Writing as a Two-Stage Process

[dr_mabeuse]

The more I write, the more I think writing is a two-stage process. There's the actual writing, and then there's the revision: the reading of what's been written and the fixing of it, the editing. You really can't just write something once and turn it in. That's like doing a painting with your eyes closed. To really call yourself a writer you have to read and edit, and that's where the real skill and art come in -- evaluating how something reads and knowing how to make it better.

Writing is kind of unique as an art in that the process used to decipher it is so different from the process used to manufacture it. Reading doesn't even use the same part of the brain as writing. It's an entirely different phenomenon. So when we write, we have to constantly go back and read what we've written and fix it, smooth it, shape it and color it till it reads the way we want it to read. It's like cooking, where we're constantly tasting the mix to make sure it's right; not too much salt or too much sour, not too fast or too slow.

I think that's why we learn to write by reading, and why, when we're stuck in writing, the best course is to suck it up and force ourself to write through it, no matter how bad it is. We have a much better chance of fixing bad writing than we do of waiting till we get it right the first time through.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I think that's why we learn to write by reading, and why, when we're stuck in writing, the best course is to suck it up and force ourself to write through it, no matter how bad it is. We have a much better chance of fixing bad writing than we do of waiting till we get it right the first time through.

I'd gotten rather bored with Stephen King (one of my favs) in the past ten years or so. It was like he was doing just that - sending out the first draft, without much revision. He wasn't READING what he was writing, how it might flow/go for the reader.

But his latest collection of short stories (Sunset) was a phenomenally, surprisingly different experience for me, and I was thrilled. And he said something that supports your idea - he was involved in reading/choosing a great many short stories for a project, and he had to read a LOT - a LOT - of short stories. And suddenly, he found himself remembering how to write them, how to craft again...

Reading a lot (while not giving up the writing part) really serves a writer to writer better. There's definitely a correlation there.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DOC

For me its more like a 4 stage process. Inspiration, writing, revision, and living with it once it has a life of its own.

I stopped writing porn because it never inspired me, especially after I was past the point of doing it well. It's a report of an incident, an event, without premise or moral lesson. I think inspiration gives you the fuel to write to the end of the story.

Living with it? Its like an old love you see for who they are.

 

[sr71plt]

You can't write it just once, of course. But for many of us, going over it more than a couple of times (for different purposes) is just commencing to suck the life out of it.

These "how I do it" testimonials are quite fine for food for thought--as long as they don't drift over into "this is how it is always done." Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Saucy_Sage]

I agree.

1. Write.

2. Submit.

Just to be clear, we're not considering acknowledging applause as [eta: a] separate stage, right?

[There's oodles of time after submitting to edit. see?]

 

[sr71plt]

I agree.

1. Write.

2. Submit.

Just to be clear, we're not considering acknowledging applause as separate stage, right?

I always like the applause to come first. That way I know I have a publisher before I commit to writing it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SR71PLT

I read an interesting essay about writing yesterday. The author of the essay says getting published is pretty much a random event, followed by herding if your random events reach a critical mass.

 

[sr71plt]

SR71PLT

I read an interesting essay about writing yesterday. The author of the essay says getting published is pretty much a random event, followed by herding if your random events reach a critical mass.

In my experience, that's an element, yes. But only one element.

 

[Belegon]

I'd gotten rather bored with Stephen King (one of my favs) in the past ten years or so. It was like he was doing just that - sending out the first draft, without much revision. He wasn't READING what he was writing, how it might flow/go for the reader.

But his latest collection of short stories (Sunset) was a phenomenally, surprisingly different experience for me, and I was thrilled. And he said something that supports your idea - he was involved in reading/choosing a great many short stories for a project, and he had to read a LOT - a LOT - of short stories. And suddenly, he found himself remembering how to write them, how to craft again...

Reading a lot (while not giving up the writing part) really serves a writer to writer better. There's definitely a correlation there.

Last year I had the pleasure of meeting David Morrell, who was quite friendly with Stephen before King's AA regimen caused him to disavow "drinking buddies," a category to which David apparently belonged.

David recalled that for a number of years, King's greatest complaint about the publishing industry was the inability to get a decent editor. One who would ignore the fact that he was "Stephen-fucking-King" and actually EDIT him.

I found the observation illuminating.

As an editor, I find stuff in others writing that I know I do. But it doesn't necessarily help me stop doing it.

We all need another set of eyes from time to time. (everyone except, apparently, Selena Kitt. I edited someone's Al Fresco story on the plane... and there is a remarkable lack of red ink in it. )

 

[Selena_Kitt]

In my experience, that's an element, yes. But only one element.

I think (and like I would know?) in the traditional print market, it's probably much more who you know, and who you ARE, anymore... they seem to be taking less and less chances on unknowns.

 

[sr71plt]

David recalled that for a number of years, King's greatest complaint about the publishing industry was the inability to get a decent editor. One who would ignore the fact that he was "Stephen-fucking-King" and actually EDIT him.

I've seen a little of that--but much more taking the Tom Clancy "I'm god; don't need no stinking editor" approach.

 

[Belegon]

I've seen a little of that--but much more taking the Tom Clancy "I'm god; don't need no stinking editor" approach.

Hell, dude. I see that in query letters.

(hint to authors... those submissions don't get a good look, almost without exception. "Once you win twenty in the show, you can let the fungus grow back on your shower shoes and the press will think your colorful. Until you win twenty in the show, it means you're a slob." )

 

[sr71plt]

Hell, dude. I see that in query letters.

The scary thing is that this most likely is in a letter from someone who hasn't gotten past self-publishing yet.

And those with one book under their belt are a lot of fun too. That one book came with an honorary degree in editing.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

(everyone except, apparently, Selena Kitt. I edited someone's Al Fresco story on the plane... and there is a remarkable lack of red ink in it. )

I'm sure it helped that it was only like 800 words... LOL

 

[hmmnmm]

The more I write, the more I think writing is a two-stage process. There's the actual writing, and then there's the revision: the reading of what's been written and the fixing of it, the editing. You really can't just write something once and turn it in. That's like doing a painting with your eyes closed. To really call yourself a writer you have to read and edit, and that's where the real skill and art come in -- evaluating how something reads and knowing how to make it better.

Writing is kind of unique as an art in that the process used to decipher it is so different from the process used to manufacture it. Reading doesn't even use the same part of the brain as writing. It's an entirely different phenomenon. So when we write, we have to constantly go back and read what we've written and fix it, smooth it, shape it and color it till it reads the way we want it to read. It's like cooking, where we're constantly tasting the mix to make sure it's right; not too much salt or too much sour, not too fast or too slow.

I think that's why we learn to write by reading, and why, when we're stuck in writing, the best course is to suck it up and force ourself to write through it, no matter how bad it is. We have a much better chance of fixing bad writing than we do of waiting till we get it right the first time through.

A few similar thoughts rolled around yesterday. More like two states that apply to everything. One state is the familiar and the other is the novel. For me it is a never-ending problem and probably explains why I can't seem to really finish anything. Even if within a project that's become familiar, there's the endless possible ways anything can go and can be hard to decide, so sometimes just pick one and see where it goes. But it never fails that somewhere sometime somehow, along will come A New Idea. Can't help but look. Can't help but be caught. Cannot not at least think of reaching for it. But if I do reach for it and take it and begin it, I risk losing the former. If I let the New Idea go... but they always seem to return, sometimes a week later, a month later, even a year later. Or, if the New Idea is taken and worked on, well, then it quits being so new. It becomes familiar. And what was once familiar might look new again. And might attract. Before long unfinished ideas are piled all over the place. That's probably what keeps me coming back to Lit, because there's not the pressure to present something that must be considered complete, unalterable; more like, "this is what I got so far on this thing."

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

HMMMMM

If I understand you correctly, I have the same problem; I can generate ideas quicker than I can execute them. I come up with at least 2 ideas a day. And theyre dandy ideas, not a runt in the litter.

But what I complete I feel inspired to write.

 

[CharleyH]

The more I write, the more I think writing is a two-stage process. There's the actual writing, and then there's the revision: the reading of what's been written and the fixing of it, the editing. You really can't just write something once and turn it in. That's like doing a painting with your eyes closed. To really call yourself a writer you have to read and edit, and that's where the real skill and art come in -- evaluating how something reads and knowing how to make it better.

Writing is kind of unique as an art in that the process used to decipher it is so different from the process used to manufacture it. Reading doesn't even use the same part of the brain as writing. It's an entirely different phenomenon. So when we write, we have to constantly go back and read what we've written and fix it, smooth it, shape it and color it till it reads the way we want it to read. It's like cooking, where we're constantly tasting the mix to make sure it's right; not too much salt or too much sour, not too fast or too slow.

I think that's why we learn to write by reading, and why, when we're stuck in writing, the best course is to suck it up and force ourself to write through it, no matter how bad it is. We have a much better chance of fixing bad writing than we do of waiting till we get it right the first time through.

I agree with you on more than one point, although I think that another key stage of writing is planning. I've always believed it. I believed it after reading 'Alice in Wonderland' in God knows what grade, and I especially believed it after reading 'Tess of the d' Urbervilles' in high school. I don't think that any story of significance can be written because a character happened to appear in the mind of the writer and happened to do this and happened to do that and, well, I like pink, so my character wears pink. We're talking about story here and while a story may be inspired by a character, an event or even the colour pink, none of these single elements is a story on its own. A story requires some thought and, at times, even a lot of research (reading).

Robert McKee wrote, "75 percent or more of a writer's labour goes into designing the story." I believe editing is encompassed in this (although he never says). I self edit a lot and it's a painful as hell process that I've often likened to the most violent for any writer. I've murdered elements and lines and whole descriptions and even characters I've absolutely adored because they had nothing to do with the story. However, without reading, re-reading and even re-re-reading my stories, I may have never caught them.

While I love your cooking metaphor, Doc, I would like to suggest that writing is more like architecture. You can have a great-looking living room with the best design and beautiful furniture that you tested and changed a thousand times to make sure it was just right, but if there is no solid foundation, it won't matter how great the living room looked when it sunk into the sand.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

CHARLEYH

Yep.

The readers attention must be guided by the structure.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

While I love your cooking metaphor, Doc, I would like to suggest that writing is more like architecture. You can have a great-looking living room with the best design and beautiful furniture that you tested and changed a thousand times to make sure it was just right, but if there is no solid foundation, it won't matter how great the living room looked when it sunk into the sand.

When I wrote that I was thinking more of short stories than novels, and i often go into a short story without any hint of a plan whatsoever. It could be that the need for quality writing is inversely proportional to the quality of the plot. That is: if you don't have a compelling plot, you'd damn well better have some very good writing to sustain the reader's interest, and if you have a great story to tell, it doesn't much matter if you write like a hack.

I'm of the school that believes that elegant prose can make a description of buttoning a shirt exciting reading.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I stopped writing porn because it never inspired me, especially after I was past the point of doing it well. It's a report of an incident, an event, without premise or moral lesson.

Why does porn have to be without premise or moral lesson?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DOC

Do you know of any fuck books that have a premise or moral?

 

[Belegon]

the more I see someone, anyone, reference something they do in writing as a "must," the less heed I pay to it.

at LJWC a couple years ago I listened to a very well-known and extremely successful writer tell everyone how he worked and endorse it as positively without a doubt the best way for everyone to write. I can't argue with his success, but he was so incredibly structured that it almost repelled me. Up at 6 am, workout for an hour, write ten pages, edit the ten from the day before, then do the business side of things in the afternoon.

Hey, it worked for him. But believe me, you DO NOT want to read what I write at 7 a.m.

Charley, with all respect, I do believe planning can be AN important part of A process. But I DO NOT believe that it is impossible for a work of value to come out of improvisational writing.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

DOC

Do you know of any fuck books that have a premise or moral?

Here is one.

 

[CharleyH]

When I wrote that I was thinking more of short stories than novels, and i often go into a short story without any hint of a plan whatsoever. It could be that the need for quality writing is inversely proportional to the quality of the plot. That is: if you don't have a compelling plot, you'd damn well better have some very good writing to sustain the reader's interest, and if you have a great story to tell, it doesn't much matter if you write like a hack.

Yes, Dan Brown proved that with 'The Da Vinci Code'.

I'm of the school that believes that elegant prose can make a description of buttoning a shirt exciting reading.

I know, and in your own words I can write the sexiest strip tease, the most poetic description of a character, but it's not a story. Is good porn and erotic writing so immune to story that all we need do is write about attractive characters fucking?

 

[sr71plt]

Why does porn have to be without premise or moral lesson?

Well, yes. On JBJ's premise, he must have stopped trying to write it after 10 minutes.