Four stages of a writer's development. Thoughts?

[SweetMerry]

I've been reading a "how to" book for short story writing: Creating Short Fiction by Damon Knight. In it, he outlines four stages of a writer's development. I was curious as to how many of you have observed something similar, or if you think he's on the wrong path here.

In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: Let me 'splain. [pause] No, there is to much. Let me sum up.

Stage One: Writing for yourself. Daydreams, wishes, etc., are the main motivations for putting word on the page. Your writing pleases you, but it's not meant to communicate much to other people.

Stage Two: You are trying to break out, to try to communicate ideas to other people. But, you haven't quite got the hang of it. Your stories seem half-formed.

Stage Three: You're ideas are being competently communicated, but your stories are hindered by your lack of technical expertise. You could still use some practice with things like character development or plot structure.

Stage Four: You've got it all under control, and are writing professionally.

My thoughts: I can see my stories fall largely into stage one right now. I'm just having fun molding my fantasies into story form. I'm not trying to communicate any ideas or convey a deeper meaning. But, I am giving thought to creating a rich "texture" in my stories through my characters, settings, and plot. So, maybe these stages are a good general guide to the process, but not everyone will fit squarely into one or the other.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Knight's book is one of the better HOW TO WRITE books but I dont buy his 4 stages scheme. A few, like Truman Capote, start at Stage 4.

 

[sr71plt]

Not my stages either. I was hired and trained to write for an international news agency. I didn't move over to creative writing until long after that--when I'd pretty much been trained into the technical aspects of writing. And I've never written just for myself.

The stages given aren't a bad way of thinking about writing, though.

 

[JackLuis]

As a "Sweeping Generalization", the four stages is a way of thinking about effectiveness as a writer.

It is also true that if you want to write and try to write, you get better if only to justify your optimism at starting in the first place.

Grand Concepts, are beyond me and lots of others. But I have hope that I can improve with more work. Otherwise I would be watching all that porn for nothing.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I recently came upon George V. Higgins. He started at stage 4 and degenerated as time passed. His first 3-4 books are marvels; 25 years later theyre schizophrenic word salad. He aspired to write for the ages and lost the magic of his simple crime novels.

 

[SweetMerry]

Not my stages either. I was hired and trained to write for an international news agency. I didn't move over to creative writing until long after that--when I'd pretty much been trained into the technical aspects of writing. And I've never written just for myself.

The stages given aren't a bad way of thinking about writing, though.

Hmmm, I've never thought about the process for already-trained writers who migrate into fiction. When you say you've never written for yourself, is that because even when you started writing fiction, you were doing so with an audience in mind?

...I have hope that I can improve with more work. Otherwise I would be watching all that porn for nothing.

Heh, ya, I kinda feel the same way. I mean some of that stuff floating around in my subconscious should be put to good use, right?

I recently came upon George V. Higgins. He started at stage 4 and degenerated as time passed. His first 3-4 books are marvels; 25 years later theyre schizophrenic word salad. He aspired to write for the ages and lost the magic of his simple crime novels.

Unfortunately, I've run across something similar in other authors. One of the reasons I'm "cutting my teeth" on simple fantasies (which I really enjoy) is so that when I do attempt to write different styles of erotica, I'll have a solid understanding of how to communicate clearly and effectively.

I think it's important to experiment and grow, but if your audience can't receive what an author is transmitting, then it's frustrating for both.

 

[sr71plt]

Hmmm, I've never thought about the process for already-trained writers who migrate into fiction. When you say you've never written for yourself, is that because even when you started writing fiction, you were doing so with an audience in mind?

Yes, my first fiction was contracted--for a targeted audience.

My first erotic happened because I didn't restrain myself in writing a scene in a mainstream novel. I had to extract the full version of the scene and go looking for a place to publish it as a separate piece. It's published here at Lit.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Hmmm, I've never thought about the process for already-trained writers who migrate into fiction. When you say you've never written for yourself, is that because even when you started writing fiction, you were doing so with an audience in mind?



Heh, ya, I kinda feel the same way. I mean some of that stuff floating around in my subconscious should be put to good use, right?



Unfortunately, I've run across something similar in other authors. One of the reasons I'm "cutting my teeth" on simple fantasies (which I really enjoy) is so that when I do attempt to write different styles of erotica, I'll have a solid understanding of how to communicate clearly and effectively.

I think it's important to experiment and grow, but if your audience can't receive what an author is transmitting, then it's frustrating for both.

You must know your limits; and once you know where the fence is you develope the space within the fence...and forget about whats outside the fence.

 

[3113]

Stage One: Writing for yourself. Daydreams, wishes, etc., are the main motivations for putting word on the page. Your writing pleases you, but it's not meant to communicate much to other people.

Stage Two: You are trying to break out, to try to communicate ideas to other people. But, you haven't quite got the hang of it. Your stories seem half-formed.

Stage Three: You're ideas are being competently communicated, but your stories are hindered by your lack of technical expertise. You could still use some practice with things like character development or plot structure.

Stage Four: You've got it all under control, and are writing professionally.

Sounds incredibly obvious to be frank. I mean, is this really news? The only question seems to be WHEN one went through the "stages." We all have daydreams, wishes, etc. as little kids--some kids even make up stories, telling their parents what the story is they're creating with their toys, or making their own book with colored pages.

If we're inclined to write for others we likely will do so when we're teens. No big surprise (Stage 2). And we usually learn how to write better when we get into college (Stage 3).

So, um, what's the big whoop about these stages? Why do they have to be laid out? Why do they matter? And how do they fit certain writers like S.E. Hinton who wrote her first novel, The Outsiders, at age 15 and was published almost instantly? Did she follow the stages--just earlier--or did she skip from first to fourth? How about Bret Easton Ellis who got Less than Zero published at age 21--again, his first effort at writing a novel?

Or let's go the other way. What about Dashell Hammett who started out as detective and working in the ambulance corp during WWI and, sick with tuberculosis, turned to writing as the only way he could earn money to support his family (pulp fiction giving him a quick and ready paycheck)? He was not only good at it, but virtually created the hard-boiled style. Should we say that he, also, skipped all those steps just went to #4?

 

[squarejohn]

For me, it began as a childhood fascination with a typewriter before I learned to read and write. Soon as I did learn, I starting pounding on a typewriter, just for the fun of it. Through school, my English teachers, praised the little stories and essays they required. I was in my twenties before I truly realized a fella could make money doing this. So I did it, although I was in my forties before I started to sell anything. I still dabble, like here, but I know I just don't have the fundamental talent--the "something"--to make the big time. At my core, I'm an engineer.

 

[JackLuis]

The nice thing about writing erotica, is that if the sex is good enough, most people never notice the plot is missing.

 

[SweetMerry]

You must know your limits; and once you know where the fence is you develope the space within the fence...and forget about whats outside the fence.

Nicely put. Thanks.

~~~~

3113: Yes, many authors get published at a very early age. That's why I was curious to know if writers here have experienced going through these stages or if they came to their creativity another way. The stages do seem to be a general rule, with some exceptional exceptions.

 

[SweetMerry]

I stumbled across this TED talk video today. It got me thinking about the reasons WHY I'm writing, as a counterpoint to the stages' focus on HOW to write.

Simon Sinek: How great leaders inspire action

When I started blogging, I wrote out my reasons why I felt compelled to write erotica. But, I haven't made it a practice to keep those reasons in mind when creating a story. I wonder if it would make a difference in what I produce.

 

[vrosej10]

I stumbled into writing at ten. My classmates and I had a contest regarding who could produce the longest story. I won by a mile and the teacher liked it. After that I wanted to be a writer. I wrote porn for my classmates in high school and then there was a long break before in my twenties I worked as a newpaper columnist for a while. I only really came back to it about three years ago (I'm 38) when I went off to uni to study it with a view to a career. There was both a mental health break and a baby break in the middle. I never did the first stage at all and I came to write with a gift for language and an ear for grammar, though don't judge by my posts, I relax in these forum so I don't sound like a pompous arse.

 

[JT_Stone]

I think it's fine to look at it within the four stage structure. Whatever method you use to better express yourself is a great method. I'm sure that with experience you'll flow through them without giving them much thought.

I agree that with erotica, good sex helps overcome poor writing, with the notable exception of spelling and gramatical errors. Those are like hitting major pot holes when you're reading. Along with this is the logical flow of events. In early drafts I've had my character remove her bra in one paragraph, then do it again three paragraphs later.

All that being said, use an editor to help see these. They will ALWAYS find mistakes you've made. There are some great editors on this site.

Another thing I do is brainstorm a character's personality traits when I want them to be multidimensional. This is great for writer's block too. Think of things like style of dress, family members, job, interests, etc. You can use any real person to help get started with this, then use your imagination to make them your own character. Probably 90% of that material you won't use, but that's okay; your goal is to create a living, breathing character who responds in ways that make sense to the reader. You might include the fact that they get their latte from a drive through window for example, but don't clutter it up. You want the reader to see the character in his or her own mind, just acting in logical ways.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The trick to character is making the character congruent with his personality, and the trick to personality is identifying the right personality type; IE, how do they organize their lives. Are they paranoid? Criminal? Timid and clingy? Devious and sneaky? Party animal? Anxious and crazy? Adventurous? If theyre obsessive-compulsive and a bit over-religious theyre probably a Democrat and a social worker.

 

[mynameisben]

It sounds like a "paycheck" book to me. I say this because:

1. People who can't write very well love to write lists.
2. People who can't read very well love to read lists.
3. Knight's four stages say very little and apply to very few.
4. Knight's four stages read like they were lifted from a book on toddler psychological development.

 

[JT_Stone]

It sounds like a "paycheck" book to me. I say this because:

1. People who can't write very well love to write lists.
2. People who can't read very well love to read lists.
3. Knight's four stages say very little and apply to very few.
4. Knight's four stages read like they were lifted from a book on toddler psychological development.

You seem to be criticizing this approach. Do you have any constructive ideas to help your fellow writer?

 

[DarianBlack]

*chuckles* Depending on my mood, muse, the music I listen to and the stuff happening in my life, I can hit all four of those

I would say broad generalizations are generally bad (heh) and not to pay too much attention to these stages. Just write, ok? If you feel like you're lacking in an area - and feel you want to "fix" it, do so. However, I've read innumerable blogs, books, and sites about writing... and the conclusion I gained was that the best writers follow no mold. They discover what works best for them, and they use it.

 

[mynameisben]

You seem to be criticizing this approach. Do you have any constructive ideas to help your fellow writer?

I'm not really criticizing an approach. I'm just saying that listing four obvious stages isn't very helpful because it doesn't teach anything. It's just a list.

I haven't read Knight's book, but I have read several other "How to write" books. My general impression has been that they are all pep rally and not very useful as teaching tools. By inviting me to offer constructive ideas to help fellow writers you are baiting me into the same trap that snares writers of far greater talent than I will ever have.

But I am foolhardy, so here goes:

Stage 1: Learn the basics. Read up on grammar. Learn how to spell. Learn something about style. Read. Read great novels, and read crap too. There is a lot to learn about what is crap by reading crap, so be sure to do it. Make sure you balance it by reading excellent literature too (and more of the latter).

Stage 2: As you read, pay attention to the mechanics of your favorite author's style. Ask yourself, was this word or mental image the best choice? Think about how you might have written it. Think about tempo, about how sentence length can influence a reader's feel of the flow of action. Examine how dialog affects the flow of action. Ask yourself, "Is this a real conversation? Do people really talk like that?" Ask yourself if there is any dialog or scene description that is wasted, where words or paragraphs appear on the pages that don't really move the story forward. Perhaps your favorite author relies on fluff to meet contractual word length.

Stage 3: Write. Write your ass off. Write every day, even if you can't think of a damn thing to write about. The hardest thing about writing, as it is with most things in life, is getting started. Don't be afraid to peck your most embarrassing fantasy onto the page if that is all that bubbles forth from your mind. Write it, even if it's trash. Once you see it printed on the page it will get you thinking about how to improve or add to it.

Stage 4: Improve it. Add to it. And when you are finished, go back and read it with the same critical eye you used in Stage 2 with your favorite authors. Pay attention to your style, and rip it to shreds if you deem it unworthy. That's not to say you should wad it up into a paper ball. Figure out what it is that pissed you off about the crap you wrote and rewrite it. If you can't figure out what it is, go back to Stage 2 and do more careful reading of the masters. If you can identify the weaknesses in your won writing, fix it and repeat Stage 4. Never be satisfied with your second draft, because anything can be improved. The key to great writing is rewriting. Don't be in any great hurry to get a story out just because you've finished and you are proud of that fact. Some of your best rewriting will come after you've stepped away from your story for a day or two, so that when you look at it again you will see it with fresh eyes and actually read what you have written on the page, rather than reading what you meant.

The four stages I wrote just now is the approach I take. I didn't get it from a How To book, but it works for me. I don't expect it to be the best approach for everyone. You don't want to write like me. There's already a me. You don't want to write like that Knight fellow, because there is already a him. This is why I don't really put much stock into How To Write books. You have to find your own voice as a writer, whatever that may be. And you will only find it if you put down the How To books, and dive into the discipline and WRITE!

 

[sr71plt]

I think mynameisben's four stages are as good as Knight's (better as practical "what to do" suggestions) but that any list is worth while in starting a thinking process about writing. I think any list--or "how to" book--though, threatens to be just another reason to dither around and not get to it. What I'd adjust in mynameisben's list is that I'd suggest starting the writing in stage 1 too. The sooner you get to just doing it the sooner you're going to start your development in doing it well. If all you do is study grammar and read good books for two stages of your development, you really haven't started the writing part of the development at all. You mustn't let yourself think that you shouldn't be starting to write until you can qualify for a Pulitzer.

 

[3113]

You seem to be criticizing this approach. Do you have any constructive ideas to help your fellow writer?

I'm in agreement with Ben. Knight's list doesn't look like any kind of a "approach" to me, just a list. And none of those stages seem to be "ideas" that can constructively help writers. Constructive ideas are things like "Show don't tell," and "Kill your darlings" (meaning even if you have the most precious, beautiful paragraph you ever wrote, if it's of no use to the story, get rid of it).

Telling us that most writers start out writing for themselves, then write for others and get better and better as they go through these stages....it's a no-brainer. I presume it's part of the introduction, as it doesn't seem to serve any other useful purpose.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The real obstacle to writing is having nuthin to say. No insights, no novel problem solutions, no proverbs, nuthin that energizes you.

Once you do have something to say the rest comes easily.

 

[sr71plt]

The real obstacle to writing is having nuthin to say. No insights, no novel problem solutions, no proverbs, nuthin that energizes you.

Once you do have something to say the rest comes easily.

Not really. I agree with the needing to have something to write about. But being a good storyteller and writer aren't easy and they are in different realms. To be good at it, you need all three working for you, none of which are easy--content, storytelling ability, and writing prowess. And, unfortunately, to get anyone to read it, you need yet another, different-realm talent: the ability to market.

 

[JT_Stone]

I think Ben offers good ideas and I've definitely become a more aware reader, more thoughtfully appreciating good writing.

I also think that learning too many pointers means that I'm spending too much time reading when I should be writing. To avoid this I don't read writing books, but do check out Writer's Digest website frequently. We can't write 18 hours per day, so there are times to learn as well as times to write. WD articles are quick and cover a wide variety of topics.