Going with the flow vs. carrying rocks

[dr_mabeuse]

Sometimes the words just flow when I write, and I hurry to keep up with them. And then sometimes it's a real grind, like hauling rocks in your hands.

I always assumed that the free-flowing stuff must be inherently better, because I was so into it when I wrote it, and that the carrying-rocks stuff must come out as dull and slow and devoid of feeling. But my experience now says that's not the case, and in fact the opposite might be true.

I just wonder if anyone has any thoughts on this. Is the stuff you write in a transport of creativity better or worse than the stuff you labor over?

---dr.M.

 

[Guest]

I dunno.

y r the 1 with Ph.D

 

[Cherrie]

Sometimes the words just flow when I write, and I hurry to keep up with them. And then sometimes it's a real grind, like hauling rocks in your hand.

---dr.M.

I’ve found that it is always best for me, to just get it down onto paper whilst the idea is still fresh in my head, that’s been the easy part. The difficult part, the part that seems as though I’m wading through sand, comes when I try to edit it.

I can sometimes thrash out an idea in a couple of hours, but the real work (the drudge part) can take me several days’…even months. That probably explains why my computer is so clogged up.

 

[CharleyH]

Going with the flow elicits a few fantastic lines or paragraphs to be used in a story somewhere and eventually, but I am more personally satisfied with writing that I labour over. In the end, so are readers Not always, but certainly most of the time.

 

[oggbashan]

I thought carrying rocks was better until NaNoWriMo.

10 of my 12 NaNoWriMo chapters still have Hs - a hit rate I have yet to surpass.

They were written at high speed with minimal editing.

Why carry rocks when it seems that flow works better?

Og

 

[ABSTRUSE]

There is a Taoist story of an older monk who was walking along a river bank with two younger monks.
The elder gentleman slipped and fell into the fast moving river.
the younger monks franticallly ran down stream only to find the older man sitting on the rocks, wet but fine none the less.
Astonished by this the younger monks questioned his recovery, they had anticipated the worse.

the older monk explained that he allowed the river to carry him, fighting the current would have been futile and probably bringing about his demise.

Basically, it's easier to go with the flow, let things happen naturally.
resisting the flow of things meets with struggle and there is no need to struggle.

I keep this in mind when I find I'm fighting a losing battle.

~A~

 

[gauchecritic]

I think I'm somewhere between both things. Going with the flow whilst carrying rocks. Actually that's quite a good analogy when I think about it.

The story, beginning to end outline, is usually there in my head. I start writing and the words flow out of my fingers, then somehow I feel the weight of the rocks so I tip one over the side and then flow onwards til I need to get rid of another. The flow is the story, or linking parts and the rocks are the necessary parts which make characters and events within.

Hmm. Looking more like baloons and balast to complete a journey.

Gauche

 

[Guest]

For me the flow is just the first step. Like Charley said, there might be a gem or two to be excavated 'as is', but it's the rock mining that makes it writing for me. The rocks come in all shapes and sizes, e.g., comma decisions, taking out whole paragraphs, moving sections to the beginning, middle or end, etc. Finally, deciding when the mine is depleted and moving on.

quarry writer, Perdita

 

[cantdog]

I'm with CharleyH

I gotta go with CharleyH on this one.

I love the fuckin feeling, though, when I'm just winging it and it all comes out so inevitable and smooth, glossy and deeply clever all at once.

Looks like gushy unnecessary shit when you have a chance to get some distance on it, sometimes, though. Still, as CharleyH says, you get some nuggets out of it as well as the fabulous vibe while it goes on.

 

[raphy]

I have to admit, I've not noticed any difference in the quality of my writing, either way.

Raph, unhelpfully

 

[McKenna]

.

 

[neonlyte]

I always assumed that the free-flowing stuff must be inherently better, because I was so into it when I wrote it, and that the carrying-rocks stuff must come out as dull and slow and devoid of feeling. But my experience now says that's not the case, and in fact the opposite might be true.

I just wonder if anyone has any thoughts on this. Is the stuff you write in a transport of creativity better or worse than the stuff you labor over?

---dr.M.

I find 'free flow' writing a great boost psychologically. Generally it involves aspects with which I am familiar or have an intimate knowledge, though once or twice I have suprised my self writing outside of my experiences.

Looking back over it, best after at least a couple of days, you can see where your head skips ahead of your fingers, what I had written is either flowing crap or requires a fix to round the story into a 'whole'.

The carry rocks phase for me is generally associated with researching background, places, events and weaving that knowledge into the/a story. This will always be labourious because of the uncertainty in what you are writing particularly if you are intent on creating authenticity for the reader. Different genres, for example Sci-fi, are less dependent on authenticity than an historic based work or a work located in a specific place.

I note doc. from another thread the effort you are putting into your current project. I can just imagine the work you are doing to develop convincing scenarios and weave your words into the elegent 'slip off the knife' prose your readers enjoy. Your experience in this labour suggests you are doing it just fine, I for one look forward to reading it.
NL

 

[damppanties]

I'm with gauche. Both. Free flowing but with a direction, a specifically charted route. Then nudging the flow here and there to get to the point where I want to be.

Doc, I think I agree with you that the writing which is laboured over reads better because the words are thought over. Each word is precisely what it should be, sometimes using the right-click synonym finder D). On the other hand, the free-flowing writing is too raw. Uncut diamonds. Just my point of view.

 

[gauchecritic]

Re: Re: Going with the flow vs. carrying rocks

Different genres, for example Sci-fi, are less dependent on authenticity than an historic based work or a work located in a specific place.
NL

I'd just like to take exception to this example and point out that what is generally called 'good' or 'hard' sci-fi depends a lot more on selling authenticity than the other two types mentioned. Throwing space ships and electronic implants into a story doesn't make it sci-fi.

Back to the question.

I think probably that Mab's seeing a story written by carrying rocks as less 'readable'(?) than those written when the fingers are flying is more likely due to the fact that he's seeing it from the author's view.

If a story is well written and can transport the reader into the author's world then you can't actually tell which parts were easy and which hard won. And what is a story for if not to be read?

Gauche

 

[sweetnpetite]

Everything I write is brilliant

Is the stuff you write in a transport of creativity better or worse than the stuff you labor over?

---dr.M.

 

[neonlyte]

Re: Re: Re: Going with the flow vs. carrying rocks

I'd just like to take exception to this example and point out that what is generally called 'good' or 'hard' sci-fi depends a lot more on selling authenticity than the other two types mentioned. Throwing space ships and electronic implants into a story doesn't make it sci-fi.
Gauche

Gauche
Apologies, you are absolutely correct and I would not wish to offend any Sci-fi writers be demeaning their work, I am a great fan myself.

The example was poorly constructed. What I should have said was that Sci-fi allows the creative mind to develop its own written environment, and to a degree, an authenticity that is only as good as the writer makes it. This of course is extremely hard to do well. Iain M Banks accomplishes this for me.

Setting a story historically or in location requires a different diligence, research is only part of the job in establishing authenticity, the writer then takes over.
NL

 

[wishfulthinking]

Sometimes the words just flow when I write, and I hurry to keep up with them. And then sometimes it's a real grind, like hauling rocks in your hands.

I always assumed that the free-flowing stuff must be inherently better, because I was so into it when I wrote it, and that the carrying-rocks stuff must come out as dull and slow and devoid of feeling. But my experience now says that's not the case, and in fact the opposite might be true.

I just wonder if anyone has any thoughts on this. Is the stuff you write in a transport of creativity better or worse than the stuff you labor over?

---dr.M.

Several weeks ago, had I got to the stage where it was an uphill battle to write even a couple of sentences because it just didn't seem to flow right, I would have left it and came back to it a week or a month later. Now I just keep going, and when I've come up on the other side for air, I am extremely surprised with what I have written and how much I like it. And I've found, when writing a story that was like carrying rocks over large distances, it's ended up with the same or better ratings as my other stories. Weird.

A flurry of creativity is fantastic when it happens, and I'm always conscious that editing may remove those traces of enthusiam or motivation that gave me the drive to write the story in the first pace. But I've also found that 'carrying rocks' makes you think twice as hard about why that word should be there, and whether the word before it and after it fits. And I think this translates to the reader in an extremely positive way.

And Dr M, if you're reading this - bloody well stop and get back to writing that story! There are heaps of people here waiting to read it!

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Re: Re: Re: Going with the flow vs. carrying rocks

I think probably that Mab's seeing a story written by carrying rocks as less 'readable'(?) than those written when the fingers are flying is more likely due to the fact that he's seeing it from the author's view.

If a story is well written and can transport the reader into the author's world then you can't actually tell which parts were easy and which hard won. And what is a story for if not to be read?

Gauche

Yeah. That's about it.

Normally when I get to the sex scene in a story, I'm pretty into it. The writing becomes almost automatic, and I think my own emotions come out in the words and give them some life.

There have been times, though, where it wasn't like that, and I had to sit and think about every move my lovers made and every thought and feeling they had. It just always seems to me that the effort I put into like those tough stretches is going to show in the final product, which will seem stiff and kind of self-conscious.

Sometimes I think about a story having 'hammer marks': those parts where you can see where the author really had to bang away at a story to get it to fit together, or had to labor over a part of it because the words didn't come easy. I see hammer marks all over my stuff, and I assume that probably most authors see them in their stuff as well. So my question was: do you think that readers see them as well?

I always expect that they do, but my own experience has been that they don't. At least not always.

I guess I could also phrase the question this way: is it possible to edit freshness and spontaneity into your words, or do they have to be written that way from the start?

---dr.M.

 

[damppanties]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Going with the flow vs. carrying rocks

Sometimes I think about a story having 'hammer marks': those parts where you can see where the author really had to bang away at a story to get it to fit together, or had to labor over a part of it because the words didn't come easy. I see hammer marks all over my stuff, and I assume that probably most authors see them in their stuff as well. So my question was: do you think that readers see them as well?

Of course not. How can the reader's perception and the author's be the same?

I guess I could also phrase the question this way: is it possible to edit freshness and spontaneity into your words, or do they have to be written that way from the start?

Sheesh doc! How do you edit freshness and spontaniety into the writing? It's such a contradiction.

I'm questioning the importance of freshness and spontaniety here. I mean, I think most people who have written something new (I think you mean it that way) have thought about it before writing it. Do you think they've been sitting at the keyboard typing away and suddenly it popped into their mind and they wrote it out? I don't.

 

[cantdog]

freshness and automatic writing

It's weird how little we perceive of what goes on in the deeper layers of the mind. To say, "Don't you think we must have thought about it?" is such a trip, really.

Maybe there's less difference between writing that feels like blue-sky winging it and writing that feels like cautious craftsmanship than we believe.

That writer's workshop Og and some of the others here participated in showed them that you can bull right along and somehow a lot of the crafty coolness of nuance and meaning still comes out. And in a big hurry, too.

Maybe Charley and I are too critical of our rapidly spewed out moments and should forget how they showed up and let them speak as they are a little more.

 

[BohemianEcstasy]

I just wonder if anyone has any thoughts on this. Is the stuff you write in a transport of creativity better or worse than the stuff you labor over?

---dr.M. [/B]

My short story of which I am the most proud took me nearly two years to write. Two years! And it's only, what, twelve pages? And I'm not just proud of it because I finished it, but because my character development was really sincere--I felt as if I knew my main character personally. The plot, also, was thought-provoking without being trite, but that line is crossed at different places for different people: some may consider it to be a bit melodramatic. And because I only wrote one scene (or a fraction of a scene, in some cases) at a time, the prose was a bit more intricate than my usual style. Granted, if all of my stories are like that, I'll never finish any of them ever again, because I don't have the patience to knock out but five stories per decade. But I think that something can be said for a more laboured stories, as long as they're edited thoroughly to make sure that nothing's too awkward and that everything's consistent.

Does that even make sense? :S

 

[Guest]

I thought carrying rocks was better until NaNoWriMo.

10 of my 12 NaNoWriMo chapters still have Hs - a hit rate I have yet to surpass.

They were written at high speed with minimal editing.

Why carry rocks when it seems that flow works better?

Og

I've gotta echo Og here! I truly believe the novel I wrote during NaNo is the best thing I've ever written.

If I'm not in that zone, where the words are just flying from my fingers, and I'm barely thinking about what I'm actually typing, it is damn hard work. And, I believe, the actual writing comes out as stilted, forced crap. But, that's just my opinion of my own writing.

Lou

 

[cloudy]

The bursts are certainly easier, but better? I really don't know. I spend a lot of non-writing, down-type time, i.e driving, etc., thinking over the story I'm writing at the moment. As a result some of the stuff I write flows pretty easily from my hands, but I've actually been "working" on it for hours.

Just recently I'd run into a true, hard-core writer's block and just couldn't see my way around it from any angle. It seemed like the story just stopped, even though I knew there was more to be told.

This afternoon, after driving my son to his dad's, I had a nice, solid two hours to mull it over, and came up with a solution that I quickly put on paper (or disk, actually) when I got home. Seemed easy when I was typing it, but it hadn't been easy to get to that point. I wasn't actually sitting here trying to write when the solution hit me, but in my mind its still "writing." I'd wager most of us do that, at least occasionally.

Don't know if that answered your question, Dr. M., or not, but I think about the story all the time when my mind's not immediately occupied with something else.

 

[wildsweetone]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Going with the flow vs. carrying rocks

is it possible to edit freshness and spontaneity into your words, or do they have to be written that way from the start?

---dr.M.

Yes, it's possible to edit freshness and spontaneity into the words. I see it when I'm looking at short shorts. Cutting out the garbage and just getting down to the story brings out a certain freshness, a cleaning up of the act if you will. Re-reading, switching some words, losing verbiage... all helps to tighten the language and add finishing touches to the writing.

In my opinion, it also depends on how long the writing has rested before the editing begins. Something that is edited as soon as the writing has finished is nowhere near as good as it could be had the writing been left to rest until the author has some distance from the work.