# Can You Do It Wrong?



## Kyle R (Jul 12, 2015)

With so much advice on what _not_ to do in fiction these days ("Plot—don't pants!"; "Pants—don't plot!"; "Don't use present tense—it's unnatural!"; "Don't use info-dumps!"; "Don't use prologues!"; "Don't use the passive voice!"; "Don't use adverbs!"; "Show—don't tell!"; et cetera . . .), it's easy for a writer to feel creatively crippled.

God, how _does_ one write if everything one writes is wrong? <-- Heck, did I even write _that_ sentence correctly, or did I break another rule?

Thankfully, Cat Rambo is here to clear the air. What do you think of her advice? :encouragement:

-----*

On Writing: Can You Do It Wrong?*
_by Cat Rambo_

Are you putting words on the page? Then you are doing it right.

You may not be creating publishable words. You may not be creating amazing words. You may not be creating words you like. But by creating words, you are doing something actual, tangible, verifiable. And that puts you ahead of all the people who aren’t writing.

Someone once said to me at a party, “I would write, but I need to conquer some inner demons first.” And honestly — in my opinion, that’s bullshit unless he was talking about the inner demon of procrastination and not just being a pretentious jackass. Because, come on – who says that kind of thing and takes themself seriously?

*Writers just effin write.*

Do you need to send stuff out? Do you need to polish what you’ve produced? Do you need to promote your writing? Yes, and yes, and yes, but all of those things are dependent on having written.

Let me reiterate this, because it’s important. *Writing always comes first.*

When I teach, we do a lot of writing exercises. And I hear people say, just before they read what they’ve produced, “I’m not sure I did this right.” And then they go on and read me something wonderful. Maybe it’s not exactly what I was envisioning when I came up with the exercise. Maybe they’ve turned the exercise on its head and done something completely different. But that’s okay. The only way they could do the exercise wrong, in my opinion, is to not do it.

I have seen stories workshopped that were…sometimes difficult to say much about. Some are seared on my memory; others kept me up at night trying to figure out what to say. Some were politically a bit problematic. But you know what? At least they got written.

If you are writing, you are being a writer. If you keep at it — and think about writing and getting better — you will get better. There are things you can do that will help you get better faster, but all of them depend on…well, you should know what I’m going to say here by now….writing.

If it’s fear of getting it wrong that’s stopping you, then knock it off. Here’s the reassurance you need. *You cannot do it wrong.*

Now go write some words.

-----

_Cat Rambo lives, writes, and teaches by the shores of an eagle-haunted lake in the Pacific Northwest. Her 100+ fiction publications include stories in Asimov's, Clarkesworld Magazine, and Tor.com. Her short story, "Five Ways to Fall in Love on Planet Porcelain," from her story collection Near + Far (Hydra House Books), was a 2012 Nebula nominee. Her editorship of Fantasy Magazine earned her a World Fantasy Award nomination in 2012. She is the current Vice President of SFWA.

You can learn more about Cat at: http://www.kittywumpus.net/_


----------



## Sam (Jul 12, 2015)

Been saying this for over a decade. 

'Course, when I say it I get pilloried.


----------



## midnightpoet (Jul 12, 2015)

Yeah, you have to put it on paper.  The greatest idea in the world isn't worth much if someone doesn't implement it.  I've read lots of stories about famous authors who were rejected at first - but they kept writing and kept trying until a publisher/agent saw something special and classics were born.  Of course, there are a lot of books on the market seen by many as not very good - but they got published (and some were made into movies).  So keep writing.


----------



## JustRob (Jul 12, 2015)

It works for me. It's very simple. Think -- Write -- Think what to do with what you've written. 

You have to write to discover your personal style. After that you can decide whether it might be acceptable to others. Follow all those rules from the outset and you may never discover what it is that makes your writing unique, what it is that will encourage others to read it. I don't think that you can do it from the other direction, learning and practising all the "right" techniques and then adding your own characteristics almost as an afterthought. 

I am not very good at recognising people and therefore get confused when watching TV programmes and films where the actors have all modelled themselves according to the same rules. I ask my angel "Have we seen that woman before?" because they all look so alike, so perfect. If the people in a story are distinctive, flawed even shall we say, then I can cope much better. Equally when choosing which author's work to read I can't remember even after reading say a stock thriller who the author was because they conform to the norm too well and are just a stock thriller writer. Their name is hardly relevant. Follow all the rules to the letter and you may become just a stock writer. That could earn you a living but people wouldn't necessarily remember who you were.

I worked in an office, just one of many. People don't remember such office workers, but I had a style of working that made people remember me and come to me when they needed something done that would benefit from my way of working. New management replaced the personnel department with one called Human Resources and tried to pigeon-hole all the staff into stock job descriptions, but the system failed when they encountered Just Rob. That was the only description that fitted me. My job was secure though simply because I filled a gap in the system. My advice to any would-be writer is to find a gap that you fit and fill it. You may not achieve that by writing in the stock way.

Look at it this way. William McGonagall just went ahead and wrote poetry without any regard for how good it might be. Does anybody remember him? Yes, just because he went ahead and did it. There must have been thousands of better poets on the stockpile whom I couldn't name and wouldn't seek out to read.


----------



## Phil Istine (Jul 12, 2015)

> Someone once said to me at a party, “I would write, but I  need to conquer some inner demons first.” And honestly — in my opinion,  that’s bullshit ...




The piece I've quoted sounds the wrong way around because sometimes the act of writing is the method I use to do the conquering.


----------



## JustRob (Jul 12, 2015)

Phil Istine said:


> The piece I've quoted sounds the wrong way around because sometimes the act of writing is the method I use to do the conquering.
> [/SIZE]



Precisely why I first started writing. These ideas, this story, this demonic _thing _was growing inside my mind for no good reason and it had to be aborted, so I dumped it into my computer, a stillborn mess of text, and was rewarded with a clear mind. That was when I started reading what I'd written and realised that it had merit, but not while writhing around in my head unwritten.


----------



## Sam (Jul 12, 2015)

Phil Istine said:


> The piece I've quoted sounds the wrong way around because sometimes the act of writing is the method I use to do the conquering.
> [/SIZE]



This. 

To the nth degree.


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis (Jul 12, 2015)

I looked up a lot of the 'novice writing mistakes.' 

Methinks a few so-called 'experts' simply had pet peeves. 

I'll write whatever I write. As long as it's a good story, people will enjoy it. Hopefully, at least.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 12, 2015)

Totally agree with the guy. As I've said many times, don't worry about all these "writerly things" - just tell me a story.


----------



## ShadowEyes (Jul 12, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> And that puts you ahead of all the people who aren’t writing.




I disagree. You can churn out one, two, three novels and then get to a creative block because you ran out of steam. Plotting allows oneself to _not_ run out of steam. Furthermore, writing badly can hurt someone in the long run because they might wonder, "What's wrong with me? I used to have so many ideas, but now I can't come up with anything." If you plot, it's not about ideas; it's about habits. And good habits cannot be just writing. It has to be writing with a purpose. And that purpose is deliberate. Otherwise, you're letting your body control your writing, and not many people understand their bodies. Which brings me to the next point...



> Someone once said to me at a party, “I would write, but I need to conquer some inner demons first.” And honestly — in my opinion, that’s bullshit unless he was talking about the inner demon of procrastination and not just being a pretentious jackass. Because, come on – who says that kind of thing and takes themself seriously?



Some people _might_ need to do this because they simply _don't have anything to say_. You can teach someone technique; you can make it marketable. But you can't give someone a message.



> Do you need to send stuff out? Do you need to polish what you’ve produced? Do you need to promote your writing? Yes, and yes, and yes, but all of those things are dependent on having written.



Writing isn't dependent on publication, that's true. Writing is dependent on the physical act, which takes gall. I understand that someone might think it's stifling to have rules in writing, to put the proverbial "publishing" cart before the "having written" horse. But this should be obvious. The difficulty should be a contract one signs as soon as one puts pen to paper. I think many people, myself included, at one point thought, "Hey I have a pen. I have a paper. I can write!" because they maybe failed at other things. But to not give the act the respect that it deserves is unfair to oneself and unfair to the reader.



> The only way they could do the exercise wrong, in my opinion, is to not do it.



Is that true, though? Is it possible to feel like one's writing is "wrong" regardless of having written? I think so. I think this feeling comes from a disconnect between the written word and the emotion one may have felt in the inspiration. There's a lexical gap between the envisioned and the reality. This gap cannot be filled by simply practicing. It has to be practiced with the intent on improving what one has in mind. It has to be practiced with the _emotion_ in mind first. Because that's the goal of writing:  presenting emotions.



> If you keep at it — and think about writing and getting better — you will get better.


This is unfortunately utterly relative to the perception of the author's writing versus the reader's reading. In fact, what a reader might find enthralling the author might've found _so, so boring_. And that's okay. The line blurs between "getting better" and "feeling like you're better." Some say an improvement in style only occurs after a million words written.

This is a misdirection. The direction isn't style or feeling. It's clinical. The purpose of a critique is to reflect the objective emotions present. That is the teacher's job. The purpose of a writer is to have those emotions in the first place. If the teacher doesn't evaluate the difference between the gap, the difference between skill and reality, and instead says, "Keep on writing and it'll happen" (like it's some kind of magical process) then the teacher isn't doing her job.

So that's what I think. You may disagree (and I'm sure we've rehashed this over and over), but this is my first time giving my full opinion, I believe. So thanks.


----------



## Kevin (Jul 12, 2015)

> Some say an improvement in style only occurs after a million words written.


 that is a misinterpretation... the idea is that improvement comes incrementally. After a so many repetitions or hours put in your level has supposedly risen to a 'professional' level.


----------



## ShadowEyes (Jul 12, 2015)

Kevin said:


> that is a misinterpretation of the concept... improvement comes incrementally. After a so many repetitions or hours put in your level is supposedly at a 'professional' level.



The point of the matter is that style isn't something that you sit down and try to improve. I think we can agree on this... Style isn't an "ideal" of writing. It's a variable. There are principles and ideals which require technical know-how. They're fairly common. For instance, SPAG and rhetoric are principles. They make sure the story is "correct to life." Knowledge of humans and their conduct are ideals. They make sure the story is "true to life."

This doesn't mean that truthiness is supreme. It only means that truthiness is an _a priori_ assumption. We write to show relateable circumstances in an entertaining way. Saying that technical know-how isn't important to writing is like saying that pianists don't need to learn scales or how harmony works. You can learn scales _by ear_, but it's much harder. And I don't think we can assume that everyone knows the basics (I didn't and I still get them mixed up):  like drama, consistency, unity, genres, sources of conflict, what's harder to write and what's easier, etc.

The reason I'm so adamant about all of this is because I truly believe a lot of people start with trying to write stories as they see them and get discouraged. They start with too many materials and no direction, or run out of steam, or develop bad habits.

I apologize if I went beyond your intention. I suppose I had a bit more to say than I let on.

EDIT:  I don't mean to start Word War III.  :b


----------



## Kevin (Jul 12, 2015)

> apologize if I went beyond your intention. I suppose I had a bit more to say than I let on.


Not at all... I'm enjoying the discussion.


> I don't mean to start Word War III.


 Here... take this flower.... 
Now, what else do you have to say...


----------



## ShadowEyes (Jul 12, 2015)

Kevin said:


> Here... take this flower....
> Now, what else do you have to say...



She loves me. :lucks:: She loves me not. :lucks::

I think I pretty much covered the basics. The point that I'd been arguing in my first post is that "unity of effect" is paramount. I'll let Edgar Allan Poe take it away:
"A skillful literary artist has constructed a tale. If wise, he has not fashioned his thoughts to accommodate his incidents; but having conceived, with deliberate care, a certain unique or single effect to be wrought out, he then invents such incidents -- he then combines such events as may best aid him in establishing this preconceived effect. If his very initial sentence tends not to the outbringing of this effect, then he has failed in his first step. In the whole composition there should be no word written of which the tendency, direct or indirect, is not to the one pre-established design. As by such means, with such care and skill, a picture is at length painted which leaves in the mind of him who contemplates it with a kindred art a _sense of the fullest satisfaction_."

It should be noted that this quote is relevant only to short stories. What's the difference between short stories and novels? Length, of course. Why length? Because readers get bored with reading the same thing without any variation. Why? Because short stories strive towards a single effect.
Well, then, you may ask, "Towards what does a novel strive?" The answer is a unity of materials. The story ends when the plot is resolved; that is, when the materials are unified to an end. Oh gosh, I'm getting didactic.

Pish-posh.

I digress. Novels still have single effects, but they are divided by chapters and may weave in and out of those chapters.

This entire theory may have arisen out of the early 20th century idea that everything can be classified, broken down, studied and compartmentalized. It's still a very active field because human psychology is still a very active field. Psychologists study human behavior. Writers study human behavior in entertaining ways. Therefore, since we've just breached the field of psychology, we've just breached the field of writing.

Therefore, we've gotten stories that combine poetic epics of the past with the psychological dramas of the present. I believe this is a great appeal to way fantasy is so popular. What do you think?


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 12, 2015)

ShadowEyes said:


> Plotting allows oneself to _not_ run out of steam.



Then why do so many plotters complain about writer's block? One can run out of steam at any point, using any method. 

I've just seen so many writers getting caught up in method, and technique, and POV issues, and all this other BS that they aren't writing anything - they're just trying to figure out how to write right. It's like deciding to ride a bicycle and spending tons of time researching the types of bikes and what sort of bike riding you want to do and checking out routes and never actually getting on the damn bike! Until you do, and accept that you're going to fall down a few times before you get the knack of it, you will never learn to ride any kind of bike anywhere. You will always be a wannabe.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jul 12, 2015)

There is one sure fire way to screw up - by over-thinking it.  But that is just what the majority of us are going to do.  I am at that stage now.  

So yeah, keep writing.  I for one am quite content to over-think it to the point of critical-mass.  I am sick of writing in the same way and doubly sick of everything I am reading.  Or rather I should say sick of what everyone these days is writing.  (with some very rare exceptions)  

So I will keep banging my head against the imagined wall in my mind until I have figured out just exactly what I want to write, in what style and how I am going to achieve that.

I read a quote the other day.  I totally disagree with it:
The six rules of writing.

Write, write, write,
Read, Read, read.

While overall I agree with the ideas in this thread .... the keep going at all costs, work ethic perspective, I have enough experience in various other disciplines to know that a.  Practice makes perfect is a LIE.  Perfect practice makes perfect.  Therefore, you must be pushing your envelope and raising the bar at every step. This means a lot of study .... churning out the same old same old isn´t going to get it done.  b.  Reading a bunch of dreck is just goiing to guarantee that you write a bunch of dreck.

I recently bailed on all the Facebook writer´s pages.  Got into an arguement about the $90 writer´s course that James Patterson is teaching.  Hmmmm.  
I bet you can guess my thoughts on Mr. Patterson´s possible contribution to the quality of my future prose.

So yeah, keep writing but maybe, taking into account that it is oh, so hard to be objective about one´s art, it might be an idea to read a few books on the process and try to implement some of those techniques.  If and when you do see yourself writing something that Tells and doesn´t Show, that uses adverbs and passive voice in effective ways instead of detrimental ways, that handles the back story without info dumping and all those other issues, then and only then can you say you have improved.  

It could be 100,000 words from now or it could be 1,000,000.

David Gordon Burke
PS.  My philosophy is based on my personal belief that writing a bad story first and then editing in some soul just won´t work.  I like to get it right the first time and then just work on the grammar, word choice, punctuation etc. in the editing.  Maybe someone can turn a dud into a winner in the edit, I cannot.


----------



## ShadowEyes (Jul 12, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> Then why do so many plotters complain about writer's block? One can run out of steam at any point, using any method.
> 
> I've just seen so many writers getting caught up in method, and technique, and POV issues, and all this other BS that they aren't writing anything - they're just trying to figure out how to write right. It's like deciding to ride a bicycle and spending tons of time researching the types of bikes and what sort of bike riding you want to do and checking out routes and never actually getting on the damn bike! Until you do, and accept that you're going to fall down a few times before you get the knack of it, you will never learn to ride any kind of bike anywhere. You will always be a wannabe.



It can swing that way, too. I'm not denying it. But it's (dis)use is irrelevant to whether or not plotting is effective. Some people might not use plotting effectively, just like some people might not use discovery writing effectively. Either can be substituted as a crutch.

You might be saying, "You're avoiding the issue. I said, 'Plotting trips people up.'" But again, writing isn't easy. If beginners go into it thinking they can polish off a masterpiece in ten easy hours, they'll probably be sorely discouraged. Therefore, I think failure to understand writing _as it is_ can trip people up as well.

A theory:  I think plotting and discovering each have their place. You can plot as much as you like and not write anything. Likewise, you can write as much as you like and not advance the story. I think a modest amount of preparation and understanding the tools allows an easier flow of inspiration, such that the tools' usage becomes second-nature. When that happens, writing is much more satisfying. After all, can you really understand tools unless you put them to use?

Thank you.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jul 12, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> Then why do so many plotters complain about writer's block? One can run out of steam at any point, using any method.
> 
> I've just seen so many writers getting caught up in method, and technique, and POV issues, and all this other BS that they aren't writing anything - they're just trying to figure out how to write right. It's like deciding to ride a bicycle and spending tons of time researching the types of bikes and what sort of bike riding you want to do and checking out routes and never actually getting on the damn bike! Until you do, and accept that you're going to fall down a few times before you get the knack of it, you will never learn to ride any kind of bike anywhere. You will always be a wannabe.



Love that your belief is exactly the opposite of mine.
The truth is that both are correct .... as long as the over-thinker gets the thinking done QUICKLY.  Language, in this case writing, like music and a few other arts do not require a ´hands-on´ approach.  One can dedicate a great amount of mental energy to it even while not at the computer or not putting pen to paper.  Visualization.  

But yeah, a year goes by and you haven´t produced anything new due to fear and whatnot?  Wannabee.

David Gordon Burke


----------



## midnightpoet (Jul 12, 2015)

As my generation would say, "different strokes for different folks."  If your approach to writing works, great.   Each person brings (or should, anyway) a different perspective.


----------



## ShadowEyes (Jul 12, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> ... as long as the over-thinker gets the thinking done QUICKLY.



Presumably the writer reaches a certain point where he has to write to test out his thoughts. This is why I recommend short stories. I'm a beginner, too. And short stories are simply more manageable to me.



> Language, in this case writing, like music and a few other arts do not require a ´hands-on´ approach.  One can dedicate a great amount of mental energy to it even while not at the computer or not putting pen to paper.  Visualization.



Hypothetically, you could. But no one's going to consider you a master of playing the violin until you develop the muscle memory. But what is the muscle memory for writing? Well... writing. So why is it so hard? Because we're not simply dealing with one correct way of playing a note, say an A sharp. There is no certainty. The only certainty is reality. Writers portray reality. The difficulty comes when we realize that other arts are based in reality while writing is based in ideas, or rather, human functions. Science has had millennia to discover the correct way to harmonize a guitar. Science hasn't discovered which selection of human functions will make the most entertaining story for the present generation.



> But yeah, a year goes by and you haven´t produced anything new due to fear and whatnot?  Wannabee.



Nah. You just need to narrow your approach. Try writing a single scene. Try writing a scene with a man in a boat, and relate the details of the setting to the man's love for boating; then relate this combination of character and setting to a conflict of a female interest, for example. Try subordinating setting (dock) and trait (love of boating) to the "impression of the action which emphasizes the romance." The effect is romance.



> ...that writing a bad story first and then editing in some soul just won´t work.



Every writer is going to start out awful. But the awfulness is not a result of the materials of the story. It's a result of inexperience in shaping the materials. Your preference in shaping is entirely up to you. Some people build a wire-mesh eight feet tall and then put on the clay and chop it down to three feet. Others might start at three feet. Whatever the writer feels comfortable doing.


----------



## Sam (Jul 12, 2015)

> Plotting allows oneself to _not_ run out of steam.



I know more plotters who've run out of steam than pantsers. It's a pretty huge generalisation to say that either one will allow someone to not run out of steam. 

It's not the method that causes someone to run out of steam; it's going into a massive project like a novel without knowing the discipline, commitment, and dedication required to come out the other end.


----------



## ShadowEyes (Jul 12, 2015)

Sam said:


> I know more plotters who've run out of steam than pantsers. It's a pretty huge generalisation to say that either one will allow someone to not run out of steam.
> 
> It's not the method that causes someone to run out of steam; it's going into a massive project like a novel without knowing the discipline, commitment, and dedication required to come out the other end.



Maybe. I'm not an authority on what works for everyone.

But in general (in my experience), any amount of work put into the study of novels pays off to the extent that one actually incorporates that work. As I posted above, sometimes the work includes not only knowing what does work, but also how to avoid not-working. Like the old adage, the plumber gets paid not for tapping the pipe, but for knowing where to tap the pipe. He eliminated all of the other possible pipe-taps, making it a feasible, quick performance.


----------



## InstituteMan (Jul 12, 2015)

Sam said:


> It's not the method that causes someone to run out of steam; it's going into a massive project like a novel without knowing the discipline, commitment, and dedication required to come out the other end.



A lack of skills and a lack of knowledge can cause someone to run out of steam, too. So can the basic idea being flawed, or at least being ill-suited to the treatment a writer is trying to give it. 

At at the same time, trying and _failing _​at big projects is the best way for many of us to learn how to eventually succeed. The key is made an honest attempt and being open to learning from the process.


----------



## ShadowEyes (Jul 12, 2015)

InstituteMan said:


> At at the same time, trying and _failing _​at big projects is the best way for many of us to learn how to eventually succeed. The key is made an honest attempt and being open to learning from the process.



I would go so far to say failure is inevitable unless you're one of 50,000 who is a genius and every word out of your mouth is poetic alliteration.  :b


----------



## Sam (Jul 12, 2015)

ShadowEyes said:


> Maybe. I'm not an authority on what works for everyone.
> 
> But in general (in my experience), any amount of work put into the study of novels pays off to the extent that one actually incorporates that work. As I posted above, sometimes the work includes not only knowing what does work, but also how to avoid not-working. Like the old adage, the plumber gets paid not for tapping the pipe, but for knowing where to tap the pipe. He eliminated all of the other possible pipe-taps, making it a feasible, quick performance.



You study a novel every time you pick one up to read it. 

A plumber gets paid by applying knowledge acquired through experience. For instance, the most likely position for any blockage to occur is at a ninety-degree bend. That's why you will rarely, if ever, find ninety-degree bends in a run of sewer pipes to a septic tank. It will be predominately forty-fives and fifteens. 

That's why plumbers use pipe benders in lieu of soldered fittings. The curve created by a pipe bender is much more natural than the machine-created curve in a ninety-degree soldered fitting. 

The point being that a plumber doesn't need to tap a pipe to fix a problem. Most have it figured out the moment you tell them what the problem is.


----------



## ShadowEyes (Jul 12, 2015)

Sam said:


> You study a novel every time you pick one up to read it.
> 
> A plumber gets paid by applying knowledge acquired through experience. For instance, the most likely position for any blockage to occur is at a ninety-degree bend. That's why you will rarely, if ever, find ninety-degree bends in a run of sewer pipes to a septic tank. It will be predominately forty-fives and fifteens.
> 
> ...



That's another thing I'm not so sure about. Should ideas for novels come from other novels? Or should they come from real life?

Well... my point still makes sense, though, right?  ::laughs nervously::  The idea was that expertise is defined by knowledge. Knowledge of form and application of practicality. So I thought, Why write and then go and re-write it when you can know where you're going from the get-go? Of course, because I'm far from an expert, I still find myself re-writing. I'm still picking out what doesn't work, not because I can't identify it in a vacuum, but because it's harder as a function of a story. I hope to eventually be able to pick out events from life, choose the relevant materials, choose the relevant effect, and then just get to writing (all feasibly quick-like).


----------



## Kevin (Jul 12, 2015)

> failure is inevitable unless you're one of 50,000 who is a genius and every word out of your mouth is poetic alliteration


 aye, the winning formula is obvious in hindsight. Never ahead of time... unless your name is already out there.


----------



## Kevin (Jul 12, 2015)

> It's not the method that causes someone to run out of steam; it's going into a massive project like a novel without knowing the discipline, commitment, and dedication required to come out the other end


 Plotting is a way to take some of the overwhelming-ness out of it, breaking it into smaller pieces while having an outline of how it connects. It's just _a _way.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jul 12, 2015)

ShadowEyes said:


> Every writer is going to start out awful. But the awfulness is not a result of the materials of the story.



Apparently you don't read much INDIE.  I have read a ton of shopping lists there.  Some stuff even beautifully written although that's not the norm.  But well edited and executed.  Problem was there was no story to tell.  Blah, blah, blah.  

Equally possible is the story that may have some merit but spirals into a web of nonsense.  It is not only the experience in writing that makes the difference. Well written isn't only having all your elements in place.  There needs to be a story that captivates. If not, it is directly a problem with the materials of the story.  Again, objective vs. subjective.  Too many writers think that just because it interests them, that they care about it, that others will too.  Not true.

David Gordon Burke


----------



## dale (Jul 12, 2015)

Sam said:


> Been saying this for over a decade.
> 
> 'Course, when I say it I get pilloried.



we only pillory you when you use the word pilloried.


----------



## ShadowEyes (Jul 12, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Apparently you don't read much INDIE. I have read a ton of shopping lists there. Some stuff even beautifully written although that's not the norm. But well edited and executed. Problem was there was no story to tell. Blah, blah, blah.
> 
> Equally possible is the story that may have some merit but spirals into a web of nonsense. It is not only the experience in writing that makes the difference. Well written isn't only having all your elements in place. There needs to be a story that captivates. If not, it is directly a problem with the materials of the story. Again, objective vs. subjective. Too many writers think that just because it interests them, that they care about it, that others will too. Not true.
> 
> David Gordon Burke



I'm not sure what you mean by "shopping lists". Do you mean lists of adverbs, descriptions, etc.? Or do you mean actual shopping lists posing as stories? I don't consider shopping lists to have any narrative value. Regardless, this seems to be a question of semantics rather than a question of technique.

Haven't there been awful stories written throughout history where a better writer comes along and does a better rendition of those ideas? My example, assuming a traditional true-to-life story, is that a good writer can take a dull moment and make it exciting and a bad writer can take an exciting idea and make it dull.


----------



## dale (Jul 12, 2015)

we all have different minds and we all have certain influences which inspire us and uninspire us. what works for one writer
may be completely negative for another. ok. that's my coherent post for the night. now if you'll excuse me, i have some merlot to chug.


----------



## Pluralized (Jul 12, 2015)

I think it's hard to refute the logic in the OP. Great things have been accomplished by pushing aside quality concerns and just getting the thing done. Loads and loads and loads of shitty stuff gets written too, and that's okay. We just have to remember that not everything we write, whether we follow advice and guidance of centuries-old writing cognoscenti, will be amazing or even very good. 

Some crappy novels have been written in every style, technique, and milieu, but the crappiest ones of all are the ones locked up in someone's head because they've got analysis paralysis over which technique, or milieu to employ. 

Good post, thought-provoking stuff. I find myself over-thinking after reading some of these threads and I think sometimes my brain needs that too (because most of the time, I'm walking around under-thinking with my mouth hanging open).


----------



## ShadowEyes (Jul 12, 2015)

Pluralized said:


> Some crappy novels have been written in every style, technique, and milieu, but the crappiest ones of all are the ones locked up in someone's head because they've got analysis paralysis over which technique, or milieu to employ.



Or as Diana Wynne Jones said, "Kills it dead." Then again, she didn't consider herself a plotter, but still had an idea of a beginning and end. Cheers.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 12, 2015)

I think we're dancing pretty close to the plotter/pantser argument again, which gets no one anywhere. My basic belief is that until one starts putting words to paper they wil never write anything of value to anyone. As to improving their writing, that comes from writing more and getting honest feedback on it - no one can improve in a vacuum. But reading about and thinking about writing will not improve one's writing unless and until they put those new ideas into 'production' and find out if they will actually work - ie, put words on paper.


----------



## dale (Jul 12, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> I think we're dancing pretty close to the plotter/pantser argument again, which gets no one anywhere. My basic belief is that until one starts putting words to paper they wil never write anything of value to anyone. As to improving their writing, that comes from writing more and getting honest feedback on it - no one can improve in a vacuum. But reading about and thinking about writing will not improve one's writing unless and until they put those new ideas into 'production' and find out if they will actually work - ie, put words on paper.



i disagree. i personally CAN improve in a vacuum.


----------



## Sam (Jul 13, 2015)

ShadowEyes said:


> That's another thing I'm not so sure about. Should ideas for novels come from other novels? Or should they come from real life?
> 
> Well... my point still makes sense, though, right?  ::laughs nervously::  The idea was that expertise is defined by knowledge. Knowledge of form and application of practicality. So I thought, Why write and then go and re-write it when you can know where you're going from the get-go? Of course, because I'm far from an expert, I still find myself re-writing. I'm still picking out what doesn't work, not because I can't identify it in a vacuum, but because it's harder as a function of a story. I hope to eventually be able to pick out events from life, choose the relevant materials, choose the relevant effect, and then just get to writing (all feasibly quick-like).



I don't re-write. 

I write and then I edit. I've never written a second draft once. 

And ideas should come from both.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jul 13, 2015)

She's technically correct, but in a way that misses the point entirely.  When we talk about proper technique in a sport (how to shoot a basketball, how to run a route, how to serve in tennis), no one says, "Yes, your serve may be 'wrong,' but it would be even more wrong to not play tennis in the first place."  Why? Because it goes without saying.  When we're talking about a right and wrong way to do something, there's an implicit understanding that the person being given the advice has already "entered the ring," so to speak.

I am an ardent supporter of the "Just write." philosophy, but there's absolutely a "wrong way" to write something, and that "wrong way" goes far beyond not writing at all.  Yes, you are doing a good thing by putting words on a page; heck, you're doing the most important thing.  But you can still be wrong, and that's why we have the discussions of fundamentals that we do.

Instead of telling new writers it's impossible to do it wrong, perhaps we should say, "You're going to do it wrong, and that's okay."


----------



## JustRob (Jul 13, 2015)

I was severely sidetracked when the discussion addressed people running out of steam and calling in plumbers. Mario Brothers came to mind. I'm okay now though.

To determine what's wrong you have to have a measure of rightness (okay, rectitude if you must). In mensuration measures are classified as primary and secondary. Often secondary measures are more convenient to use but they are also considered less reliable than primary ones. "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." I suspect that this discussion is actually about how reliable the secondary measures in writing are. The past problem was that conventional publishing set secondary measures but the newer possibility of self-publishing allows the "Just do it" brigade to go straight to the primary measure, exposure to a forum of readers and potential sales or plaudits. Maybe the right and wrong of it are getting blurred now.

Personally I'm not too bothered about measures. I've spent many happy hours playing tennis but don't recollect ever keeping the score. Writing is much the same. Commercially it is very competitive but not all of us are in the ring to compete. We're just here on the dance-floor for a good time. Well that's enough mixed metaphors for now. Is that so wrong?


----------



## Foxee (Jul 13, 2015)

The longer I stick around, the more I agree with the thoughts in this article. It's hard enough just to get to the page and throw words at it (at least for me). I can't get JUST THAT done often enough.

When I started writing and I started to realize how much I didn't know (I was mixing up my tenses and had no understanding of POV at all) I needed to get some basic knowledge of the mechanics that turn good basic grammar into actual storytelling without being horrendously confusing.

Might be easiest to look at writing as phases of growth, just like a kid grows or like you learn any other hobby/discipline/art/job. Possible phases might include:
*
Total bug-eyed enthusiasm:* Who needs rules? I love writing and want to do it all my life! Everyone is going to LOVE this!
*Total embarrassment:* That crit did not go well! I need to learn some stuff.
*Total perfectionism:* I learned some basic rules and my writing became more coherent. Oh look, here are more rules, if some rules are good, more rules must be better.
*The spin cycle of experience:* What the heck works? I thought I knew!
*Finding your own footing:* Oh, that's what works. I can balance what criticism is helpful and what is BS.
*Grand Master of Amazement:* I know which rules to break and I can do it in an awesome way while telling a spellbinding tale.

These are just a few of my phases, I'm sure there are more depending on who you are. Currently I feel like I'm in the spin cycle and some days nearly am to the next phase. However, in order to get there I'm going to have to carve out the time to:


Kyle R said:


> *Writers just effin write.*


I'm comfortable with rules, I think that they're good for learning. I also think that just like in any other discipline you can get unique results and sometimes very good ones by breaking the right ones at the right time. A good rule broken badly is not superior to following the rule. A bad rule disregarded can be a lifesaver. You really do need to write a lot to figure it all out, I think.


----------



## ShadowEyes (Jul 13, 2015)

Foxee said:


> *
> Total bug-eyed enthusiasm:* Who needs rules? I love writing and want to do it all my life! Everyone is going to LOVE this!
> *Total embarrassment:* That crit did not go well! I need to learn some stuff.
> *Total perfectionism:* I learned some basic rules and my writing became more coherent. Oh look, here are more rules, if some rules are good, more rules must be better.
> ...



It's funny because you folks have proven that this can happen in about five hours lol....
I'm actually more humbled by the act of writing now, especially considering that everyone has their own way. Um, some ways of which blur the definitions. If "just writing" is not pantsing, then what is it? I don't understand your primary and secondary measures.

I mean, just for reference, I'm going to gingerly type this because I respect the author more than any other. Can you tell me if this makes sense, if any of these fit into pantsing versus plotting?

"Professional writers divide into four different ways:

1.  Those who _do_ make a careful plan. These are the rarest. Even writers who write detective stories often only have jotted notes about what order the clues come out in. You do a careful plan if it makes you feel safe. Otherwise, try one of the other ways.
2.  Careful realistic writers. These writers have little cards written out with descriptions and past histories of all the people they might want in a story, and the same for all the places. This is quite a good way to work, because the story often falls into place in your head while you are discovering the things on the cards. But it takes a long time, though it can be fun. You will often find you have far more information on the cards than you will ever get into the story, and if this is so then DON'T try to get it all in. You will drown your story.
3.  Back-to-front and inside-out writers. These writers start by writing chapter eleven and then chapter twenty. Sometimes they have no idea what the story is and have to put the chapters away until they see what the story is that they fit into. A writer called Joyce Cary had a whole chest of drawers filled with chapters out of books that he never got round to finishing. When he did write a book, it always started this way, with a chapter from the middle. I sometimes work this way, but I warn you, it takes a very clear head to sort it out in the end. It is a good way to get started, however.
4.  My way. If you're the kind of person who gets stuck writing a story, try this. When I start writing a book, I know the beginning and what probably happens in the end, plus a tiny but extremely bright picture of something going on in the middle. Often this tiny picture is so different from the beginning that I get really excited trying to think how they got from the start to there. This is the way to get a story moving, because I can't wait to find out. And by not planning it any more than that I leave space for the story to go in unexpected ways. Sometimes thing happen that I never would have thought of, just because the story _wants_ them to happen.
The important thing is that you should enjoy making up your story. If it bores you, stop and try something else."

-- Diana Wynne Jones, _Reflections on the Magic of Writing_


----------



## JustRob (Jul 13, 2015)

ShadowEyes said:


> I don't understand your primary and secondary measures.
> 
> I mean, just for reference, I'm going to gingerly type this because I respect the author more than any other. Can you tell me if this makes sense, if any of these fit into pantsing versus plotting?



The primary measure tells you whether you're actually achieving what you want to but a secondary measure can only tell you whether you might be heading in the right direction.

I'm definitely a back-to-front inside-out writer whose plots are apparently so complicated that only my subconscious mind is aware of them. I just keep blindly writing chapters until the plot emerges and when it does I am astonished by it and wonder how I could possibly do it, but that's the power of the subconscious mind. The difficulty is then working out the order of the chapters for the plot may not have a simple sequential order to it. I had to make several attempts to find a starting point to get into the rats' nest of a plot for my novel and even now there are two candidate first chapters present with one being entitled "Nowhere to begin", which proves my confidence in such matters. The fact that the story resembles tumbleweed with no evident root and branch structure does not detract from its elegance though. 

Although my method suggests the pure pantser approach the complexity of the cross-links between the chapters and also to the other novels in the trilogy suggests that the plot was never a fortuitous coincidence but simply something that I could never have consciously grasped all in one go. That is why I have read it far more times than mere improvement demands, simply to reassure myself that I really fully understand it now. However it was achieved I think it passes Oscar Wilde's test, that if worth reading at all it is worth reading more than once. 

For this reason I wouldn't hurry to place myself in either camp and attribute my writing style to my long years spent designing complex computer systems in my head. There we talked about top-down and bottom-up design but I was inclined towards a total solution without any evident order of work which stumped other people.


----------



## ShadowEyes (Jul 13, 2015)

JustRob said:


> The primary measure tells you whether you're actually achieving what you want to but a secondary measure can only tell you whether you might be heading in the right direction.
> 
> I'm definitely a back-to-front inside-out writer whose plots are apparently so complicated that only my subconscious mind is aware of them.



I think my brain was just voted off the island... I think I'm... #2, though. I capture people's souls in little cards and send them to the Shadow Realm.


----------



## Sam (Jul 13, 2015)

ShadowEyes said:


> It's funny because you folks have proven that this can happen in about five hours lol....
> I'm actually more humbled by the act of writing now, especially considering that everyone has their own way. Um, some ways of which blur the definitions. If "just writing" is not pantsing, then what is it? I don't understand your primary and secondary measures.
> 
> I mean, just for reference, I'm going to gingerly type this because I respect the author more than any other. Can you tell me if this makes sense, if any of these fit into pantsing versus plotting?
> ...



I guess I'm #5. 

I have an idea for a beginning and I start writing. Oftentimes, I have no idea where the story is going, who the characters are, or where it all will end up. It comes to me as I write. 

There are 'professional' writers who will tell you that that is impossible, ridiculous, or just plain wrong. In response, I use the old plumbing adage: water finds its own level.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 13, 2015)

ShadowEyes said:


> If "just writing" is not pantsing, then what is it?


Me, personally? I don't interpret Cat's advice of "just effin write" to be an advocacy for pantsing, nor an argument that one should write without thought.

I consider it an argument for writing in whatever way one chooses, and not letting concerns about "right or wrong" hinder you.

That means, if you're a pantser, just effin pants. If you're a plotter, just effin plot. And everything in between. Do what you prefer to do, and don't worry about whether or not others think it's wrong—as the only "wrong" way to write is to not write at all. :encouragement:


----------



## Foxee (Jul 13, 2015)

Heh, I just came back and saw the question again, here is my answer #2:

*1. Can you do it wrong? *Why yes, yes I CAN do it wrong. The possibility of writing that utterly stinks is borne out every day in prose nobody would ever want to read. But is there a possibility that I can do it wrong and have the writing not stink? This leads to question #2:

*2. Can you do it wrong?* Yes, I can get away with doing it wrong provided it works brilliantly.

The subject of 'pants' vs. 'planner' isn't one of right and wrong in my opinion. I put on both socks then each shoe. Someone who puts on one sock then one shoe then the other sock and the other shoe may be appalled but neither of us are right or wrong.

It's amazing to see that it's an argument that will never die, though.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 14, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> Me, personally? I don't interpret Cat's advice of "just effin write" to be an advocacy for pantsing, nor an argument that one should write without thought.
> 
> I consider it an argument for writing in whatever way one chooses, and not letting concerns about "right or wrong" hinder you.
> 
> That means, if you're a pantser, just effin pants. If you're a plotter, just effin plot. And everything in between. Do what you prefer to do, and don't worry about whether or not others think it's wrong—as the only "wrong" way to write is to not write at all. :encouragement:



I was wondering why this was turning into another pantser/plotter thread. :hopelessness:


----------



## JustRob (Jul 14, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> I was wondering why this was turning into another pantser/plotter thread. :hopelessness:



It's all part of the pantser plot.


----------



## Loulou (Jul 14, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> Then why do so many plotters complain about writer's block? One can run out of steam at any point, using any method.
> 
> I've just seen so many writers getting caught up in method, and technique, and POV issues, and all this other BS that they aren't writing anything - they're just trying to figure out how to write right. It's like deciding to ride a bicycle and spending tons of time researching the types of bikes and what sort of bike riding you want to do and checking out routes and never actually getting on the damn bike! Until you do, and accept that you're going to fall down a few times before you get the knack of it, you will never learn to ride any kind of bike anywhere. You will always be a wannabe.



Perfectly said.  Just write.  So Kyle, yes, I agree just write.  You learn to write by doing it.


----------



## Snookie (Jul 14, 2015)

David:
I find that when I get writers block I put it asidefor a day or so and write in my other genre. Mainly I write detective novels but I have 3 historic fictions in different stages of array that I can change to. I don't seem to get stumped any more.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 14, 2015)

Sure you can do it wrong, but usually you won't know it until the reader throws the damned book across the room. If, however, they walk over, pick it up and start reading again, you know you've done it very, very right.:salut:


----------



## ShadowEyes (Jul 14, 2015)

Terry D said:


> Sure you can do it wrong, but usually you won't know it until the reader throws the damned book across the room. If, however, they walk over, pick it up and start reading again, you know you've done it very, very right.:salut:



This applies to writing stories, too, doesn't it?


----------



## Arrakis (Jul 15, 2015)

"There is nothing right or wrong, but thinking makes it so" ~Shakespeare

If you ask me, as long as the piece is unique, compelling, and well put together, it shouldn't matter what formula you use.


----------

