On Creation and Storytelling

To create something great is to tell a good story. And how do you tell a good story? Ira Glass of This American Life has some great tips about this in a set of videos on storytelling. Most of Ira's tips are important not just for journalists and novelists, but for anyone involved in any type of creative endeavor. Painters tell stories with their brushes, programmers tell stories with their code, entrepreneurs tell stories with their products, scientists tell stories with their papers, engineers tell stories with their inventions. Here's how they do it.

First, they build a story out of anecdotes and reflections. Anecdotes are the linear sequence of events at the heart of the story: first this happend, then this, which made me say this, so on.. They ask little questions and answer them. This builds momentum and keeps the listener thinking: "What's next?"

But an anecdote alone does not a story make. Moments of reflection tell the reader why the story is important: "Why is it worth my time?" Good storytellers seamlessly interweave anecdotes and reflections.

Second, they make a lot of stories and kill the ones that suck. Getting rid of bad stories is as important as writing new ones. Killing the bad stuff makes the good stuff shine. Good storytellers edit ruthlessly.

Third, they have a killer taste for what's good. Often they know what's good, before they can make good stuff themselves. Early in your career, the stuff you create sucks. And you know it sucks because it doesn't live up to your great taste. But don't quit here. Good storytellers create. A lot. Until the stuff they create doesn't suck as much.

Fourth, they get over the beginner's pitfall of imitating creators they love. The world doesn't need another Shakespeare; it needs your new creations. Good storytellers find their own voice.

Now just go write, film, photograph, paint, build, code, design, research, invent,... just go create.

--Arkajit

Last MIT exam

Today, I took my last exam at MIT. 18.443 (Statistics). It's been a long ride since my first MIT exam in 8.022 (Physics) nearly 4 years ago. I remember Prof. Josh Winn asking as he handed out the physics exams, whether this was anyone's first MIT exam. As it was early October, freshman year, this was true for several people. I nodded excitedly, as I dove into the first of many exams at MIT.

I haven't really looked back since. Between that physics exam four years ago and the statistics exam today, I've taken countless other exams, probably numbering close to a hundred. I don't remember most of them, but I hopefully still remember some of the highlights of the topics they covered. 

Coming up next week: my last MIT problem set and paper. And the thesis. Really close to the end now and I'm starting to reflect on the experiences of the last four years at MIT, but more of that to follow the completion of my thesis :)

--Arkajit

Is it good to be first?

Being the first business to enter a particular market is difficult. Often, a first-mover's biggest problem is trying to forge a market and create demand where it doesn't exist yet. Many fail to solve this problem, but even those that do rarely become the biggest players in the market they helped create.

Neither Google, Facebook, or the iPod were the first search engine, social network, or mobile music player on the market. But when they entered the scene, there was clearly a demonstrated, actual market for such products. These markets had been forged by prior entrants, but that didn't matter. Customers don't care who's first. Once they know they want something (thanks to the first movers), they want the best version of it. Google, Facebook, and Apple just came along and built a better product for a well-established market. 

So the question stands: is it good to be first? Or is it better to wait out and see which markets really flourish and which wither? The first-mover has to focus on building the market, whereas the late arrivals can just focus on building the product. Is it really a wonder, then, that the second-mover builds a better product? Of course, the second mover faces his own challenge: converting customers to his product. And with high-switching costs, this can be an unsurmountable problem. But this problem seems easier than the first-mover's problem of creating demand. Why should you ever be first then? Can anyone think of examples were being first was the decisive advantage?

--Arkajit