left have canceled their gold-card memberships. Neil Macdonald of CBC News calls “the doctrine of free speech flawed” and brands Jones as a bigoted liar who “deals in viscous stupidity.” His penultimate line reads: “Alex Jones’s horrifying incitement goes too far.” Anoa Changa at the Huffington Post absurdly and inaccurately claims free speech laws and media corporations protect only white, conservative speakers. She writes: “Jones is not the hill any free speech advocate should want to die on.”

If we do not defend the rights of society’s most deplorable to speak, then soon, none of us will be able to speak.

Alex Jones is a rotten piece of anti-intellectual neofascist filth. He no more loves liberty than Cartwright does control. But if we do not defend the rights of society’s most deplorable to speak out, then soon, none of us will be able to speak out.

Toward the end of my novel, one of Alessandra Burley’s friends asks her, “But you don’t think he [John Cartwright] goes too far?”

Jones’ ban from major social media platforms again raises that question. Do you believe in freedom for the thoughts you hate? Would you place society’s vilest men on the gallows for mere words?