[WR] Take Your Time (Was Re: Three new postings)
patricia
>If you want to become a better writer,
>take some writing classes, join
>a writer's group, attend seminars,
>subscribe to journals that match
>your interests, read, ask questions, post
>to newsgroups, make writing your life.
I would add that beginning writers are (usually) best served by spending a lot
of time working on just one piece, rather than dashing off a series of pieces
without "fussing" with them for a while. It's in the "fussing" that a great
deal of learning takes place.
I'm reminded of a writing workshop I took years ago with a prominent novelist.
Each week I brought in pages and pages of material, churned out in great haste
because I was "hot" to write the book. Finally the novelist said to me, "Your
assignment this week is to *not* write all these pages. Instead I want you to
spend all seven days perfecting just one paragraph, so that it is the most
perfect paragraph ever written."
What a difficult task that was! First, I had to slam on the brakes without
derailing my novel completely. Then I had to face the fact that the first
paragraph I dashed off was awful. Then I had to learn how to nit-pick, polish,
and perfect my work without giving up in frustration. And *then* I had to
learn to recognize when the darned thing was actually "finished." (Although I
must admit that you're never *completely* ready to let a piece of writing go.)
So my advice to Jennifer is this: produce fewer "finished" pieces and spend
more time perfecting your work. Don't be afraid to take a lot of time on
something; leave speed-writing for people with more experience.
-- patricia
SereneBabe
[snip]
> I would add that beginning writers are (usually) best served by spending a lot
> of time working on just one piece, rather than dashing off a series of pieces
> without "fussing" with them for a while. It's in the "fussing" that a great
> deal of learning takes place.
[snip]
> So my advice to Jennifer is this: produce fewer "finished" pieces and spend
> more time perfecting your work. Don't be afraid to take a lot of time on
> something; leave speed-writing for people with more experience.
Hrmmm...
As a beginning writer myself, I've got to disagree with you, Patricia.
I think what's most important for beginning writers is that we write, write, and
write.
The "fussing" is the stuff that's so difficult I stopped writing for a long, long
time.
Perhaps I'm proving your point -- the "fussing" is really hard work.
For me, though, as I begin I need to find it "easy." I need to write and write and
write and write and not worry if it's "good" or not. I need to write and write and
write and write and not feel like everything I write needs to be so important that
I keep it and "fuss" with it.
So, I guess what I think is most important for beginners is that we do whatever it
takes to keep us writing.
The "fussing" is still the part I really, really don't know how to do well. I'm
beginning to look at that whole process now but I've been beginning for a while
now.
:-)
Heather
***********
"It's All About Me!" (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.com/
April 19: Is it Really More Valuable than Sex?
Hal
The thing that's missing, Heather, is the rewrite and rewrite and
rewrite and rewrite and rewrite. You have to learn what you're doing
wrong, otherwise it will stay the same no matter how many hundreds of
thousands of pages of first-draft you turn out. The last paragraph is
as bad as the first.
Hal
MaBear
<newsg...@serenebabe.com> wrote:
<....>
>I think what's most important for beginning writers is that we write, write, and
>write.
>
>The "fussing" is the stuff that's so difficult I stopped writing for a long, long
>time.
>
>Perhaps I'm proving your point -- the "fussing" is really hard work.
>
>For me, though, as I begin I need to find it "easy." I need to write and write and
>write and write and not worry if it's "good" or not. I need to write and write and
>write and write and not feel like everything I write needs to be so important that
>I keep it and "fuss" with it.
>
>So, I guess what I think is most important for beginners is that we do whatever it
>takes to keep us writing.
Heather, this stuff is important for experienced writers, too. I
churn out gobs of stuff that's just dashed off in order to capture my
thoughts before they flit away. I'd be willing to bet that most, if
not all, of us do that. The difference between what an experienced,
serious writer does and what Jennifer has been doing is that the
experienced writer doesn't show it to the world when it's in that
state.
An experienced writer KNOWS that dashed-off stuff is BAAAAAAD. It's
rough as a dirt road after a gully-washer. It's just notes, noodlings,
ideas we're playing with. Pre-rough-draft stuff. It's just work
material or brain exercises, stretching mental muscles and cracking
our mental knuckles.
We keep it for just-in-case and for someday. I have notebooks and
disks full of stuff I might someday decide to use. I might clean it
up and polish it and submit it somewhere. Or maybe it's background
stuff, or things that can serve as springboards to other things.
Much of it is enjoyable enough to read just as it is, and my husband
sometimes looks at those things and says, "Hey! This is GOOD!" No,
it's not, and he's biased because he loves me (just as your parents
and best friends are biased and, therefore, aren't good or objective
critics of your work). No WAY is he gonna tell me it sucks like an
Electrolux, not if he wants to get any later on tonight, because he
thinks it would hurt my feelings (it wouldn't - I have a much
thicker hide than that, and besides, I can look at the thing and know
it sucks). But I know enough to separate what he's saying - he's
saying the thought - the idea or concept - is good. He's saying.
"Hey! You might really have something here!" But he's not critiquing
the WRITING (he wouldn't, anyway, because that's just not his field of
expertise, that's my bailiwick). In that stage, there isn't even any
"writing" TO critique - there's just scratchings and scribblings.
But I wouldn't show a single one of those bits to anyone, let alone
post them to an e-zine. They're just not ready to be sent out into
the world. Some of them may never be. Others may bring me some
decent bucks, but I will have done some hard work on them between
conception and finished product.
It's all a matter of taking pride in your work. If you take some
pride in your craft, you'll want the end product to be the best
possible piece you can turn out. You'll *work* at it. But you'll
never stop turning out those gobs and gobs of rough stuff, either.
You can't, because it's part of the process, part of what we do. The
trick is in knowing when a piece is worth saving and fussing over
until it's reached maturity, which ones are still toddling and
stumbling along, and which ones will never make it. The only ones you
send out into the world are the ones that can stand on their own two
feet and stand with pride.
MaBear
===========================================
Words are, of course, the most powerful
drug used by mankind.
-- Kipling
===========================================
To reply by e-mail, you must perform a numerectomy.
Alma Hromic
<newsg...@serenebabe.com> wrote:
>patricia wrote:
>[snip]
>> So my advice to Jennifer is this: produce fewer "finished" pieces and spend
>> more time perfecting your work. Don't be afraid to take a lot of time on
>> something; leave speed-writing for people with more experience.
>
>Hrmmm...
>
>As a beginning writer myself, I've got to disagree with you, Patricia.
>
>I think what's most important for beginning writers is that we write, write, and
>write.
yes, Babe. <g> write, indeed.
but the point was that both the writer and the hypothetical readers
would be better off if the writer didn't publish every scribble and
first draft. write write write, by all means. publish only the best,
though.
A.(jeez, i have written (when you reckoned it all up) probably close
to a couple of million words in my life so far - of that, two 200 000+
word novels alone. i haven't PUBLISHED much of that. some of it is
safely buried or burned. all it was good for was as practice runs for
the stuff that i DO consider publishable and which HAS seen the light
of day...)
***************
"The difference between journalism and literature
is that journalism is unreadable
and literature is unread."
Oscar Wilde
SereneBabe
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:36:06 GMT, SereneBabe
> <newsg...@serenebabe.com> wrote:
>
> >patricia wrote:
> >[snip]
>
> >> So my advice to Jennifer is this: produce fewer "finished" pieces and spend
> >> more time perfecting your work. Don't be afraid to take a lot of time on
> >> something; leave speed-writing for people with more experience.
> >
> >Hrmmm...
> >
> >As a beginning writer myself, I've got to disagree with you, Patricia.
> >
> >I think what's most important for beginning writers is that we write, write, and
> >write.
>
> yes, Babe. <g> write, indeed.
>
> but the point was that both the writer and the hypothetical readers
> would be better off if the writer didn't publish every scribble and
> first draft. write write write, by all means. publish only the best,
> though.
Y'know, I wasn't following this thread until it had a [WR] on it so I believe my
comments were taken within a context about which I wasn't aware.
Phew.
What a sentence.
That is, I didn't ever mean to imply that the stuff that's not been fussed over
should be shown to the world -- I look back on the stuff I used to post on my
website and it's quite embarrassing. Not too bad, though, because it got me where I
am today.
So, my post wasn't intended to say the un-fussed stuff is meant for the public if
that's what it seemed to imply.
I do think the process of working through the pieces and fussing over them and
improving them is what writing is really all about -- I just think that stuff is so
freakin' difficult sometimes a beginning writer might do well to forgive themselves
that process until they feel sure enough in their ability to churn out anything.
I'm not taking the time with this post to be sure it's concise and clear.
I hope my point was made.
Jennifer Farmer
heather
SereneBabe <newsg...@serenebabe.com> wrote in message
news:3900E542...@serenebabe.com...
> patricia wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > I would add that beginning writers are (usually) best served by spending
a lot
> > of time working on just one piece, rather than dashing off a series of
pieces
> > without "fussing" with them for a while. It's in the "fussing" that a
great
> > deal of learning takes place.
>
> [snip]
>
> > So my advice to Jennifer is this: produce fewer "finished" pieces and
spend
> > more time perfecting your work. Don't be afraid to take a lot of time
on
> > something; leave speed-writing for people with more experience.
>
> Hrmmm...
>
> As a beginning writer myself, I've got to disagree with you, Patricia.
>
> I think what's most important for beginning writers is that we write,
write, and
> write.
>
> The "fussing" is the stuff that's so difficult I stopped writing for a
long, long
> time.
>
> Perhaps I'm proving your point -- the "fussing" is really hard work.
>
> For me, though, as I begin I need to find it "easy." I need to write and
write and
> write and write and not worry if it's "good" or not. I need to write and
write and
> write and write and not feel like everything I write needs to be so
important that
> I keep it and "fuss" with it.
>
> So, I guess what I think is most important for beginners is that we do
whatever it
> takes to keep us writing.
>
> The "fussing" is still the part I really, really don't know how to do
well. I'm
> beginning to look at that whole process now but I've been beginning for a
while
> now.
>
Jennifer Farmer
This current events stuff was never really my original love. Poetry and
short stories is what I have done forever. My stories though are too long to
post where I do the current events, although I post some old poems. Now that
I am married though I lask the angst I had before to write the moody poems
again...The writing I do now just keeps my mind awake really so when I do
dust my notebooks off my mind isn't a bowl of mush.
MaBear <ma7b...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:38ffadd9...@news.earthlink.net...
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:36:06 GMT, SereneBabe
> <newsg...@serenebabe.com> wrote:
>
> <....>
> >I think what's most important for beginning writers is that we write,
write, and
> >write.
> >
> >The "fussing" is the stuff that's so difficult I stopped writing for a
long, long
> >time.
> >
> >Perhaps I'm proving your point -- the "fussing" is really hard work.
> >
> >For me, though, as I begin I need to find it "easy." I need to write and
write and
> >write and write and not worry if it's "good" or not. I need to write and
write and
> >write and write and not feel like everything I write needs to be so
important that
> >I keep it and "fuss" with it.
> >
> >So, I guess what I think is most important for beginners is that we do
whatever it
> >takes to keep us writing.
>
Bob Pastorio
>
> as if the heavens opened up and a light shined upon us all....thank you
> heather
The only problem with that viewpoint is that it makes the act of
writing something - anything, no matter how good or bad - the point.
Not whether the quality of the result justifies it, the mere act of
scrawling is the final point.
That isn't writing. It's more like printing. Maybe with crayons.
This is much like the difference between collecting and accumulating.
Collectors exercise discretion and strive to learn more and more.
Accumulators just add to the pile irrespective of worth.
If writing is a craft to develop, merely penning one word after
another without regard for the possible reader (and the writer's
possible growth as a writer) develops nothing beyond the muscles in
your hand.
The life unexamined is not worth living. Neither is "writing"
unexamined worth doing. It becomes either penmanship or typing.
Writing without reflection on the process and the product simply isn't
writing. It's much like blowing your nose, just not as wet.
Pastorio
> SereneBabe <newsg...@serenebabe.com> wrote in message
> news:3900E542...@serenebabe.com...
> > patricia wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > > I would add that beginning writers are (usually) best served by spending
> a lot
> > > of time working on just one piece, rather than dashing off a series of
> pieces
> > > without "fussing" with them for a while. It's in the "fussing" that a
> great
> > > deal of learning takes place.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > So my advice to Jennifer is this: produce fewer "finished" pieces and
> spend
> > > more time perfecting your work. Don't be afraid to take a lot of time
> on
> > > something; leave speed-writing for people with more experience.
> >
> > Hrmmm...
> >
> > As a beginning writer myself, I've got to disagree with you, Patricia.
> >
> > I think what's most important for beginning writers is that we write,
> write, and
> > write.
> >
> > The "fussing" is the stuff that's so difficult I stopped writing for a
> long, long
> > time.
> >
> > Perhaps I'm proving your point -- the "fussing" is really hard work.
> >
> > For me, though, as I begin I need to find it "easy." I need to write and
> write and
> > write and write and not worry if it's "good" or not. I need to write and
> write and
> > write and write and not feel like everything I write needs to be so
> important that
> > I keep it and "fuss" with it.
> >
> > So, I guess what I think is most important for beginners is that we do
> whatever it
> > takes to keep us writing.
> >
SereneBabe
> > SereneBabe <newsg...@serenebabe.com> wrote:
> > > patricia wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > I would add that beginning writers are (usually) best served by spending
> a lot
> > > > of time working on just one piece, rather than dashing off a series of
> pieces
> > > > without "fussing" with them for a while. It's in the "fussing" that a
> great
> > > > deal of learning takes place.
> > > [snip]
> > > > So my advice to Jennifer is this: produce fewer "finished" pieces and
> spend
> > > > more time perfecting your work. Don't be afraid to take a lot of time on
>
> > > > something; leave speed-writing for people with more experience.
> [snip]
> > > what I think is most important for beginners is that we do whatever it
> > > takes to keep us writing.
> [snip]
> The only problem with that viewpoint is that it makes the act of
> writing something - anything, no matter how good or bad - the point.
> Not whether the quality of the result justifies it, the mere act of
> scrawling is the final point.
>
> That isn't writing. It's more like printing. Maybe with crayons.
> [snip]
> The life unexamined is not worth living. Neither is "writing"
> unexamined worth doing. It becomes either penmanship or typing.
> Writing without reflection on the process and the product simply isn't
> writing
> [snip]
I could be way off, Bob, but perhaps you've forgotten what it's like to be
beginning?
In the beginning, the act of writing is often all that really matters.
In fact, if I focus on the product or if I spend time reflecting on the process
rather than *doing* the process, I don't write at all.
In the beginning -- the really, really beginning beginning -- getting the pen or
typing fingers moving is the greatest obstacle (in my experience).
I believe your reference to crayons is a bit condescending. I think perhaps
you're too far away from being a beginner to recognize/remember how the *doing*
of writing can really be all that matters.
Patricia, too, though almost invariably wise and empathetic to the beginners'
process, is a bit off base when she says the experienced writers are the ones who
should be doing the speed writing. If it weren't for just speed writing, spewing,
keeping the pen moving no matter what, I might not've ever enjoyed writing enough
to keep trying it on a deeper level. (Plus, some of my best stuff began as spew.)
I'll mention again that I came in to this thread mid-stream and what I said was
unintentionally implying that I thought the fussing didn't matter -- I think
un-fussed-with work shouldn't be given the same weight as fussed-with work.
However, it was the experience of putting my train of thought writings up on the
web for whoever stopped by to read that got me writing on a more "serious" level.
So, I think it's inaccurate to say that the crap stuff (which may not seem like
crap to the beginner who is just glad as hell to've gotten something written)
shouldn't be made public.
It's only been after a long, long, long time of just writing writing writing and
not stressing myself out about the product or finishing that I now am venturing
in to the experience of working with stuff I write after it's written.
Now, I am faced with the (almost) inability to just write stuff and share it with
the world without some consideration -- I think that's why I don't post to
newsgroups so much, too. My writing is becoming more valuable to me as an
expression of my skills, my talents, my abilities to communicate and I'm less
comfortable with the stuff (like this post) I write without working on it for a
while.
I think both you (Bob) and Patricia are spot-on that paying attention to the
process and putting sometimes excrutiating efforts into working and reworking our
writing is an absolute necessity in creating good writing. I think it's also
something us beginners really, really have to do -- the "fussing" is definitely
what's most difficult for me.
However, if I felt I had to spend time on one single piece and bring it to a
"finished" state before I could move on to the funner stuff again, I might not've
written enough to get where I am right now.
Finger painting can be really, really fun.
Finger painting doesn't have to be only pointless fun, though.
In the sloppy schmeering of the messy colors we can find textures and blends we
might have never found it we went immediately to the sable brushes.
:-)
-- Heather
Alma Hromic
<newsg...@serenebabe.com> wrote:
>I could be way off, Bob, but perhaps you've forgotten what it's like to be
>beginning?
>In the beginning, the act of writing is often all that really matters.
>In fact, if I focus on the product or if I spend time reflecting on the process
>rather than *doing* the process, I don't write at all.
>In the beginning -- the really, really beginning beginning -- getting the pen or
>typing fingers moving is the greatest obstacle (in my experience).
you have to get over that if you're going to get anyhere, though.
being in the "beginning" stages does not give you carte blanche to
write just anything and insist that it is read and approved of. when
you are in teh beginning you KNOW that you are in teh beginning and
you stay in that cocoon until you are ready to start having people
read and judge what you write and not have a juvenile hissy fit when
someone tells you it needs work (as jennifer did). and if dealing with
a project in depth scares you off writing, then you have a smidge of
trouble. it shouldn't be an obstacle. it should be a goal.
>I believe your reference to crayons is a bit condescending. I think perhaps
>you're too far away from being a beginner to recognize/remember how the *doing*
>of writing can really be all that matters.
no, it wasn't condescending. and (speaking for myself) i do know what
it's like to be a beginnign writer. i'm always ready to offer
constructive criticism to total beginners with stars in their eyes who
WANT TO WRITE more than anything else on this planet. hell, i teach
writing; that comes with the territory. but i would never tell anybody
i reach out to in that way to cram all their first-draft crap straight
onto a webpage and wait for the world to fawn upon it. the "doing" of
writing is a great and wonderful thing, but it is not the be-all and
the end-all. it is a first step. and the sooner the "beginning" people
come to terms with that fact the sooner they can start producing
something that they can be proud of for what it actually is and not
just because it happens to be a page of words they strung together on
the page.
>Patricia, too, though almost invariably wise and empathetic to the beginners'
>process, is a bit off base when she says the experienced writers are the ones who
>should be doing the speed writing. If it weren't for just speed writing, spewing,
>keeping the pen moving no matter what, I might not've ever enjoyed writing enough
>to keep trying it on a deeper level. (Plus, some of my best stuff began as spew.)
"BEGAN" as a spew. you DID go back and fix stuff, though, didn't you?
and i wish you wouldn't dismiss seasoned professional advice as just
the chatter of people who have "forgotten how it was to be a
beginner". none of us have. all we are doing is pointing out to those
who ARE beginners in the craft that there is no point in just dashing
off anything at all and calling yourself a writer.
>I'll mention again that I came in to this thread mid-stream and what I said was
>unintentionally implying that I thought the fussing didn't matter -- I think
>un-fussed-with work shouldn't be given the same weight as fussed-with work.
>However, it was the experience of putting my train of thought writings up on the
>web for whoever stopped by to read that got me writing on a more "serious" level.
>So, I think it's inaccurate to say that the crap stuff (which may not seem like
>crap to the beginner who is just glad as hell to've gotten something written)
>shouldn't be made public.
that's wrong. that's just wrong. that's holding up the web as a
legitimate publishing arena, simply because so many people agree with
you and use it as a dumping ground for every spew and maunder that got
flapped onto a "page". i'm not trying to make you stop "enjoying" your
writing. all i'm saying is that if you are in any way serious about it
you will NOT post things that should never see the light of day, just
because they have been written by you. it was great to write them, you
needed to go through the process of creating them, and that is fine;
but then you either put them aside as practice runs or you go back to
them and make them better until they're as good as you know how to
make them before you make them public. and if you consider that
"fussing" then you're never going to get PAST being a beginner. why
bother improving at all if anything you write, however awful, has a
place where it is published?
>It's only been after a long, long, long time of just writing writing writing and
>not stressing myself out about the product or finishing that I now am venturing
>in to the experience of working with stuff I write after it's written.
so - you've gone into stage two.
>Now, I am faced with the (almost) inability to just write stuff and share it with
>the world without some consideration -- I think that's why I don't post to
>newsgroups so much, too. My writing is becoming more valuable to me as an
>expression of my skills, my talents, my abilities to communicate and I'm less
>comfortable with the stuff (like this post) I write without working on it for a
>while.
usenet and WRITING writing are two very different things.
>I think both you (Bob) and Patricia are spot-on that paying attention to the
>process and putting sometimes excrutiating efforts into working and reworking our
>writing is an absolute necessity in creating good writing. I think it's also
>something us beginners really, really have to do -- the "fussing" is definitely
>what's most difficult for me. However, if I felt I had to spend time on one single piece
>and bring it to a "finished" state before I could move on to the funner stuff again, I might
>not've written enough to get where I am right now.
<sigh> yes, dear. like people keep saying, the writing itself is not a
problem, it's the insistence of "publishing" such "writing" and then
expecting it to be accepted with acclamation.
and you DO have to bring a piece to a finished state before you can do
anything professional with it. that's a hard fact. no, it isn't fun,
but if you want to be a writer you have to live with it. and who said
writing was all fun, anyway?
>Finger painting can be really, really fun.
sure. ever seen a professional exhibition of fingerpainting, though?
>Finger painting doesn't have to be only pointless fun, though.
>In the sloppy schmeering of the messy colors we can find textures and blends we
>might have never found it we went immediately to the sable brushes.
nobody is ASKING you to go immediately to teh sable brushes. just not
to show the daubs until you've mastered the technique enough to use
the sable brushes if you need to.
nobody is telling anyone to stop writing. just, if they wish to be
considered good writers, to be careful about what they consider
publishable.
A.
SereneBabe
[snip]
> and i wish you wouldn't dismiss seasoned professional advice as just
> the chatter of people who have "forgotten how it was to be a
> beginner". none of us have. all we are doing is pointing out to those
> who ARE beginners in the craft that there is no point in just dashing
> off anything at all and calling yourself a writer.
[snip]
I would never, ever dismiss advice whether from seasoned professionals or other beginners.
I still disagree with the idea that there "is no point in dashing off anything at all and
calling yourself a writer." I believe doing just that is often an essential step in the process
of becoming "a writer."
While I've said it before, I'll say it again: I came in to this thread mid-stream and my
comments were never meant to imply the
spewspewspewandjustwritewritewritedon'tstopjustkeepwritingnomatterwhat products are meant for
publication or even for the public (unless it can help the new writer stay motivated enough to
get to the fussing experience).
--Heather
Bob Pastorio
> > > > [snip]
> beginning?
You're making a serious mistake here. You assume that your experience
holds for all beginners. And, yes, you're way off with this. It most
assuredly has been a long time and a lot of words since I was a
beginner, but I still feel the thrill (I picked that word carefully)
when I see what I've written in print. That beginning desire and need
still obtains decades after I first recognized it.
> In the beginning, the act of writing is often all that really matters.
>
> In fact, if I focus on the product or if I spend time reflecting on the process
> rather than *doing* the process, I don't write at all.
>
> In the beginning -- the really, really beginning beginning -- getting the pen or
> typing fingers moving is the greatest obstacle (in my experience).
>
> I believe your reference to crayons is a bit condescending. I think perhaps
> you're too far away from being a beginner to recognize/remember how the *doing*
> of writing can really be all that matters.
Sorry, no. My experience is that writing isn't something I have to
force. Today, I'll write two different columns that will appear this
Wednesday. I have no idea what they'll be about right now. In a
while, I'll look through my ideas files and see what strikes my
interest. And then I'll write and polish the two columns. Email them
to the newspapers and I'm done with them until next Sunday.
I believe your reference to what needs be the case for all beginners
is misplaced. I especially question that the pattern you recognize in
yourself is the only way to operate, even for you. As though some
external force has designed the way you work and you have no choice
but to follow it.
> Patricia, too, though almost invariably wise and empathetic to the beginners'
> process, is a bit off base when she says the experienced writers are the ones who
> should be doing the speed writing. If it weren't for just speed writing, spewing,
> keeping the pen moving no matter what, I might not've ever enjoyed writing enough
> to keep trying it on a deeper level. (Plus, some of my best stuff began as spew.)
>
> I'll mention again that I came in to this thread mid-stream and what I said was
> unintentionally implying that I thought the fussing didn't matter -- I think
> un-fussed-with work shouldn't be given the same weight as fussed-with work.
>
> However, it was the experience of putting my train of thought writings up on the
> web for whoever stopped by to read that got me writing on a more "serious" level.
> So, I think it's inaccurate to say that the crap stuff (which may not seem like
> crap to the beginner who is just glad as hell to've gotten something written)
> shouldn't be made public.
And do you remember the criticism you got from the folks here? And
how hurt and defensive you were?
> It's only been after a long, long, long time of just writing writing writing and
> not stressing myself out about the product or finishing that I now am venturing
> in to the experience of working with stuff I write after it's written.
>
> Now, I am faced with the (almost) inability to just write stuff and share it with
> the world without some consideration -- I think that's why I don't post to
> newsgroups so much, too. My writing is becoming more valuable to me as an
> expression of my skills, my talents, my abilities to communicate and I'm less
> comfortable with the stuff (like this post) I write without working on it for a
> while.
While I think it should be more about what readers can get out of it.
My writing certainly isn't devoid of my thinking and filtering, but it
finally is about what the benefit to the reader is. If it doesn't
return a value greater than the time and effort they expend, I have
failed as a writer.
> I think both you (Bob) and Patricia are spot-on that paying attention to the
> process and putting sometimes excrutiating efforts into working and reworking our
> writing is an absolute necessity in creating good writing. I think it's also
> something us beginners really, really have to do -- the "fussing" is definitely
> what's most difficult for me.
>
> However, if I felt I had to spend time on one single piece and bring it to a
> "finished" state before I could move on to the funner stuff again, I might not've
> written enough to get where I am right now.
...funner...?
> Finger painting can be really, really fun.
>
> Finger painting doesn't have to be only pointless fun, though.
>
> In the sloppy schmeering of the messy colors we can find textures and blends we
> might have never found it we went immediately to the sable brushes.
This is simply silly. If it's fun you want and it's fun to write
without regard to anything beyond that action, have at it. Don't call
it writing. Maybe effusing. Maybe spewing. Maybe some other words
for mental evacuation. The point is that implicit in calling the
product writing (in a setting for writers), implicit is that it be a
self-aware process. Implicit is that it be sufficiently developed as
to have enough meaning for another person that they attain some
comprehension of the points being made.
Anything else is making a diary.
This feels to me like telling a carpenter to just keep sawing away, no
matter the product. Or telling a cook to just fry anything and don't
worry about eating. Telling a welder to just keep making one piece
out of two, don't worry if anything is accomplished.
Fingerpainting is to any recognized and valuable painting like gummy
bears are to grizzly bears.
Dabbling at paint is ultimately the same as writing with no regard for
the product. It's a waste of time and energy if it is its own
rationalization. No information comes of it until the necessary
analysis begins to make scrawls into sentences and sentences into
paragraphs. It isn't until critique becomes an integral part of it
that it even hints at being writing. And not necessarily even then.
Pastorio
SereneBabe
anything at all without the pressure of revisions or "fussing."
If I perceived or believed the only path to learning writing required extensive
re-working of the stuff, I can bet you big money I'd've had an even more difficult
time letting myself get into the experience.
It is my belief (based on my experience) that many writers require a similar
experience of granting themselves "permission" to fingerpaint with words before
creating masterpieces.
Miscommunication abounds so easily, it's impressive.
I intentionally use words like "funner" when they sound the way I'd like.
For me, writing is almost entirely about how it sounds. Almost secondary (but actually
on an equal level) is the effectiveness of communication.
Barbara Lake
>
> When I began writing I found it necessary to give myself "permission" to write
> anything at all without the pressure of revisions or "fussing."
>
> If I perceived or believed the only path to learning writing required extensive
> re-working of the stuff, I can bet you big money I'd've had an even more difficult
> time letting myself get into the experience.
>
> It is my belief (based on my experience) that many writers require a similar
> experience of granting themselves "permission" to fingerpaint with words before
> creating masterpieces.
>
> Miscommunication abounds so easily, it's impressive.
>
> I intentionally use words like "funner" when they sound the way I'd like.
>
> For me, writing is almost entirely about how it sounds. Almost secondary (but actually
> on an equal level) is the effectiveness of communication.
I think we've all indulged in this "stream of consciousness" kind of
writing at one point or another. What's important is that you
understood that unless you put the effort of "revisions and fussing"
into it, it was NOT fit for publication. I'm willing to bet you never
put any of these early efforts out on a public forum to be read.
Barbara
--
http://www.mindspring.com/~bglake
Prince Richard Kaminski
SereneBabe wrote:
> Now, I am faced with the (almost) inability to just write stuff and share it with
> the world without some consideration -- I think that's why I don't post to
> newsgroups so much, too. My writing is becoming more valuable to me as an
> expression of my skills, my talents, my abilities to communicate and I'm less
> comfortable with the stuff (like this post) I write without working on it for a
> while.
To me, a newsgroup post is more like talking to someone than actual "writing", even
if it is obviously done in that format. I occasionally look over something I've
written before I send it, because there's always something you can improve. Usually,
I don't, though. And I would definitely recommend that for "real" writing, by which I
suppose I mean the stuff that you get paid for (or that you want one day to be paid
for). But I don't think it's necessary for just bashing out an opinion on Usenet. I
mean, yes, it's all "writing" in the technical sense. But just as there is a vast
difference between having a conversation with a friend, and making a public speech,
not all "writing" is the same thing, by any means.
> I think both you (Bob) and Patricia are spot-on that paying attention to the
> process and putting sometimes excrutiating efforts into working and reworking our
> writing is an absolute necessity in creating good writing. I think it's also
> something us beginners really, really have to do -- the "fussing" is definitely
> what's most difficult for me.
Don't do it if your heart isn't in it. I've never gone to those lengths myself. (Not
that I am a big shot writer or anything, but I did use to work as a fullt-time
journalist, and have been involved in languages and writing for all of my life.) I
think it's just a case of personalities. Different strokes for different folks. Some
people are happier if they plan everything beforehand, making detailed notes about
characters, plot etc, and others just churn out their novels (I just use the case of
novels as an example), and let everything take care of itself. I don't think one
method is any better than the other, it's just a case of what works better for the
writer him or her self.
You are only judged by what you produce, not however you may choose to produce it.
Some famous writers in history have rewritten things countless times, and others have
just churned things out as they were. It's just a question of how happy people are
with their own way of working. I don't think there's any value in doing something
which is against your own nature, just because someone tells you to. On the other
hand, it's always good to at least think about advice you receive, because some of it
may be useful even if you don't swallow it wholesale.
>
> However, if I felt I had to spend time on one single piece and bring it to a
> "finished" state before I could move on to the funner stuff again, I might not've
> written enough to get where I am right now.
What's finished anyway? If you think about a painting, there's always something that
could be added or taken away. It's the same with a piece of writing, especially in
this era of computers where it is so easy to change and amend what you have written.
In the end, you just have to decide "enough is enough" and it's going out. It's
easier of course if you have an editor who can make any final adjustments. If not,
then you take the ultimate responsibility yourself, but I suppose that's what most
writers want anyway.
Ol' Northwest
>
> SereneBabe wrote:
>
>
> What's finished anyway? If you think about a painting, there's always something that
> could be added or taken away. It's the same with a piece of writing, especially in
> this era of computers where it is so easy to change and amend what you have written.
> In the end, you just have to decide "enough is enough" and it's going out. It's
> easier of course if you have an editor who can make any final adjustments. If not,
> then you take the ultimate responsibility yourself, but I suppose that's what most
> writers want anyway.
Here's a question: I've had experience painting where I didn't stop in
time, and what would have been a highly satisfactory piece got
overworked to the point where I had to give up on it.
Is it possible to overwrite/revise/fine tune a written piece to where
the texture (for want of a better word) is lost?
Nelson
Alan Hope
schlafend, und sprach zu ihnen:
>SereneBabe wrote:
>What's finished anyway? If you think about a painting, there's always something that
>could be added or taken away. It's the same with a piece of writing, especially in
>this era of computers where it is so easy to change and amend what you have written.
>In the end, you just have to decide "enough is enough" and it's going out. It's
>easier of course if you have an editor who can make any final adjustments. If not,
>then you take the ultimate responsibility yourself, but I suppose that's what most
>writers want anyway.
And the answer's a melon that colour.
AH
Frank Raymond Michaels
wrote:
> Here's a question: I've had experience painting where I didn't stop in
>time, and what would have been a highly satisfactory piece got
>overworked to the point where I had to give up on it.
> Is it possible to overwrite/revise/fine tune a written piece to where
>the texture (for want of a better word) is lost?
> Nelson
In a word, abso-frickin'-lutely.
Take any endeavor that requires craft, and know you can go past the
point of completion to disaster: an artist can ruin a painting by not
stopping when it's done, a chef can overcook a steak, a diamondcutter
can ruin a priceless stone with one cut too many, and a writer can
overwork a piece of prose to death.
Speaking personally, it happened to my one (and only, likely)
full-length screenplay. The producer was an Indie-film guy on a Left
Coast, a college buddy of mine, a fellow of no small skill at the art
of film. He's also a fan of my very-very-small body of work, and asked
me to write him a screenplay. So I did. After three years and seven
complete rewrites, I couldn't stand to look at the thing anymore. The
flavor had been leeched out of it, it was limp and colorless, albeit
technically "perfect". He opted not to use it, and we parted ways.
By habit I am a very slow, over-careful writer; I write at the speed
of accretion, I edit at the pace of erosion. But in spite of all that,
I am now careful not to "over-write" a piece.
----------------------
Frank Raymond Michaels ("And I jump at the word 'screenplay'...")
The Horror Fiction Page: http://i2.i-2000.com/~frankmi
Alma Hromic
Michaels) wrote:
<snip>
>By habit I am a very slow, over-careful writer; I write at the speed
>of accretion, I edit at the pace of erosion.
wow, what an image. can i keep it? <G>
Andrew Csonka
Dear Heather:
I'm only a beginner, but it seems to me, whether in fiction or
non-fiction, unlike poetry, the blessed state of grace, the highest
station amongst our peers, is reserved by coherence and cohesion. To
clothe in words our meaning. Our greatest sin: ambiguity.
The poet allows me the luxury to imagine (to interpret any way I
please) and by default become an accomplice in the art. Sigh!
And I did sigh, because to be misunderstood is hell. Eternally
damned like Sisyphus. Forever trying to complete the task of explaining
each new explanation.
--
"...so seductively superior, so
seductively
self-effacing
deprecatingly
superior." D.H.Lawrence
SereneBabe
> > SereneBabe wrote:
> [snip]
> You are only judged by what you produce, not however you may choose to produce it.
> Some famous writers in history have rewritten things countless times, and others have
> just churned things out as they were. It's just a question of how happy people are
> with their own way of working. I don't think there's any value in doing something
> which is against your own nature, just because someone tells you to. On the other
> hand, it's always good to at least think about advice you receive, because some of it
> may be useful even if you don't swallow it wholesale.
>
> > However, if I felt I had to spend time on one single piece and bring it to a
> > "finished" state before I could move on to the funner stuff again, I might not've
> > written enough to get where I am right now.
>
> What's finished anyway? If you think about a painting, there's always something that
> could be added or taken away. It's the same with a piece of writing, especially in
> this era of computers where it is so easy to change and amend what you have written.
> In the end, you just have to decide "enough is enough" and it's going out. It's
> easier of course if you have an editor who can make any final adjustments. If not,
> then you take the ultimate responsibility yourself, but I suppose that's what most
> writers want anyway.
I enjoyed those two paragraphs of yours so very, very much!
Sometimes I find a topic so tremendous, deciding which parts I should address feels
overwhelming.
How do you (meaning the collective "you" of misc.writing) decide what you'll write
about? (the topics about which you will write)
Is it something in your deepest soul just yearning to break out?
Do you toss ideas about and imagine writing on that subject until something strikes you
as worth it? (That's what I do.)
Do you give yourself assignments?
What do you do?
-- Heather
***********
"It's All About Me!" (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.com/
April 26: Loving, Being Loved
SereneBabe
> SereneBabe wrote:
> [snip]
> > It is my belief (based on my experience) that many writers require a
> similar
> > experience of granting themselves "permission" to fingerpaint with
> words before
> > creating masterpieces.
> [snip]
> > For me, writing is almost entirely about how it sounds. Almost
> secondary (but actually
> > on an equal level) is the effectiveness of communication.
>
> I think we've all indulged in this "stream of consciousness"
> kind of
> writing at one point or another. What's important is that you
> understood that unless you put the effort of "revisions and fussing"
> into it, it was NOT fit for publication. I'm willing to bet you never
>
> put any of these early efforts out on a public forum to be read.
and then, nancy wrote:
> the voices are telling me that on (date here), SereneBabe
> seren...@serenebabe.com said:
> [snip]
> >If I perceived or believed the only path to learning writing
> >required extensive re-working of the stuff, I can bet you big
> >money I'd've had an even more difficult time letting myself
> >get into the experience.
>
> and now that you are into the experience, do you not
> find yourself going back over your work before
> putting it up for publication? making sure it says
> precisely what you want it to say?
[snip]
Actually, I did put this un-worked-on stuff in the public realm even
though, yes, it was NOT fit for publication.
Back then, though, I had absolutely no personal boundaries at all.
And, yes, now I'd never show anyone my un-fussed-with writings.
--Heather
***********
"It's All About Me!" (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.com/
April 19: Is it Really More Valuable than Sex?
SereneBabe
> the voices are telling me that on (date here), SereneBabe
> seren...@serenebabe.com said:
> [snip]
> >I intentionally use words like "funner" when they sound the
> >way I'd like.
>
> i make up words too. part of the joy of writing
> and communication is in this, i feel. finding a
> new way to use a word and still convey meaning, or
> deliberately choosing a wrong word to make some sort
> of impact is an enjoyable thing, imo. it irritates
> some language purists, but fuck 'em.
>
> (no, bob, i wasn't implying you're a language
> purist)
>
> >For me, writing is almost entirely about how it sounds.
> >Almost secondary (but actually on an equal level) is the
> >effectiveness of communication.
>
> i love rhythm and flow in writing. but i find a need
> to communicate effectively at the same time. for me,
> then they are both important.
While I'll make up words or use hyphens (often too) liberally, I also
adore being terribly precise.
It all depends on my mood or how the thing I'm writing *feels.*
-- Heather
SereneBabe
> Prince Richard Kaminski wrote:
> >
> > SereneBabe wrote:
> >
> >
> > What's finished anyway? If you think about a painting, there's always something that
> > could be added or taken away. It's the same with a piece of writing, especially in
> > this era of computers where it is so easy to change and amend what you have written.
> > In the end, you just have to decide "enough is enough" and it's going out. It's
> > easier of course if you have an editor who can make any final adjustments. If not,
> > then you take the ultimate responsibility yourself, but I suppose that's what most
> > writers want anyway.
>
> Here's a question: I've had experience painting where I didn't stop in
> time, and what would have been a highly satisfactory piece got
> overworked to the point where I had to give up on it.
> Is it possible to overwrite/revise/fine tune a written piece to where
> the texture (for want of a better word) is lost?
> Nelson
First, I think it's important to note that Prince Richard is the author of the paragraph
you quoted (it's a good paragraph, I don't want to steal it).
And, to answer your question...
YES!
Oh, goodness, I do that all the time!
Learning when to stop is one of the most difficult challenges for me in the "fussing"
process of creativity.
-- Heather
***********
"It's All About Me!" (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.com/
April 26: Loving, Being Loved
RDeschene
<bgl...@mindspring-IFIGHTSPAM.com> wrote:
>SereneBabe wrote:
>>
>> When I began writing I found it necessary to give myself "permission" to write
>> anything at all without the pressure of revisions or "fussing."
>>
>> If I perceived or believed the only path to learning writing required extensive
>> re-working of the stuff, I can bet you big money I'd've had an even more difficult
>> time letting myself get into the experience.
>>
>> It is my belief (based on my experience) that many writers require a similar
>> experience of granting themselves "permission" to fingerpaint with words before
>> creating masterpieces.
>>
>> Miscommunication abounds so easily, it's impressive.
>>
>> I intentionally use words like "funner" when they sound the way I'd like.
>>
>> For me, writing is almost entirely about how it sounds. Almost secondary (but actually
>> on an equal level) is the effectiveness of communication.
>
> I think we've all indulged in this "stream of consciousness" kind of
>writing at one point or another. What's important is that you
>understood that unless you put the effort of "revisions and fussing"
>into it, it was NOT fit for publication. I'm willing to bet you never
>put any of these early efforts out on a public forum to be read.
>
Strange, but when I wrote on deadline for a daily newspaper, that was
pretty much how many of my "on deadline" stories were written. I was
lucky if I had a chance to look over what I'd written, much less edit
it. But it was published. Are journalists considered "real writers"?
Granted, I'm not one of those people who could crank out flawless copy
in five minutes. I knew people who could do it, and envied them. I'm
much, much slower . . . which is one of many reasons why I chose to
leave the newspaper business. The pace was not for me. I need lots of
time to edit, revise, ruminate, etc. I did have that time for feature
stories, but often didn't have it for hard news stories. And, in my
case, the lack of time and attention showed.
So, that's why I gave fiction writing a try. Still trying to figure
out the "Am I a real writer?" question, but at least now I have time
to see if my socks match.
Sue
Barbara Lake
Of course. Some of them write really good copy fast. I don't.
>
> Granted, I'm not one of those people who could crank out flawless copy
> in five minutes. I knew people who could do it, and envied them. I'm
> much, much slower . . . which is one of many reasons why I chose to
> leave the newspaper business. The pace was not for me. I need lots of
> time to edit, revise, ruminate, etc. I did have that time for feature
> stories, but often didn't have it for hard news stories. And, in my
> case, the lack of time and attention showed.
I'm slow, too. That's why I freelance. No piece gets faxed off of my
computer without at least 3 revisions. I do features and guest columns.
> So, that's why I gave fiction writing a try. Still trying to figure
> out the "Am I a real writer?" question, but at least now I have time
> to see if my socks match.
I don't know what makes a "real writer." Either one writes or one
doesn't. Either one tries to (and does) improve or one doesn't. You
are a *professional writer* when you string words together that an
editor is willing to pay for -- and people are willing to read. A good
nonfiction piece uses much of the same techniques used in fiction, i.e.,
a good hook opening, conflict, resolution, and satisfying ending. In
nonfiction, the writer also must weave in quotes in a manner that moves
the story forward. Yes, Sue, you *are* a real writer.
Barbara
--
http://www.mindspring.com/~bglake
Pat Marcello
SereneBabe <newsg...@serenebabe.com> wrote in message
news:39084278...@serenebabe.com...
> How do you (meaning the collective "you" of misc.writing) decide what
you'll write
> about? (the topics about which you will write)
I have so many ideas, I can't write them all, where nonfiction is concerned.
Everything that interests me is a potential book or story. I tend toward
historical topics or sociology, but quirky little newspaper stories give me
ideas, too.
In writing fiction, I usually write my lead character first. I give them a
background and history, just as a real person might have. Usually this
creation leads me to the story.
--
Pat M. So many ideas, so little time.
Write On!
www.patmarcello.com
RDeschene
<bgl...@mindspring-IFIGHTSPAM.com> wrote:
Actually, I meant that last line as a joke. Going back to the whole
"real writer" argument that crops up here periodically. But, as I
noted in my post, I am a slow writer. Too slow for news deadlines,
that's for sure. Hence, I quickly discovered that the news business
was not for me.
>>
>> Granted, I'm not one of those people who could crank out flawless copy
>> in five minutes. I knew people who could do it, and envied them. I'm
>> much, much slower . . . which is one of many reasons why I chose to
>> leave the newspaper business. The pace was not for me. I need lots of
>> time to edit, revise, ruminate, etc. I did have that time for feature
>> stories, but often didn't have it for hard news stories. And, in my
>> case, the lack of time and attention showed.
>
> I'm slow, too. That's why I freelance. No piece gets faxed off of my
>computer without at least 3 revisions. I do features and guest columns.
>
Maybe I should try that. I dunno. After 10 years as a reporter (which
was probably nine years too many), I really got burnt-out on the whole
thing. I thought that completely changing my focus might renew my
interest in writing. And it did . . . for about a year. Now, I find my
interest waning again. *sigh!*
>> So, that's why I gave fiction writing a try. Still trying to figure
>> out the "Am I a real writer?" question, but at least now I have time
>> to see if my socks match.
>
> I don't know what makes a "real writer." Either one writes or one
>doesn't. Either one tries to (and does) improve or one doesn't. You
>are a *professional writer* when you string words together that an
>editor is willing to pay for -- and people are willing to read. A good
>nonfiction piece uses much of the same techniques used in fiction, i.e.,
>a good hook opening, conflict, resolution, and satisfying ending. In
>nonfiction, the writer also must weave in quotes in a manner that moves
>the story forward. Yes, Sue, you *are* a real writer.
>
Ah, thank you. I'm trying. But still wondering if this is really what
I want. One of those "What do I really want to do with my life?"
questions. Maybe that's the real question, not "Am I a real writer?" I
could be, if that was what I really wanted, and if I were really
willing to do the work. So, that's what I'm trying to sort out.
Sue
Barbara Lake
>
<snipped for brevity>
> How do you (meaning the collective "you" of misc.writing) decide what you'll write
> about? (the topics about which you will write)
>
>
> Do you toss ideas about and imagine writing on that subject until something strikes you
> as worth it? (That's what I do.)
>
> Do you give yourself assignments?
>
> What do you do?
Heather,
If I'm writing a column (commentary), it's usually something I feel
needs to be said or something I find amusing.
If it's an article, I select a subject and then query the mag, or phone
a newspaper editor I know to check their interest in the story. Often an
editor will come back with a particular slant they'd like or specifics
they'd like the article to cover. In these cases, I am writing what I
choose to write, but in a way an editor will accept.
Sometimes an editor will call me with a specific assignment. In that
case, I write what the editor wants, but cover the story and write the
text my way.
My lonely, private thoughts I keep private -- grist for whatever
creative juices I have. If I write them, I sometimes find a way to add
them in small bits to an article to help give it life.
Between interviews and submission, there is just me and the computer
stringing words together in a way I hope an editor will buy and readers
appreciate.
Barbara
--
http://www.mindspring.com/~bglake
Steve Pritchard
address feels
> overwhelming.
>
you'll write
> about? (the topics about which you will write)
Often a writer isn't given a great deal of choice over the topic they must
write about and when the opportunity arrives where you can do what you want,
it is a luxury you try not to squander. I write about things I'm passionate
about if writing non-fiction. For fiction I just pour out whatever story is
currently in my head.
I'm a poor model though - acres of unfinished work stands as testament to
the fact that working on what you want, rather than what you have to,
doesn't work all that well for me.
KMadeleine
st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk says...
you too, huh? on a needlework group we refer to these as UFOs--
UnFinished Objects. i am the queen of UFOs. i'd be mortified
to die anytime soon, because my family would discover the truth
about how many UFOs i have hidden away in various places.
--
KMadeleine
Prince Richard Kaminski
RDeschene wrote:
I used to work in news journalism, and it certainly isn't always a case of sitting leisurely at
your computer and taking your time over producing the "perfect" story. Although when in the
office, you have quite a lot of time, depending on deadlines and how much they give you to do.
But when you're out on a job, doing things like court reports like I used to, or football
matches for an agency, you don't have any time at all. You have to literally "write" the stuff
in your head from your notes as you're dictating it down the phone to the copytakers at your
newspaper or agency.
One agency I worked for in London used other journalists as copytakers, and one was from
Australia. He used to give me a hard time every time I "wrote" something to him over the phone,
complaining if I had started successive paragraphs with the same word or some other triviality.
I mean, obviously, you don't do that, but if the whole purpose is to get the copy over the line
as quickly as possible, which it was, it is only too easy for someone at the other end to tidy
it up a bit for you.
In fact, while newspapers tend to expect you to be able to write, ie to produce something close
to the finished product, most agencies just expect you to deliver the facts, accurately and
quickly, and they'll take care of the rest. The guy I mentioned above was an exception, but he
was only another hack, not one of the people who ran the agency. One interview I went to, where
I got the job but ended up going somewhere else instead actually told me not to worry about the
writing. Just get the information over.
Prince Richard Kaminski
Alan Hope wrote:
> >You are only judged by what you produce, not however you may choose to produce it.
> >Some famous writers in history have rewritten things countless times, and others have
> >just churned things out as they were. It's just a question of how happy people are
> >with their own way of working. I don't think there's any value in doing something
> >which is against your own nature, just because someone tells you to. On the other
> >hand, it's always good to at least think about advice you receive, because some of it
> >may be useful even if you don't swallow it wholesale.
>
> >> However, if I felt I had to spend time on one single piece and bring it to a
> >> "finished" state before I could move on to the funner stuff again, I might not've
> >> written enough to get where I am right now.
>
> >What's finished anyway? If you think about a painting, there's always something that
> >could be added or taken away. It's the same with a piece of writing, especially in
> >this era of computers where it is so easy to change and amend what you have written.
> >In the end, you just have to decide "enough is enough" and it's going out. It's
> >easier of course if you have an editor who can make any final adjustments. If not,
> >then you take the ultimate responsibility yourself, but I suppose that's what most
> >writers want anyway.
>
> And the answer's a melon that colour.
You're getting so cryptic these days, Alan, that I no longer understand most of the
comments you direct at me.
Steve Pritchard
news:iw6O4.120863$8S2.1...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> >the fact that working on what you want, rather than what you have to,
> >doesn't work all that well for me.
>
> you too, huh? on a needlework group we refer to these as UFOs--
> UnFinished Objects. i am the queen of UFOs. i'd be mortified
> to die anytime soon, because my family would discover the truth
> about how many UFOs i have hidden away in various places.
Gods yes. Half a novel, half a non-fiction book, half a stage play and half
a game plot lie gathering dust on my hard drive, and in hard copy form they
teeter precariously on the edge of my desk. I'm secretly hoping they'll
finally overbalance and drop into the bin so I can wait a little more before
proofing them.
Alma Hromic
<st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> you too, huh? on a needlework group we refer to these as UFOs--
>> UnFinished Objects. i am the queen of UFOs. i'd be mortified
>> to die anytime soon, because my family would discover the truth
>> about how many UFOs i have hidden away in various places.
>
>Gods yes. Half a novel, half a non-fiction book, half a stage play and half
>a game plot lie gathering dust on my hard drive, and in hard copy form they
>teeter precariously on the edge of my desk. I'm secretly hoping they'll
>finally overbalance and drop into the bin so I can wait a little more before
>proofing them.
>
<gulp>
good grief, steve, you're a regular literary Dahner.
A. (all these literary bits and pieces that you keep hidden in your
closet...)
w.d.greene
> KMadeleine wrote:
> > st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk says...
> > >I'm a poor model though - acres of unfinished work stands as testament to
> > >the fact that working on what you want, rather than what you have to,
> > >doesn't work all that well for me.
> >
> > UnFinished Objects. i am the queen of UFOs. i'd be mortified
> > to die anytime soon, because my family would discover the truth
> > about how many UFOs i have hidden away in various places.
>
> Gods yes. Half a novel, half a non-fiction book, half a stage play and half
> a game plot lie gathering dust on my hard drive, and in hard copy form they
> teeter precariously on the edge of my desk. I'm secretly hoping they'll
> finally overbalance and drop into the bin so I can wait a little more before
> proofing them.
I have a lot of stuff sitting around but it's all "finished" (is
anything really finished?). I have a very difficult time attempting
to move on and leave something unfinished behind. Even if I know it's
a pile of crap, I still have some primordial need to make it as
finished a pile of crap as I possibly can. I have tried leaving
unfinished various manuscripts but as hard as I try to move on, the
abandoned voices haunt me to distraction. Interestingly, once I've
put something aside as finished, I have a very difficult time ever
returning to it.
Alan Hope
schlafend, und sprach zu ihnen:
>Alan Hope wrote:
>> And the answer's a melon that colour.
>You're getting so cryptic these days, Alan, that I no longer understand most of the
>comments you direct at me.
I noticed that half a year ago. But what does it mean?
Maybe I'll keep on getting more and more cryptic until I start making
sense again. But not at this rate.
AH
Steve Pritchard
news:390d7afb...@203.29.160.5...
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 08:06:22 +0100, "Steve Pritchard"
> good grief, steve, you're a regular literary Dahner.
>
> A. (all these literary bits and pieces that you keep hidden in your
> closet...)
With 3-4 hours travel a day, and a laptop to play with on the way, writing
makes the trip go a bit quicker.
Prince Richard Kaminski
Steve Pritchard wrote:
Hmmm, this is almost a poem, which would against the PGs.
With 3-4 hours travel a day,
And a laptop to use on the way
Writing sure makes the trip go quicker
It goes in the time of a flicker
Adjustments made accordingly, and sorry for the appalling last line, it was
all I could think of. (I mean, it was all of which I could think).
Carlie Bear
>Re: Three new postings))
>From: "Steve Pritchard" st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk
>Date: 30/04/00 2350 PM GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <957137242.43.0....@news.demon.co.uk>
>
>Alma Hromic <ang...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:390d7afb...@203.29.160.5...
>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 08:06:22 +0100, "Steve Pritchard"
>> <gulp>
>> good grief, steve, you're a regular literary Dahner.
>>
>> A. (all these literary bits and pieces that you keep hidden in your
>> closet...)
>
>With 3-4 hours travel a day, and a laptop to play with on the way, writing
>makes the trip go a bit quicker.
You the Sheffield correspondent for Rolling Stone?
The few moments he could spare from the misconduct of his personal affirs were
devoted to the conscientious neglect of his duties to his constituents
Hugh Watkins
>Writing sure makes the trip go quicker
>It goes in the time of a flicker
>
>Adjustments made accordingly, and sorry for the appalling last line, it
>was
>all
>I could think of
>With 3-4 hours travel a day,
>And a laptop to use on the way
Writing sure makes a trip go quicker
until a flat battery makes screen flicker
as you write that last chapter of "Enola Gay"
Save it
Hugh W
Frank Raymond Michaels
wrote:
>>Subject: Re: [WR] choosing what to write (was: Re: [WR] Take Your Time (Was
>>Re: Three new postings))
>>From: "Steve Pritchard" st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk
>>Date: 30/04/00 2350 PM GMT Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <957137242.43.0....@news.demon.co.uk>
>>
>>Alma Hromic <ang...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
>>news:390d7afb...@203.29.160.5...
>>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 08:06:22 +0100, "Steve Pritchard"
>>> <gulp>
>>> good grief, steve, you're a regular literary Dahner.
>>>
>>> A. (all these literary bits and pieces that you keep hidden in your
>>> closet...)
>>
>>With 3-4 hours travel a day, and a laptop to play with on the way, writing
>>makes the trip go a bit quicker.
>
>You the Sheffield correspondent for Rolling Stone?
Actually, I believe he's the Stoned correspondant for
Rolling Sheffield.
---------------------------
Frank Raymond Michaels ("But don't quote me on that...")
Steve Pritchard
news:390ce4f5...@news.i-2000.com...
> On 01 May 2000 01:24:44 GMT, tele...@aol.comeondown (Carlie Bear)
> wrote:
> >You the Sheffield correspondent for Rolling Stone?
>
> Actually, I believe he's the Stoned correspondant for
> Rolling Sheffield.
Sheffield could never roll - the wheels came off this place years back.
Will Salt
If they hadn't, it would have rolled away by now. Far too hilly, you
see.
--
Will