posted
It has been a difficult concept for me to wrap my brain around, as simple as it sounds, but writing is a process. Progress cannot always be measured by words typed in a day. When writing your rough draft perhaps, but otherwise hardly. Writing is a process. It involves reading, learning, imagining, outlining (if you so choose), developing, drafting, redrafting, revising, editing, and (eventually) marketing. In fact, the most enjoyable part (for me) is only one small part of the process. That is, as it probably is for most of you, writing the rough draft. That first time the story is told when anything can happen feels so free. But to be a real writer, that is to strive to make money off a finished product, there is so much more.
Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
|
posted
Christine, I couldn't agree more. I suppose if you're goal is to make a living by writing, it can't happen soon enough. But if your goal is to become a great writer, then time really is your ally.
This is why I've given up ideas of a daily word output and a daily reading quota. It doesn't matter if I can write 1000 words in an hour. It doesn't matter if I can read a novel a week. What matters is becoming a great writer.
And that takes time. Which is why I use the clock to tell me when to stop writing. If during my two hours of writing I get only 500 words, then so be it. It's better to struggle to get 500 words of good prose than to knock off 1000 words in 40 mintues.
But to keep me honest, I do have a writing journal. Which documents how much I write every day. I call it, SO AS NOT TO KID MYSELF--a title I stole from Hemingway during an interview. Every day I don't write I put a big fat 0 in red. And it really does keep me honest.
Thanks, Christine, for this so important reminder.
posted
I started a journal today. It's more than just a writing journal, although a part of it is to keep me honest. I will be recording what I wrote, what I read, how much time I spent on those other writing tasks that are so important, etc. But I've also decided to make it a means of talking out loud to myself, working out problems, and getting in some free writing every day. It's fun to just bang away at the keys and watch the words pour onto the page. It's just not ultimately what's going to make me a great writer. So I've decided to get it out of my system in about a half hour every morning. Time will tell if it's really a good idea or not, so I'll report back about the first of the year. Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
|
posted
I think my problem is trying to keep in mind that, as a process, it takes time for the finished product to take shape. I have to remember that my first draft does not have to be as good as published material. It just needs to be coherent and show promise. After that, it's the polishing process (aka revision) that brings it (hopefully) up to that level. It's a hard thing to keep in mind some days.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted
Christine -- I disagree. Any kind of writing can make you a great writer, so long as you always try to write your best. So always, always try to write as well as you can. It can be difficult at times, I know. Writing e-mails and forum entries are hard because you don't want to waste a lot of time doing it. But you have to start seeing everything you write as something that will make you into a writer. When I first took up the guitar, my teacher told me that everytime I picked it up--whether to practice seriously or to just fiddle around--I needed to remember that I was cultivating habits. Good AND bad habits. I believe the same is true with writing. Whenever you sit down to write, regardless of what it is your writing, write it as best as you can.
Heresy -- What was it that Hemingway said? All first drafts are shit, and the only thing they must do is be finished.
posted
That's good advice from Hemingway, IF at some point you take that first draft and turn it into something other than crap. Unfortunately, Hemingway never managed to do that.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted
The trouble with that, Balthasar, is two-fold. First of all, that getting lost in the story has always been my favorite part of writing, not watching the words dance together into beautiful prose. Second, that when I struggle too hard to always write the best that I can I lose track of my own voice. Fortunately, my own voice has long since shed basic grammar problems and the like, but it does not usually sing, either. It tells a story without the fluff. That's me.
Two things have happened ever since I started giving my stuff away for critiques: One, I've become a much better writer. Two, I've become paranoid about every word I write down. I try not to give my stuff to those people who come back trying to reword every sentence for me because it woudl sound better that way (Good God why do people even do that??) but I always have a thought in the back of my mind that my simple and straightforward method of telling stories is not good enough to join the chorus of professional writers whose words themselves are the artform.
So, in my daily writing I will continue to marry the idea of letting my voice shine through and letting my words sing in the ranks of the professionals, and for one half hour each morning I will pound away at the keys and forget about all that but just tell a simple story of wish-fulfillment.
Besides, during the rest of the day I am not in the rough draft portion of my novel. I am rereading it right now, actualy, marking it to death after a two month haitus. Wordsmithing and story tightening remain, and that is distinctly not fun but necessary if I am seroius about this as a career.
posted
Christine, I prefer a simple and straightforward method of telling a story - the kind of story you can just read and enjoy. If the prose is too artistic, I always feel like I should be sitting there admiring it, rather than reading the story.
simple and straightforward, done well, is beautiful. don't worry.
posted
I like that, Balthasar. I think I'm going to have that Hemmingway quote inscribed on the back of my eyeballs so I don't forget it. So far, I'm doing fairly well with that concept, actually. I started writing a novel last week that I'd been planning for about a month or so and I'm about 16k words into it. I wasn't too happy with the last chapter I finished, but I keept on anyway. I figure that I can go back an edit it later, but if I interrupt the momentum I've built up, this one will end up like every other novel I've ever tried to write, unfinished but lamented. I like this idea, and most of what I've written so far, so I'm going to try to not let that happen.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted
<That's good advice from Hemingway, IF at some point you take that first draft and turn it into something other than crap. Unfortunately, Hemingway never managed to do that.>
I can count on one hand the number of books I've read (and, like all of us, I've read more than my share) that are even half as well written as The Old Man and the Sea or For Whom the Bell Tolls.
Even Hemingway's less masterful works, like "A Moveable Feast," are better written than most anything else on the bookstore shelves.
Hemingway was one of the greatest crafstmen of the English language to ever put pen to paper. You may not like his stories, but baldly calling the writing that revolutionized American literature 'crap' is poor form.
[This message has been edited by J (edited December 05, 2004).]
posted
Christine, don't get me wrong. If your goal is to write clear prose in a straightforward way, that's great. It's a noble goal; much hard to achieve than many would think. My only point was this. Whenever you sit down to write--regardless of what you're writing--try to always write the best you can. That may sound silly, but I've seen far too many slipshod posts on THIS VERY FORUM of so-called writers to know it's not. If you're going to write, then you must write as well as you can everytime you write. That's all I'm saying.
I, too, have gotten lost in my fictional dream to the extent that I'm not focusing on the quality of the prose. That's understandable; in fact, it's laudable. That means that you're doing what a fiction writer should do--tell a story. But I've found I'm a slow writer to begin with. I learned from John Gardner in The Art of Fiction that a piece of fiction is comprised of units: dialogue, description, character, narrative, etc. Because I write slowly, and because I've trained myself to see fiction as a series of interlocking unit--much like links of a chain--I write in such a way that I focus on one unit at a time. If I know, for example, that Jack is about to get dissed by Jill when he asks her out, I don't got rushing head-fist to the rejection. I move slowly, taking my time to get there, making sure each unit is as good as it can be in a first draft.
I found that people who want to correct every sentence of your prose don't know how to critique a piece of fiction. All they know is how to edit--well, let's just say that they think they know how to edit. But they're lost when it comes to talking about those things that really make fiction work: character, plot, and theme.
But I side with Balthasar on writing as well as you can. Your best prose may well be in a style that is simple and direct, without a lot of flashy lyrical qualities like having a meter and lots of heavy imagery.
So often, when a novice writer writes "artlessly", the result is merely graceless. Sometimes you'll see prose that is mere gibberish, because the writer has given no thought to making it clear and precise. Well short of that is lines that just scream like nails against a chalkboard (one of those old slate ones, no less). Then there are lines that you have to read two or three times to make sure what they're saying. That can be caused by something quite simple like misplaced punctuation or missing articles and auxilleries or unreferenced pronouns and such.
Whether you want to write like Hemmingway or Faulkner, you need to learn to do your very best with whatever you write.
Unless you want to become famous through other means, then publish something. I personally think that anyone who does that (aside from mandatory exercises like writing historically important memoirs) should be...distained, lest I be accused of hyperbole
posted
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, J. I cannot stand Hemingway's work. I think it's some of the most boring, pointless work I've ever read.
quote:Hemingway was one of the greatest crafstmen of the English language to ever put pen to paper.
I think maybe it's statements like this that make me hate Hemingway so much. I probably wouldn't have such a strong opinion about it if everybody didn't hold him up as the Jesus of American Literature all the time. I just don't see it. I've never enjoyed any of his work.
He's like the Beatles. I give them credit for revolutionizing music, but there have been thousands of better rock bands over the years. I appreciate what Hemingway did for the American Literature scene, but there have been a thousand better writers over the years.
posted
This really isn't a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. You see, I don't *care*. That's the point of getting to write my heart out for a half hour each morning...I don't care and I don't have to care! I don't have to watch myself, I don't have to think. I don't try to write badly but neither do I try particularly hard to write well and I don't care. For one measly little half hour of my life I can just have fun with writing and not lose track of the reasons I started writing in the first place and just not care. If every time you put fingers to keys or pen to paper you have to give yourself a massive headache then feel free, but please leave me to my primitive musings.
And later, after I've gotten it all out of my system, I can slow down and focus on the things that really matter, the things Balthasar Mentioned: dialogue, theme, plot...
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited December 05, 2004).]
posted
I have to admit that I'm not particularly fond of either Hemingway or Faulkner. Both men wrote a lot of stuff that seems pretty pointless and boring.
But the fact remains that both were great craftsmen. Whether or not I agree with all or much of what either said, I can see that they said it very well. And each in his own way.
I still like to read old sci-fi, and some older fantasy. I have noticed that most of the works written in the 60's and 70's is sparce. Well, in comparison to books I read today. One of my latest old books I have read is Logan's Run. Still wondering where the movie came from. But what amazed me, was that in 170 something pages it told a full story. Details were breif, but clear. I will admit is was not as engrosing as more current books, but it moved faster than anything I've read published in the last ten years.
I still enjoy books that are old, they have a different feel to them. Stories that concentrate on the story, and have been cut of the majority of the fluff that authors can get away with today. So if your work is fast, clear, and tells the story...I'll like it.
posted
Survivor said: <I have to admit that I'm not particularly fond of either Hemingway or Faulkner. Both men wrote a lot of stuff that seems pretty pointless and boring. But the fact remains that both were great craftsmen. Whether or not I agree with all or much of what either said, I can see that they said it very well. And each in his own way>
posted
Hmmm, Writing is a process. But it is not process-work. It is a creative process that requires time to get the best results.
Growing fruit is a similar process that requires time. You can't rush it without running the risk of losing flavour or nutritional value. You can pick fruit early and artificially ripen it. But it comes sweetest ripened by the sun and this naturally takes time. However while you are anticipating the fruit you don't slack-off and stop tending the plant.
Edit: Time is a necessary, nourishing part of the creative process.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited December 07, 2004).]
posted
i've reread it four times, and i still don't get it... i'm hopeless in understanding what most people consider humorous, just like most people are hopeless in understanding what i consider funny...
Posts: 477 | Registered: Oct 2004
|
quote:Both men wrote a lot of stuff that seems pretty pointless and boring.
quote:But the fact remains that both were great craftsmen. Whether or not I agree with all or much of what either said, I can see that they said it very well.
If Survivor found it pointless and boring...would that not be a contradition to both men saying it well?
posted
My point was that I can disagree with what someone is saying, and that doesn't mean it wasn't said well.
Then J said that I had put that very well. Even though I know that we agree on this subject, it still struck me as funny that he would say that in response to my statement that thinking an idea is said well is different from thinking that it is a good idea.
It is not the case that if you put sufficient craft into your writing, you can force someone to agree with your ideas. That would be the logical result of it being impossible to find well written prose pointless and boring. If you can use prose to make any idea fascinating and meaningful to the reader, then you can control the reader's thoughts completely.
Some orators can do this to some people using their voice, but very few writers can do this to anyone using just text.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
i'm hopeless in understanding what most people consider humorous, just like most people are hopeless in understanding what i consider funny...
