# Writing is easy



## moderan (Nov 12, 2017)

I'm doing it now. Anyone who answers is writing back.
Fiction is telling lies. Either you're a good liar and want to tell extended stories, or you're lying to yourself. There's nothing wrong with either. This isn't value judgement-time. But you is what you is.
Inspiration is over-rated. Most writers just sit down and start writing. They have a stock of ideas on hand and often juggle multiple pieces, simply out of love for the act of creation and sometimes out of the need for increasingly small bits of filthy lucre.
Writing is a skill, a teachable, quantifiable ability. Effectiveness and skill level may vary, but the act is the same. It is putting words one after the other in an attempt to entertain, amuse, educate. If you don't enjoy that, then you should probably do something else, and own that.


----------



## Sam (Nov 12, 2017)

Yes, and it's unnecessarily complicated by _a lot _​of people.


----------



## bdcharles (Nov 12, 2017)

Nah bollocks. If you're not suffering, if every keystroke is not like a stab to the eye, then you're not doing it properly.


----------



## midnightpoet (Nov 12, 2017)

Well, blanket statements like that aren't exactly a logical fallacy, but maybe a relative. Well, Moderan did put in a qualifier.  Let's just say some people find it hard (even some writers).  I do agree, I can't help myself, I usually find time during the day to write something.


----------



## Kit (Nov 12, 2017)

No wonder I'm terrible at lying, irl. It seems I need help on becoming a master of deceit.


----------



## moderan (Nov 12, 2017)

I don't believe you


----------



## ppsage (Nov 12, 2017)

bdcharles said:


> Nah bollocks. If you're not suffering, if every keystroke is not like a stab to the eye, then you're not doing it properly.


You might be thinking of poetry.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 13, 2017)

moderan said:


> I'm doing it now. Anyone who answers is writing back.
> Fiction is telling lies. Either you're a good liar and want to tell extended stories, or you're lying to yourself. There's nothing wrong with either. This isn't value judgement-time. But you is what you is.
> Inspiration is over-rated. Most writers just sit down and start writing. They have a stock of ideas on hand and often juggle multiple pieces, simply out of love for the act of creation and sometimes out of the need for increasingly small bits of filthy lucre.
> Writing is a skill, a teachable, quantifiable ability. Effectiveness and skill level may vary, but the act is the same. It is putting words one after the other in an attempt to entertain, amuse, educate. If you don't enjoy that, then you should probably do something else, and own that.



I used to think so too, Mod, but I was told very recently -- by someone convinced enough to use a very large number of words -- that I am wrong. 

But, in all seriousness, I agree. One of my favorite how-to books about writing is Lawrence Block's, _Telling Lies for Fun and Profit_. I will admit, however, that the book was more motivational for me than technically helpful.

Inspiration is a great thing. It makes getting started less work, but it's far too often confused with motivation. Motivation we have control over. We can decide when to sit down and write. We can establish goals and create plans to achieve them. We don't have to wait for some ethereal muse to crap on our heads. Think of inspiration as an interesting co-worker; it's great to spend time with him/her, but if you make plans to meet for drinks after work and s/he doesn't show you can still get drunk (that's the motivation part). It just won't be as much fun at first.


----------



## moderan (Nov 13, 2017)

Perzactly. Just establish a routine. Everyone knows how to create a habit. It's commitment-shyness that's the stumbling-block. I know publishing pros who suffer from impostor syndrome. Part of the writer's toolkit. We are all not worthy 
The trick is to miss the ground


----------



## Sam (Nov 13, 2017)

Even routines aren't strictly necessary, but they're nonetheless useful. 

Sometimes I write for weeks on end, never taking any breaks, and sometimes I'll go two and three weeks without penning a thing because of other monopolisations on my time. But every time I sit down to the keyboard, it's like I haven't missed a minute. It's just there from years of writing on demand, anywhere, at any time.  

The notion of having a muse, or waiting for inspiration to strike, is possibly the most self-limiting thing a writer can give credence to -- right up there with writers' block (oh, don't let this devolve into one of _those _discussions).


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 13, 2017)

For me, writing is always hard—at first.

I have to slog through a certain amount of time before the creative juices start flowing. Sometimes it's only a few minutes. Other times it can take up to an hour.

But I've learned that it's always surmountable. When I was less experienced, the problem was that I would simply give up too early—not allowing myself the time to work things out. These days, I know that if it's feeling difficult, I just need to keep going. The reward of finally pushing through is always worth the trouble. :encouragement:


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 13, 2017)

Kyle R said:


> For me, writing is always hard—at first.
> 
> I have to slog through a certain amount of time before the creative juices start flowing. Sometimes it's only a few minutes. Other times it can take up to an hour.
> 
> But I've learned that it's always surmountable. When I was less experienced, the problem was that I would simply give up too early—not allowing myself the time to work things out. These days, I know that if it's feeling difficult, I just need to keep going. The reward of finally pushing through is always worth the trouble. :encouragement:



Agree. I️ love writing, obviously, but I️ find it hard to start sometimes. Once I’m going I’m in heaven, but there’s a horrible instinct that often presents itself as soon as I️ tell myself “hey it’s time to work”. It’s not an issue of not wanting to, for me, but more a “I️ will in a minute, just give me a minute more to do x.” And no, there’s no good reason for it.

I️ think a lot of it is really just the fact it can be emotionally and mentally taxing. Certainly it is compared to, watching TV or cat videos. It’s like getting up for work in the morning - regardless of how much you love your job getting up to actually go do it can be tough.

 Just like getting out of bed the key to getting out of the lazy chair lies in discipline and willpower, as well as the realization that as a writer not writing you are denying yourself happiness. If that isn’t enough of a motivator there are clearly other issues.


----------



## moderan (Nov 13, 2017)

Heh. I am OCD, I mean, I have OCD, as well as a degree of Asperger's, by which I mean I THRIVE on routine. And I'm a journalist, so I CAN and WILL write each time I sit to the keys. But scheduling a time when one can write with 'clean hands and composure' is part of the beginner's toolkit.

And, at the risk of being redundant, I had this status on my FB page (this version is slightly abridged):



> There's a website I go to where I try to help newbie writers get the frame of mind they need to be a professional. They almost always respond wrongly, thinking I am trolling instead of seeing that I'm just telling the truth.
> I was thinking maybe my approach was wrong -- clearly if you're not reaching people, the fault is in the operator, yes? And I'm nothing if not acerbic and professionally curmudgeonly.
> I would genuinely help. But most of these people are so convinced that they know what they're doing, and have been bolstered by other know-littles on that basis, that it's difficult to make headway.
> Most of that advice is of the 'butt-in-chair' variety, championing perspiration over inspiration. "I can't write unless I'm in the mood..."



Some of the commenters thought I meant Facebook 
I did drop the url. The ineffable Terry D weighed in on the thread.
Remember...I don't think I am a big shot, anywhere. But I _really do_ know people that you read. I am here to help, and can help, and will help (and non-WF people get charged for such services). This is the 40th anniversary of my first published story. I mostly journal, but my byline has gotten about, and I understand I am regarded as an up-and-comer


----------



## Terry D (Nov 13, 2017)

moderan said:


> Heh. I am OCD, I mean, I have OCD, as well as a degree of Asperger's, by which I mean I THRIVE on routine. And I'm a journalist, so I CAN and WILL write each time I sit to the keys. But scheduling a time when one can write with 'clean hands and composure' is part of the beginner's toolkit.
> 
> And, at the risk of being redundant, I had this status on my FB page (this version is slightly abridged):
> 
> ...



Not true. People 'ef' me all the time.


----------



## Smith (Nov 13, 2017)

Your advice and motivation is more than appreciated. I definitely could benefit from self-discipline in relation to my writing. And I think lying is a really good way of thinking about writing fiction; although one mustn't overlook the fundamentals and principles of storytelling, regardless of if it's fact or fiction.


----------



## Smith (Nov 13, 2017)

Sorry for the double-post, but I have a question.

What advice can you give to somebody who enjoys writing (fiction and non-fiction), but is mentally exhausted by the process?

Or in the opposite order, what advice can you give to somebody who wants to write, but already feels mentally exhausted?

I'm a perfectionist, and I sometimes find that each word can be a daunting, stressful, and occasionally frustrating task. For this reason I cannot fathom how people can write 50,000 words or more for Nanowrimo.

While reading this thread has been motivating, I feel like I don't have any tools or weapons or defenses at my disposal that will allow me to more efficiently navigate my writing... as in, you might say "perspiration > inspiration" when it comes to jogging, but joggers could also really benefit from practical teachings about breathing techniques, amount of water, what to eat (or not to eat) beforehand, what kind of shoes to wear, etc.

I guess what I'm asking, is explain to me how Person A, over the course of 31 days, can write 1000 words a day consistently and of decent quality. They sit down, and the words just flow without effort.

Person B, over the course of 31 days, struggles to write anything at all on a daily basis without completely sacrificing quality. They sit down, but the words don't just flow without tremendous effort. But an anomaly occurs on the 23rd day, where they were randomly able to crank out 2000 words that they thought were of acceptable quality.

If such discrepancies and randomness cannot be explained by "muses", than certainly there must be concrete, discernible and addressable reasons for why this may be the case.

To take a crack at my own question, the difficulty with convincing people that they are not at the mercy of a muse, is that it's not always easy to find out what the real issues are, and so it's easier for them to just wait for the energy to strike them. Maybe they aren't disciplined. Maybe they've fooled themselves into thinking they want to be a writer but in actuality they don't. Maybe it's because their daily life is stressful and cock-blocking their imagination. Maybe it's because they need to try writing in a quiet environment as opposed to a noisy and distracting one. Maybe it's because they don't have as strong of a grasp on what constitutes a good story.

I mean, there's a long, long list of things that somebody struggling with this issue could try. But it isn't clear how to go about ruling out each factor without turning it into a long and arduous process of elimination.


----------



## moderan (Nov 13, 2017)

Smith said:


> Sorry for the double-post, but I have a question.
> 
> What advice can you give to somebody who enjoys writing (fiction and non-fiction), but is mentally exhausted by the process?
> 
> ...



Perfectionism is why there's NaNoWriMo. It helped me immensely, just to be formally given permission to not niggle with every word, to not attach so much importance to the copy, but rather to TELL THE STORY.
Otherwise, the story might not get told, because every word is a Michelin word, with so much riding on it that it cancels the need to relate the tale.
Therefore, _with the power bestowed upon me as an eight-time NaNo winner and three-time Nano mentor_, I give you explicit permission to tell the story. Exhaustion can be  good incubator. Most of the pros I know have full-time jobs. Writing is the escape from those mundane worlds into worlds of their own creation.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Nov 13, 2017)

My guard against perfectionism is writing longhand, in pen. If I'm typing, I notice every sentence and labor over every detail, but if I'm just writing in a notebook (in a non-erasable medium) I can write a lot more at once. I have to give myself leave to write badly before I can write well.


----------



## Sam (Nov 13, 2017)

I wholly agree with Duane. 

I've done NaNo twice and both times I had some of the greatest writing experiences of my life.


----------



## PiP (Nov 13, 2017)

moderan said:


> Perfectionism is why there's NaNoWriMo. It helped me immensely, just to be formally given permission to not niggle with every word, to not attach so much importance to the copy, but rather to TELL THE STORY.
> Otherwise, the story might not get told, because every word is a Michelin word, with so much riding on it that it cancels the need to relate the tale.



I completed NaNo on my first attempt back in 2012 in just over two weeks. (Unfortunately, I developed pneumonia one week into the challenge. My temperature was so high I was hallucinating and unable to write) I'd never studied creative writing, never knew there was such an excuse as writer's block yet for me failure to complete the challenge was not an option. The process was simple: I focused on telling the story through the stream of consciousness technique. Then I joined WF and started reading WD's. It was only then I then started to agonize over how to write instead of just telling the story. Over time I've come to the conclusion it is easy to get so strung over the process that the writer fails to enjoy the journey. I now write poetry...


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 13, 2017)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> My guard against perfectionism is writing longhand, in pen. If I'm typing, I notice every sentence and labor over every detail, but if I'm just writing in a notebook (in a non-erasable medium) I can write a lot more at once. I have to give myself leave to write badly before I can write well.



This is a great idea. My main problem is deciphering my own handwriting 

Another option for pen-shy folks (so probably most people who started school in the computer age - I just missed it) is...a manual typewriter. I have an old corona that I crank out every now and again to piss off the neighbors. Sometimes its as simple as moving away from the screen. And its basically the same as writing longhand as far as that goes. You can usually pick one up at an estate sale or a flea market for borderline nothing.

I would never choose to write a book that way because I'm rather fond of changing stuff on the fly, and rather prone to not noticing SPAG errors until I have already typed/written them out, but as a simple way for getting the 'juices going' this stuff can really work. You can always type it out immediately on a computer and change it.


----------



## Smith (Nov 13, 2017)

I always thought about getting a typewriter. Even a new one. I've found that it isn't so much the screen that distracts me, or Microsoft Word / Google Docs. It's the ease of access to the internet, video games, and my real-life friends on Skype and such.

Why does it piss off your neighbors though? It's that loud lol?


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 13, 2017)

Smith said:


> I always thought about getting a typewriter. Even a new one. I've found that it isn't so much the screen that distracts me, or Microsoft Word / Google Docs. It's the ease of access to the internet, video games, and my real-life friends on Skype and such.
> 
> Why does it piss off your neighbors though? It's that loud lol?



Heck, it shakes the whole house - you can hear it down the street. Just typing a sentence creates a sound like an asylum inmate trying to snap out of his chains.

Probably doesn't help that it probably hasn't seen proper maintenance since the Nixon Presidency.


----------



## Bayview (Nov 14, 2017)

I write and publish four or five novels a year and I've never won NaNo. Well, I've only tried it a couple times, but I learned enough those times to not bother trying again. This is not to say that NaNo isn't a great idea for some people, but it certainly isn't a great idea for _all_ people.

It's not great for me because I'm a binge writer but have to have a fair chunk of empty space in order to binge. Give me three weeks off work and I'll give you a novel, as long as I'm not bothered by other activities, but expecting me to write 1 500 words a day every damn day for a month? No. Doesn't work, for me.

So, yes, I think every writer struggling to produce should try NaNo, for sure. But I don't think you should beat yourself up if it doesn't work. You might be a binge writer, someone who needs to fully commit to the writing "lifestyle" of, in my case, sleeping weird hours, obsessing about the story all the damn time, not watching TV or reading anyone else's books because it will wreck your "flow", etc. It's no way to live a life, but it's a hell of a lot of fun for a few weeks at a time (or even for a weekend, if you can't manage the full weeks).

Or you might be a third or fourth or fifth kind of writer. There's no One Right Way to do this. I agree that it sucks to have to experiment and figure it all out for yourself, but I think it also sucks to commit to someone else's way of doing things when that might not be the right way for you. Sigh. Nothing's ever easy!

ETA: If "winning NaNo" was a thing that had some extra reward or was in some other way actually important to me, I guess I could manipulate my schedule in order to ensure that I had a couple weeks of uninterrupted time in November. I've certainly written more than 50K words in a month before. But November? Not a good time for uninterrupted writing, for me. And winning NaNo doesn't actually matter, as long as you're producing at a rate you're pleased with.


----------



## moderan (Nov 14, 2017)

Sure. Nobody is saying everyone's alike. But the majority would benefit from daily writing, and NaNoWriMo has that ring of authority that gives some people the release to do their thing. It's also a competition. I'm competitive. My background is in team sports.
Tell me I can't do it.
I did NanoWriMo, NaSoAlMo, and wrote the entire WF Newsletter, back when it was ten or fifteen pages, one month. And quit smoking during the process. I used to be a binge writer. Working steadily as a journalist 'cured' that.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 14, 2017)

I've never NaNoed. I don't have the time available to give it the attention I would like to. I should be retired from Real Life Work in '19 so I'm targeting that year to give it a shot.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 14, 2017)

Smith said:


> I'm a perfectionist, and I sometimes find that each word can be a daunting, stressful, and occasionally frustrating task. For this reason I cannot fathom how people can write 50,000 words or more for Nanowrimo.
> 
> While reading this thread has been motivating, I feel like I don't have any tools or weapons or defenses at my disposal that will allow me to more efficiently navigate my writing... as in, you might say "perspiration > inspiration" when it comes to jogging, but joggers could also really benefit from practical teachings about breathing techniques, amount of water, what to eat (or not to eat) beforehand, what kind of shoes to wear, etc.
> 
> I guess what I'm asking, is explain to me how Person A, over the course of 31 days, can write 1000 words a day consistently and of decent quality. They sit down, and the words just flow without effort.



I've been writing about 1,500 to 2,500 words a day (_most_ days, anyway) for a while now. Though, it certainly requires effort on my part (not to mention, it's often hard to find the time. Sometimes that means setting an alarm to wake up earlier, or drinking caffeine to stay up later).

Plus, it never just flows right out of me. I always have to drag it out in the beginning. But I told myself that if I want to be serious as a writer, then I need to approach writing seriously.

The best trick for me? Working my way up with daily goals. I started with "I'm going to write a little each day!" Once there, I moved to, "I'm going to write 300 words a day!" That became a goal of 500, then eventually, a thousand.

Now I use Pacemaker to track my daily progress, and if I see that I'm falling behind, it motivates me to get that word-count back up there.

Mostly I see it as one of those self-fulfilling prophecies—if you tell yourself you can't do it, you probably can't. But if you tell yourself, "I'm going to do this," you'll probably find a way. :encouragement:


----------



## Pluralized (Nov 14, 2017)

I think it's largely about allowing yourself to generate words for the sake of words, then discard whole segments of what you otherwise would have agonized over. Give yourself confidence that, when you sit down and focus, the words will come. They might not all be brilliant, and that's a huge development if you're serious about maturing as a writer.


----------



## Sam (Nov 14, 2017)

Pluralized said:


> I think it's largely about allowing yourself to generate words for the sake of words, then discard whole segments of what you otherwise would have agonized over. Give yourself confidence that, when you sit down and focus, the words will come. They might not all be brilliant, and that's a huge development if you're serious about maturing as a writer.



For me, it's about allowing myself to turn off the inner editor/critic and let the writing flow without the impediment of back-spacing and re-reading of sentences. By doing that, I concentrate less on form and more on the story. Mistakes and poor phrasing can be edited later, which is a sentiment I rarely accept in normal circumstances, and with one less thing to worry about, the process becomes more enjoyable. 

It brings me back to when I first started writing, to a time when spelling and grammar mattered almost nothing to me, and to days of endless writing because the story was so engrossing that I wrote into the small hours of the morning. NaNo has the unique ability to rekindle that writing nostalgia of years past. Hands up who cared about grammar and punctuation when they wrote their first story? I venture to say none of us. But how much more enjoyable was it then, when we weren't shackled by a crippling fear of having to get it right? 

NaNo isn't about writing a _right _​story; it's about getting back to a time when writing was fun.


----------



## Smith (Nov 15, 2017)

I see. Thank-you everybody for the responses! I think my issue of perfectionism can really be boiled down to not separating the fun of telling the story, with the serious editing and revision. I will try to starve that urge to "perfect" until I have a complete rough draft.

Writing's always more enjoyable when you tap into that stream of consciousness. I just wish I could tap into that stream deliberately. Anybody have any suggestions on how to do that?


----------



## Jack of all trades (Nov 15, 2017)

I think there's an awful lot of selective amnesia here. Or maybe it's Alzheimers.

Newbies are like toddlers. Toddlers don't run marathons, and only idiots would suggest they begin training for such.


----------



## Smith (Nov 15, 2017)

^What would be your advice?


----------



## Jack of all trades (Nov 16, 2017)

Smith said:


> ^What would be your advice?



Look around. I have given advice on lots of threads. If you have specific questions, start a thread or send me a PM.


----------



## moderan (Nov 16, 2017)

Smith said:


> I see. Thank-you everybody for the responses! I think my issue of perfectionism can really be boiled down to not separating the fun of telling the story, with the serious editing and revision. I will try to starve that urge to "perfect" until I have a complete rough draft.
> 
> Writing's always more enjoyable when you tap into that stream of consciousness. I just wish I could tap into that stream deliberately. Anybody have any suggestions on how to do that?



Coffee and. The concoction sometimes known as hippie speedballs works for me. Ymmv. But something that gives you tunnel vision --  be that tea, whiskey, life, whatever. A good friend of mine works out before he gets at the words. Another sucks down an Arnold Palmer. *shrugs* Try things til something works.


----------



## Sam (Nov 16, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> I think there's an awful lot of selective amnesia here. Or maybe it's Alzheimers.
> 
> Newbies are like toddlers. Toddlers don't run marathons, and only idiots would suggest they begin training for such.



That analogy doesn't hold water. 

The first significant piece of work I ever wrote was a novel. I hadn't even finished a short story before tackling it, yet I finished that novel at 130,000 words. Since then, I've written 14 more. 

Novels are piss-easy to write. In fact, short stories are _infinitely _harder to do well than novels are. Writing a short story will not prepare you for writing a novel, in exactly the same way writing a novel will not prepare you for writing short stories.


----------



## bdcharles (Nov 16, 2017)

Smith said:


> I see. Thank-you everybody for the responses! I think my issue of perfectionism can really be boiled down to not separating the fun of telling the story, with the serious editing and revision. I will try to starve that urge to "perfect" until I have a complete rough draft.
> 
> Writing's always more enjoyable when you tap into that stream of consciousness. I just wish I could tap into that stream deliberately. Anybody have any suggestions on how to do that?



Saw this on Twitter the other day:

https://www.copyblogger.com/effortless-writing/

It works for me. Alot of what gets me into the writing zone has little to do with writing, but much to do with getting to a good mental state: sufficient sleep, eating well, being around inspiring (read: enjoyable) things and people, whatever it takes to conjure up a daydream or two, noting down as I go, almost doing the rough draft on the fly. I sometimes think that my best writing happens away from my desk. But what most people seem to swear by is routine, and having some time, whether it is 1,666 words a day's worth of time, or two hours revery three weeks, where you are uninterrupted and can freely dump out those rough notes into something storylike.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Nov 16, 2017)

Sam said:


> That analogy doesn't hold water.
> 
> The first significant piece of work I ever wrote was a novel. I hadn't even finished a short story before tackling it, yet I finished that novel at 130,000 words. Since then, I've written 14 more.
> 
> Novels are piss-easy to write. In fact, short stories are _infinitely _harder to do well than novels are. Writing a short story will not prepare you for writing a novel, in exactly the same way writing a novel will not prepare you for writing short stories.



You have misunderstood.

I have not, nor will I ever, claim that short stories prepare one for novels. Check past posts.

Novels and short stories are totally different. If you find writing novels easy and short stories hard, that's the way it is for you. Other people may find the opposite true.

Personally, I wrote a novel first. Hence why I do not advocate writing shorts as prep for novels.

My point is about the "sit down every day and just write" bit. It goes with the "there's no such thing as writer's block" and "no one needs inspiration" malarkey.

As I have matured as a writer, I am inspired by so many different things. But it was not always the case. I still remember what it was like. I remember having to write a story for a creative writing class and having no idea what to write about. I remember struggling with the whole thing. Newbies come here for support, not "quit whining and just write" attitudes.


----------



## moderan (Nov 16, 2017)

Novels and short stories are exactly the same thing. They are writing. I'm an advocate of the old school -- sell the story, sell another, make novels out of them and sell them again. And sorry, but _my_ focus isn't newbies. You weird? Wanna turn pro? 
Good. Get your butt in the chair. Write me something. I'll help you polish it so you can sub to a pro.
You new to writing? Good. Get your butt in the chair. Write me a story. I'll help you polish it so you can sub to a pro.
I used to operate a segment of this here website on that basis. The people that wrote for the LM were being educated on the finer points of story submissions and were being groomed to sub to pro editors. Cuz that's how you get good, fast.
Most of them aren't here any more. They graduated.
Want support? Write. Gimme something with a character, a plot, and a resolution. I can put your feet on the road to selling it. If you have any other endgame in mind, then I'm not the guy.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 16, 2017)

Smith said:


> I see. Thank-you everybody for the responses! I think my issue of perfectionism can really be boiled down to not separating the fun of telling the story, with the serious editing and revision. I will try to starve that urge to "perfect" until I have a complete rough draft.
> 
> Writing's always more enjoyable when you tap into that stream of consciousness. I just wish I could tap into that stream deliberately. Anybody have any suggestions on how to do that?



The problem with editing: it means you're moving backward—literally. You're going _back_ over the words you've already written.

This is great to do when your goal is to improve what you've already gotten down. But it's counterproductive when your goal is to write and make forward progress with the story. And it's probably why you find it hard to tap into that "zone", where the words start to flow and really spill across the page. If you're editing while writing, you're not allowing yourself to build any sort of creative momentum.

I'm much like you in that regard: I fret over sentences, I groan over word choices. Given the option, I'd sit and rewrite the same sentence over and over (and over) again, until I find that combination of words that's _just right_. But writing that way is slow as hell. And, as my wife pointed out, ultimately unnecessary. She calls it "writing sideways"—instead of making forward progress, I'm just spending time creating alternative (sideways) versions of the current passage.

So, whenever I find myself falling into an editing loop, I tell myself, "Don't write sideways." Then I keep moving forward. I remind myself that I can always edit after it's done. :encouragement:

(Plus, if waiting until the full story is done is too hard on your inner editor, you can always compromise and edit on a scene-by-scene basis. Write a full scene, _without_ editing, then when it's done, edit the scene to your perfectionist heart's content. Rinse and repeat.)


----------



## J Anfinson (Nov 16, 2017)

Smith said:


> I see. Thank-you everybody for the responses! I think my issue of perfectionism can really be boiled down to not separating the fun of telling the story, with the serious editing and revision.



I had that problem for years. The way I got past it was to decide that I wasn't allowed to edit a damn thing. I kept typing and adding to the word count even when continuity issues arose and stuff like names changed. Basically the first draft of my book is a pile of shit requiring a major rewrite, but hey at least I can say I did it. And that feeling of typing "the end" was pretty good. Anyway, you just have to give yourself permission to enjoy writing it and quit worrying about making it right the first time. That's what I learned.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Nov 16, 2017)

Smith said:


> I see. Thank-you everybody for the responses! I think my issue of perfectionism can really be boiled down to not separating the fun of telling the story, with the serious editing and revision. I will try to starve that urge to "perfect" until I have a complete rough draft.
> 
> Writing's always more enjoyable when you tap into that stream of consciousness. I just wish I could tap into that stream deliberately. Anybody have any suggestions on how to do that?



It helps me to write when I have a limited amount of time, because then I _have_ to get the words in. So, I write on break at work, or if a professor goes on an irrelevant tangent during a lecture. 

Also, when I'm writing a first draft, I try not to worry a whole lot about order; I just write the parts I want to write. I might end up deleting and re-ordering later, but to stay in a flow I have to suppress the part of me that wants to nitpick. (Lately, I've been adding push-ups to my workout routine for every time I catch myself nitpicking. I mean, I guess if you like doing push-ups, that's not an effective deterrent, but. . .)

I have to think about it less like work and more like an imaginary game, like the kind I used to play with my plastic dinosaurs as a kid. If you don't know how to phrase something, just phrase it badly, knowing you can fix it later. If you don't know how to close off a scene, skip forward and come back to it when you've figured it out. If you don't know what's going to happen next, make something up without stressing over its relevancy--you can always delete it later. I know that there's people who revise and edit as they go, but I just can't get words in that way, and, besides, it's a lot less fun.


----------



## Bayview (Nov 17, 2017)

I hate editing, so for me to go back and fix mistakes and change things after the story is written would be hell. So, for me, it's best to make almost all the changes as I go.

Again, take the advice people are giving, but take it as "something to try" rather than "the one true way". It really is going to vary from person to person.


----------



## Smith (Nov 17, 2017)

Bayview said:


> I hate editing, so for me to go back and fix mistakes and change things after the story is written would be hell. So, for me, it's best to make almost all the changes as I go.
> 
> Again, take the advice people are giving, but take it as "something to try" rather than "the one true way". It really is going to vary from person to person.



How do you get anything done doing it that way though?

Might seem like an odd question to ask since I *just* admitted to doing more or less the same thing. But after reading other people's comments, it's no wonder that I write a few sentences and then proceed to endlessly rewrite them and restructure them on a doomed journey of perfection. Sometimes a sentence doesn't sound right, or doesn't flow right, etc etc... and then sometimes I spend an hour doing this just to realize that I've been wasting my time because the scene was a bust anyway, despite how well written it might now be.

It's one thing to quickly notice you spelled a word wrong, and to go back and fix it. That's not really my issue though. I guess mine is more about revision and perfectionism.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 17, 2017)

Smith said:


> How do you get anything done doing it that way though?
> 
> Might seem like an odd question to ask since I *just* admitted to doing more or less the same thing. But after reading other people's comments, it's no wonder that I write a few sentences and then proceed to endlessly rewrite them and restructure them on a doomed journey of perfection.
> 
> It's one thing to quickly notice you spelled a word wrong, and to go back and fix it. That's not really my issue though. I guess mine is more about revision.



Writing slowly and editing as you go is a perfectly fine way to write if it works for you. Progress will be slow but if you stick with it you'll still get to the same place. The biggest pitfall to avoid, in my opinion, is getting stuck completely in the editing, so much so that your book never really advances at all.


----------



## Smith (Nov 17, 2017)

Terry D said:


> Writing slowly and editing as you go is a perfectly fine way to write if it works for you. Progress will be slow but if you stick with it you'll still get to the same place. The biggest pitfall to avoid, in my opinion, is getting stuck completely in the editing, so much so that your book never really advances at all.



That's the thing: I feel like I don't make any progress. And it makes the act of writing, something I normally love to do, way too self-conscious and critical. In other words, I never get to have fun writing the story. Not to mention it's pretty exhausting and tiresome.

It's no wonder I often don't have motivation to write. I might have ideas but I've turned the whole ordeal into a tyrannical, gulag chore.


----------



## moderan (Nov 17, 2017)

Smith said:


> That's the thing: I feel like I don't make any progress. And it makes the act of writing, something I normally love to do, way too self-conscious and critical. In other words, I never get to have fun writing the story. Not to mention it's pretty exhausting and tiresome.
> 
> It's no wonder I often don't have motivation to write. I might have ideas but I've turned the whole ordeal into a tyrannical, gulag chore.



Y'know what I do when that happens? I write flash fictions. They're over in a hurry and you get the same frisson of creation. Plus it gets you used to finishing again.
The con is that you can get perfectionist over such a paltry few words.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 17, 2017)

Then I would definitely turn off the 'EDIT' switch and try writing without that filter for week, or a month. Stick to your normal schedule, but tell yourself that you aren't going back, during the session, to do any editing. You can always go back to your old methods if that doesn't work for you, but give it a try. Write just for the storyteller in you, not the editor. You can feed the editor later. Right now you are starving both.


----------



## Bayview (Nov 17, 2017)

Smith said:


> How do you get anything done doing it that way though?
> 
> Might seem like an odd question to ask since I *just* admitted to doing more or less the same thing. But after reading other people's comments, it's no wonder that I write a few sentences and then proceed to endlessly rewrite them and restructure them on a doomed journey of perfection. Sometimes a sentence doesn't sound right, or doesn't flow right, etc etc... and then sometimes I spend an hour doing this just to realize that I've been wasting my time because the scene was a bust anyway, despite how well written it might now be.
> 
> It's one thing to quickly notice you spelled a word wrong, and to go back and fix it. That's not really my issue though. I guess mine is more about revision and perfectionism.



I'm not much of a perfectionist. I'd be concerned, really, that a perfectionist is going to have a hell of time finishing things regardless of when the editing is done - if you write the whole story in the "sloppy first draft" style and then send yourself back to start editing, aren't you going to fall into the same endless re-write trap?

Perfection isn't my goal. I just want my words to be good enough to tell my story.


----------



## Sam (Nov 17, 2017)

I'm a perfectionist, even when it comes to posts made on the Internet. 

But I've finished a lot. There're numerous ways of doing it. I edit as I write, but because I've been writing for so long, I tend to make few, if any, mistakes while typing. Most of my edits consist of re-phrasing and deleting unnecessary passages, which can be tackled once the main body of work is complete. 

You can also teach yourself how to type with great accuracy. I use the traditional "ASDF and JKL;" approach, but that's not strictly essential. Once you can type without giving it as much as a conscious thought, it makes the writing process that much easier. By the time I finish thinking what my next sentence is, I've practically typed it. And when that's combined with the aforementioned error-free typing, I can achieve a continuous flow devoid of constant pauses for editing.


----------



## Smith (Nov 17, 2017)

Bayview said:


> I'm not much of a perfectionist. I'd be concerned, really, that a perfectionist is going to have a hell of time finishing things regardless of when the editing is done - if you write the whole story in the "sloppy first draft" style and then send yourself back to start editing, aren't you going to fall into the same endless re-write trap?
> 
> Perfection isn't my goal. I just want my words to be good enough to tell my story.



Fair. But I've found that editing and revising is easier (for me) when done in the context of a finished piece. It also can prevent one from "perfecting" scenes that are just going to be taken out or completely redone/transformed anyway.

You make a good point though. Maybe I can start training myself to think in terms of "this isn't going to be perfect, but I'm sure as Hell going to write it to the best of my ability, and maybe even slightly beyond that threshold". That might prove very useful when it comes to re-drafting.


----------



## moderan (Nov 17, 2017)

It takes time. Most folks who edit as they go have been doing it for a while and that's just a shortcut, used in lieu of a second or third draft. There's little concern about stopping or blocking. The only time I do an additional draft is if I want a different perspective, say first past for a thing written originally in third present, or something like that. As above, I want to tell the story as best I can, and then get on with another one.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Nov 17, 2017)

Smith said:


> That's the thing: I feel like I don't make any progress. And it makes the act of writing, something I normally love to do, way too self-conscious and critical. In other words, I never get to have fun writing the story. Not to mention it's pretty exhausting and tiresome.
> 
> It's no wonder I often don't have motivation to write. I might have ideas but I've turned the whole ordeal into a tyrannical, gulag chore.



Congratulations! You have identified the problem. Now, using all that you know about yourself, come up with a solution. Try it. If it works, keep doing it. If it doesn't, try something else. Keep going until you have a method that works for you.

The problem that the "edit as I go" method has is a stubborn holding onto what's written, even when it doesn't work. It's better to be more flexible and therefore open to using feedback to improve what you've written, as well as learn and grow as a writer.


----------



## Roac (Nov 18, 2017)

Smith said:


> Fair. But I've found that editing and revising is easier (for me) when done in the context of a finished piece. It also can prevent one from "perfecting" scenes that are just going to be taken out or completely redone/transformed anyway.
> 
> You make a good point though. Maybe I can start training myself to think in terms of "this isn't going to be perfect, but I'm sure as Hell going to write it to the best of my ability, and maybe even slightly beyond that threshold". That might prove very useful when it comes to re-drafting.




For my short stories, I tend to write them to conclusion and then go back and edit them until I am completely satisfied with the end result. This process can be incredibly painful and take a very long time. Finally when I am totally happy with the final product and think to myself “there can’t be many more edits”, I pass the masterpiece to my wife to proof read. She usually uses up a whole red pen pointing out the errors and required edits…even if the story is only a couple thousand words. It is so disheartening to see…but in the end her edits are so good and make the stories better.


----------



## Bayview (Nov 18, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> Congratulations! You have identified the problem. Now, using all that you know about yourself, come up with a solution. Try it. If it works, keep doing it. If it doesn't, try something else. Keep going until you have a method that works for you.
> 
> The problem that the "edit as I go" method has is a stubborn holding onto what's written, even when it doesn't work. It's better to be more flexible and therefore open to using feedback to improve what you've written, as well as learn and grow as a writer.



I don't understand the connection you're drawing between editing as you go and not being flexible and using feedback.

I guess I could see if it people were getting feedback on rough drafts, but surely that's pretty rare?

So, assuming people don't get feedback at that state, why would there be a higher chance of what sounds like "golden word syndrome" if someone edits as they go rather than if they edit in a big sweep at the end?


----------



## Jack of all trades (Nov 18, 2017)

Bayview said:


> I don't understand the connection you're drawing between editing as you go and not being flexible and using feedback.
> 
> I guess I could see if it people were getting feedback on rough drafts, but surely that's pretty rare?
> 
> So, assuming people don't get feedback at that state, why there be a higher chance of what sounds like "golden word syndrome" if someone edits as they go rather than if they edit in a big sweep at the end?



One of us is incoherent.  I'm getting some sleep.


----------



## Pelwrath (Nov 18, 2017)

Writing might be easy, writing a story isn't. If writing is a skill, which is easier to teach?  The technical aspects or the stylistic ones? I can be down right terrible with the former and I think I'm pretty good with the latter.  They're both important but which is easier to learn.

An idea isn't a story but can become one. Routines are helpful, for some people.  There are three rules for writing but nobody can remember them.


----------



## moderan (Nov 18, 2017)

Technical aspects are what get taught. The stylistic elements are what _you_ bring to the table.
Writing a story _is easy_, for some folks. Especially if they just sit down and write, and don't think about all that other crap. It all comes out in the wash.


----------



## Pelwrath (Nov 18, 2017)

So, style can't be taught?  You either have it or you don't? I guess that lines up with the critiques my poems have been receiving.


----------



## Smith (Nov 18, 2017)

Pelwrah said:


> So, style can't be taught?  You either have it or you don't? I guess that lines up with the critiques my poems have been receiving.



Style can be "taught", but there seems to be a lot more nuance and complexity that comes along with it.

Everybody has their own style. Stephen King has a style, Christopher Hitchens had a style, Hemingway had a style, you and I have our styles (suddenly "style" doesn't even look like a word anymore lol)... studying the styles of other writers can be revealing. But I think what hurts is being too conscious of it. It'll happen naturally and develop overtime if you don't try to force it.

Going back over things I've written in the past not only showed me where I've improved, but it also revealed common threads throughout my writing; turns of phrase, vocabulary, tone, subject-matter, sentence structure, etc. I could begin to tell that I was the one who wrote it without needing to look for my name, if you know what I mean.

Easy way to know you have style, or voice: when a friend gets stuck at a part in their story, offer to help finish that part for them.

Then, when you're satisfied with your contribution, go back and read it all the way through. You'll probably be able to tell where it switches authors -- besides the fact that you obviously remember where you started.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Nov 18, 2017)

Bayview said:


> I don't understand the connection you're drawing between editing as you go and not being flexible and using feedback.
> 
> I guess I could see if it people were getting feedback on rough drafts, but surely that's pretty rare?
> 
> So, assuming people don't get feedback at that state, why would there be a higher chance of what sounds like "golden word syndrome" if someone edits as they go rather than if they edit in a big sweep at the end?



This is a potential minefield that choose to ignore so as not to create a mini discussion.


----------



## moderan (Nov 18, 2017)

'Style' is a reflection of the choices you make in writing the piece...whether you use adverbs, adjectives, choose to write in third or first person, active or passive voice. 'Technique' is the command you have over the apparatus of writing: words, sentences, paragraphs, idiom, subtext/levels, symbolism. "Voice' is what those combine to make.
It isn't 'have it or not'. Everyone has a style or styles. Fewer have the technique to control that expression.


----------



## Bayview (Nov 18, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> This is a potential minefield that choose to ignore so as not to create a mini discussion.



I'm bewildered... would the mini-discussion be less relevant to the topic at hand than the current "what is style" mini-discussion?

I'm not trying to press you into answering, I'm just... well, yeah, bewildered.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 18, 2017)

Pelwrah said:


> So, style can't be taught?  You either have it or you don't? I guess that lines up with the critiques my poems have been receiving.



Style can be taught in so much as you can learn the components of it -- as Moderan enumerated above -- and practice manipulating them to achieve the effects you want. By doing that your own voice will emerge. This is where we get into the difference between style and voice. A writer's style can be copied, her voice is unique. Many writers have copied H.P. Lovecraft's style, but they don't sound like Lovecraft. When the sword and sorcery sub-genre of fantasy was really ripping and roaring, many writers copied -- or tried to -- the style of Robert E. Howard's Conan stories, but they never sounded quite like Howard. Every author makes subtle -- many times unconscious -- choices of language, pace and flow which are unique to them. That's voice. A particular style can be learned, a voice will develop as we grow.


----------



## Smith (Nov 18, 2017)

Bayview said:


> I'm bewildered... would the mini-discussion be less relevant to the topic at hand than the current "what is style" mini-discussion?
> 
> I'm not trying to press you into answering, I'm just... well, yeah, bewildered.



Well, I did notice that Jack referred to "stubbornly holding on to what's been written" and you referred to "golden word syndrome".

I think you were slightly talking past one another. Those aren't really the same thing. The first sounds like being unable to let go of something and scrap it, while the second refers to endlessly revising the same part over and over.

If you suffer from "golden word syndrome" (perfectionism) and you revise as you go, you may spend hours or days perfecting a scene or chapter that - in the context of the finished piece - may need to be removed.

If you suffer from perfectionism *after* your first draft is finished, you may be able to recognize (thanks to context) "This part doesn't need improvement! This part just needs to go in the trash altogether because it doesn't belong, not because it's poorly written." Or in other words, "It doesn't need better execution, but needs to be executed."

Of course, I'm theorizing. And this might only apply to somebody who isn't strictly a plotter. If you've already got the whole story plotted out, it's less likely that you'll spend hours or days on a part that doesn't ultimately make the cut. Chances are you would've found those spots and fixed them already in the planning stage.


----------



## Bayview (Nov 18, 2017)

Smith said:


> Well, I did notice that Jack referred to "stubbornly holding on to what's been written" and you referred to "golden word syndrome".
> 
> I think you were talking past one another. Those aren't really the same thing. The first is being unable to let go of something and scrap it, which refers to something I myself mentioned, and the second refers to endlessly revising the same part over and over.



I've never seen "golden word syndrome" interpreted that way. I've always seen it meaning that some people refuse to be edited because they are convinced their words are already golden and can't possibly be improved.

But, leaving the term aside, does it make sense that people who edit as they go be more or less stubborn about holding on to what's been written compared to people who edit at the end of the draft? What am I missing?


----------



## Smith (Nov 18, 2017)

Oh, well I guess I thought the discussion here was about something different. I thought we were still talking about people like myself who are perfectionists, and whether it would be better or worse for these individuals to edit as they go.

If that's no longer the parameter of the discussion, that's fine, but then I have no opinion.


----------



## Bayview (Nov 18, 2017)

Smith said:


> Oh, well I guess I thought the discussion here was about something different. I thought we were still talking about people like myself who are perfectionists, and whether it would be better or worse for these individuals to edit as they go.
> 
> If that's no longer the parameter of the discussion, that's fine, but then I have no opinion.



I think we more-or-less are still talking about it...

Do you think your perfectionism will be managed if you stop editing as you go, or do you think it will just flare up again when you go back to edit at the end? I mean, I can see how in one way you'd be further along if you stopped editing as you went since you'd at least have a first draft finished, but if you haven't been editing as you go the first draft is likely to be pretty weak, right? So you'll need to do a lot of editing at _that _stage and it seems as if you'll fall into the same perfectionism trap.

If your ultimate goal is to have completed a first draft, then obviously you should stop editing as you go, because you'll never need to edit; you've completed your ultimate task as soon as the first draft is finished. I get that.

But if your ultimate goal is to produce something of publishable quality, or something polished to the best of your ability, or whatever, then I'm not sure having a completed-but-very-rough draft is any closer to your goal than having an incomplete-but-smoothed-out draft.

It seems to me that your perfectionism is the dragon you have to slay, whatever other approach you take.

I'm not saying you shouldn't experiment with different approaches, and if you've been frustrated by editing as you go then sure, you should try another technique.

I'm just questioning Jack's assertion that "The problem that the "edit as I go" method has is a stubborn holding onto what's written, even when it doesn't work. It's better to be more flexible and therefore open to using feedback to improve what you've written, as well as learn and grow as a writer." I don't see the logic of it. Do you?


----------



## Smith (Nov 19, 2017)

Bayview said:


> Do you think your perfectionism will be managed if you stop editing as you go, or do you think it will just flare up again when you go back to edit at the end? I mean, I can see how in one way you'd be further along if you stopped editing as you went since you'd at least have a first draft finished, but if you haven't been editing as you go the first draft is likely to be pretty weak, right? So you'll need to do a lot of editing at _that _stage and it seems as if you'll fall into the same perfectionism trap.
> 
> If your ultimate goal is to have completed a first draft, then obviously you should stop editing as you go, because you'll never need to edit; you've completed your ultimate task as soon as the first draft is finished. I get that.
> 
> ...



I like the dragon reference. Reminds me of Professor Jordan Peterson. ^_^

I think I'm getting better at saying "this is good enough". Kind of like what you were saying. "This is good enough for the story I'm trying to tell." And if I push myself a little past that point, so that I'm always improving, then I'm *very* satisfied.

It might be easier for me to try a different approach. That is, to let myself make more mistakes on the first draft so that I can actually FINISH a first draft. Talking about novels here. Why? Well, for one, if I don't make progress because of my perfectionism then I get discouraged. But if I can prove to myself I can tell the story, even if I haven't *yet* told it in the best way that I can, at least I told it. I completed it.

Also, I think editing and revision is best done in the context of the whole. 

I don't think that way is inherently superior to yours, or vice versa. What's important is we find what works for us.


----------



## Pelwrath (Nov 19, 2017)

I feel that no author would ever send a story out that wasn't good enough. Why this has become interpreted as a negative, I don't know.  Perhaps it has to do with, even an accepted story being edited. We take that as it didn't meat the publishers total requirements. I remember reading about how Asimov would be bothered that John W. Campbell would suggest or require alterations to one of his stories.  When that happens, we forget that the important fact...the story was accepted and that means it was good enough.

No story or poem will ever be perfect but many will be good enough for publication, I've been fortunate to have four stories and a poem, good enough to be published.  You may not have liked how the Twilight books were written, many didn't. I've never read the book, yet millions of others have. A publisher and editor knew their readers would like it.

We place enough pressure on ourselves to write a perfect story, why not dial it down a little and write a good enough story.  Just my opinion.


----------



## moderan (Nov 19, 2017)

Pelwrah said:


> I feel that no author would ever send a story out that wasn't good enough. Why this has become interpreted as a negative, I don't know.  Perhaps it has to do with, even an accepted story being edited. We take that as it didn't meat the publishers total requirements. I remember reading about how Asimov would be bothered that John Carr would suggest or require alterations to one of his stories.  When that happens, we forget that the important fact...the story was accepted and that means it was good enough.
> 
> No story or poem will ever be perfect but many will be good enough for publication, I've been fortunate to have four stories and a poem, good enough to be published.  You may not have liked how the Twilight books were written, many didn't. I've never read the book, yet millions of others have. A publisher and editor knew their readers would like it.
> 
> We place enough pressure on ourselves to write a perfect story, why not dial it down a little and write a good enough story.  Just my opinion.



Wow. That's a lot of...I'm not really sure.
"no author would ever send a story out that wasn't good enough"
Good enough for them, perhaps, but there are varying degrees of acceptability. And perception. What's good enough for an individual writer isn't always up to the standard of a publication, and different editors have different standards.
"Why this has become interpreted as a negative, I don't know. Perhaps it has to do with, even an accepted story being edited."
What does this even mean? I'm not following that at all.
Who's John Carr? John W. Campbell, Jr, mixed with editor/anthologist Terry Carr? Generally stories are edited before acceptance. Granted, working with an editor who wields check-cutting powers is a tacit acceptance, but it doesn't always work that way.
"Perfectionism" isn't about that anyway. It's more a psychological condition akin to 'impostor syndrome', where a writer feels that the work will never be good enough, and each detail must be sweated over in case it doesn't measure up. It's _generally_ a demon of the new writer, who hasn't been at the game long enough to have confidence in the work or their instincts, and fades about the time that concerns over others stealing their precious material fades.
Four stories and a poem is a good start.


----------



## Bayview (Nov 19, 2017)

moderan said:


> Generally stories are edited before acceptance. Granted, working with an editor who wields check-cutting powers is a tacit acceptance, but it doesn't always work that way.



Whoa, is this true? I mean, obviously only for short stories, since I know it doesn't apply to novels, but I didn't know that about short stories! Yuck. I wouldn't care for that at all.


----------



## moderan (Nov 19, 2017)

There generally isn't time to develop an idea once submitted. An anthology or periodicals editor isn't going to do a lot of it. There are other writers, other stories, which are already good to go. I won't do it unless a piece has spectacular possibilities.


----------



## Pelwrath (Nov 19, 2017)

Yes, John W. Campbell, thanks for catching it.  

Good enough as a negative;  Enough: adverb-To the required degree or extent.  If you meet the requirement, that's a good thing. Yet, we're told things like: "You didn't let it stew long enough.  You didn't edit well enough." It's used as a negative.

There are two types of reinforcement/motivation; positive and negative.
If you live with criticism, you only learn to condemn.  If you live in fear, you learn to be apprehensive.
If you live with tolerance, you learn patience. If you live with praise, you learn to appreciate.

When I was a teacher, I always encouraged my students. Told them when and why they were wrong and right. Encouraged supported opinions. Teaching history is little different than mentoring others to become a better writer. 

In our desire to help others, I feel both writers and mentors,  have become overly focused on what needs to be corrected. Fix what needs to be fixed, of course but don't throw the baby out with the dirty bath water.


----------



## moderan (Nov 19, 2017)

Pelwrah said:


> Yes, John W. Campbell, thanks for catching it.
> 
> Good enough as a negative;  Enough: adverb-To the required degree or extent.  If you meet the requirement, that's a good thing. Yet, we're told things like: "You didn't let it stew long enough.  You didn't edit well enough." It's used as a negative.
> 
> ...



I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. "You didn't edit well enough". Okay, so there are grammatical errata, punctuation errors, misspellings. That's fact, not negativity. 
"You didn't let it stew enough." Who said that? I never have, never would. Nobody in this thread has.
Teaching history is _a lot different_ than mentoring someone to be a better writer, and in any case, what you're on about is editorial, not mentoring. Editors don't have the time to do that, or to wipe your nose. The story is either acceptable for the journal (with perhaps a little work), or it isn't. I want to be told why, if a submission doesn't make it. I don't need sugarcoating. I need data.
There is _constructive_ criticism, and there is destructive criticism. One needs to learn to separate them. 
And the idea of the OP is that WRITING IS EASY if you tune out the noise.
That means no negative self-talk, no making excuses, no dithering. Just put the butt in the chair and start typing.


----------



## Sam (Nov 19, 2017)

Pelwrah said:


> Yes, John W. Campbell, thanks for catching it.
> 
> Good enough as a negative;  Enough: adverb-To the required degree or extent.  If you meet the requirement, that's a good thing. Yet, we're told things like: "You didn't let it stew long enough.  You didn't edit well enough." It's used as a negative.
> 
> ...



If you encourage people when they write bad, they'll always write bad. 

Criticism is the major component by which anyone, in any industry, grows and becomes better. Without criticism, you don't know where you need to improve. Constant encouragement, on the other hand, has created an educational system where everyone is given participation medals and thus loses any sense of achievement. Encouragement when it is earned is a far greater reward than encouragement for the sake of not wishing to be negative. 

Criticism is a very important tool for the building of character. Having a thin skin anywhere is bad, but doubly so in the written world. Criticism helps create thick skin.


----------



## Smith (Nov 19, 2017)

To be fair, I think Pelwrah said that he was encouraging what his students did right, and correcting them where they went wrong. That's not encouraging bad writing (or studying, or whatever).

Knowing what you're doing correctly, or even encouragement in areas where you could go-above-and-beyond, is equally important in my book as constructively criticizing what wasn't working.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 19, 2017)

Sam said:


> If you encourage people when they write bad, they'll always write bad.
> 
> Criticism is the major component by which anyone, in any industry, grows and becomes better. Without criticism, you don't know where you need to improve. Constant encouragement, on the other hand, has created an educational system where everyone is given participation medals and thus loses any sense of achievement. Encouragement when it is earned is a far greater reward than encouragement for the sake of not wishing to be negative.
> 
> Criticism is a very important tool for the building of character. Having a thin skin anywhere is bad, but doubly so in the written world. Criticism helps create thick skin.



Just, no.


----------



## Bayview (Nov 19, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> Just, no.



Just, why?


----------



## Pelwrath (Nov 19, 2017)

If I can be held accountable and rightly so, for a confusing poem or story, should the same standard be applied to a critique?  

Smith is spot on. I'd encourage them for what they did right. I feel it's easier to improve a strength than a weakness, because you are more likely to improve what you like to do, than what you don't like to do.

Criticism doesn't make people want to improve, it makes them avoid the criticism.  Constructive criticism is an oxymoron, it should be called mentoring. I told my students that my job isn't to teach you history and social studies. It's to teach you to think. Once you can do that, everything else can fall into place.


----------



## Bayview (Nov 19, 2017)

Pelwrah said:


> If I can be held accountable and rightly so, for a confusing poem or story, should the same standard be applied to a critique?
> 
> Smith is spot on. I'd encourage them for what they did right. I feel it's easier to improve a strength than a weakness, because you are more likely to improve what you like to do, than what you don't like to do.
> 
> Criticism doesn't make people want to improve, it makes them avoid the criticism.  Constructive criticism is an oxymoron, it should be called mentoring. I told my students that my job isn't to teach you history and social studies. It's to teach you to think. Once you can do that, everything else can fall into place.



How do you teach them to think? Is there no mention of the negative, and only praise for the positive?


----------



## Pelwrath (Nov 19, 2017)

I would mention for essay and short answer questions, what was right and what wasn't.  Then, give them the opportunity to rewrite their answer for an improved grade but not allow them to use what had already been written.  I would assign 'thinking' papers over the weekend, 1 page in length. I'd give them a situation and ask them a yes/no for their reaction to it. Then say  "Your opinion isn't wrong, how you support your opinion can be."


----------



## moderan (Nov 19, 2017)

Pelwrah said:


> If I can be held accountable and rightly so, for a confusing poem or story, should the same standard be applied to a critique?
> 
> Smith is spot on. I'd encourage them for what they did right. I feel it's easier to improve a strength than a weakness, because you are more likely to improve what you like to do, than what you don't like to do.
> 
> Criticism doesn't make people want to improve, it makes them avoid the criticism.  Constructive criticism is an oxymoron, it should be called mentoring. I told my students that my job isn't to teach you history and social studies. It's to teach you to think. Once you can do that, everything else can fall into place.



Wut?

You're just full of this stuff. Constructive criticism is an oxymoron? Do tell. Why should it be called mentoring? That makes no sense whatsoever. Mentoring is a protracted series of lessons. A critique is a one-off. 
If you don't improve weaknesses, you _stay weak_. What you can do well, you can do well. You need less repetition than you do for things you do less well. Just doing what you like to do is a child's way out.
"I suck at doing the dishes, Mommy," says the clever child.
"Oh that's okay," you say. "You can watch tv then, since you do that so well, and I'll do the dishes for you."
Yeesh.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Nov 19, 2017)

And yet there are those who simply reject criticism, without thinking about it, when it doesn't agree with their preconceived ideas. And most of those ideas are about themselves and their abilities.

Using moderan's dish washing analogy, it's the child that leaves all kinds of food behind after washing dishes, then swears the parent is hallucinating when the parent points out the food.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Nov 19, 2017)

Pelwrah said:


> If I can be held accountable and rightly so, for a confusing poem or story, should the same standard be applied to a critique?



It sounds like you are asking if those critiquing should be held to certain standards.

I would say, yes, they should, in an ideal situation. Unfortunately, forums like this are less than ideal. There is no way to keep out those that only want to step on others to boost themselves (in their own minds). Moderators may try to keep things civil, but can't see the motivations of the posters.

What helped me the most was to build a rapport with writers, one at a time. As we get to know each other, we know when the goal is to help, and continue working together, or tear down, in which case it's time to move on.

It is important to be able to say, "This section or premise doesn't work," and have the other person know the goal is to improve the piece. Rewriting for the person, in my opinion, is bad, because the original writer needs to learn to do it him/her self.

It is really a matter of trust. When the trust exists, criticism is beneficial. When the trust has been damaged, criticism probably won't do much good. When there's no trust built yet, the criticism should be considered, but not accepted blindly. That's my advice, for whatever it's worth to you.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Nov 19, 2017)

I've been thinking about the subject of criticism and encouragement some more.

I was just posting on another thread where the OP was having difficulty getting started. I was reminded of how members used to say things like, "All early works are crap," and how I hated that. So I wanted to encourage the OP to write without making it sound like "you are guaranteed to fail on your first effort," because that doesn't really inspire one to try. Instead, I wanted to inspire. Did I succeed? Only the OP knows, unless he/she tells.

Critiques can encourage, even when pointing out problems, or can deter. As I said before, though, I think it boils down to trust. And maybe rapport.


----------



## Smith (Nov 19, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> I've been thinking about the subject of criticism and encouragement some more.
> 
> I was just posting on another thread where the OP was having difficulty getting started. I was reminded of how members used to say things like, "All early works are crap," and how I hated that. So I wanted to encourage the OP to write without making it sound like "you are guaranteed to fail on your first effort," because that doesn't really inspire one to try. Instead, I wanted to inspire. Did I succeed? Only the OP knows, unless he/she tells.
> 
> Critiques can encourage, even when pointing out problems, or can deter. As I said before, though, I think it boils down to trust. And maybe rapport.



It's certainly interesting to note that people seem to be using two different definitions of the word criticism. One group sees it as strictly negative reinforcement, while the other group takes the film critic approach, where it's a judgment made through an analysis that properly and honestly weighs the good/bad of a work. When people say *constructive* criticism, I default to the second definition.

I agree that a strength of these sites is building positive relationships with other writers, and building each other up. That's why I liked the Mentoring concept so much. When you have a mentor, that person actually cares about your progress. They don't just leave some one off remark on one of your pieces, never to be seen again. They're with you for each step of the way, encouraging you where you do well, and showing you how to improve where you fall short.

I'm not here to decide who should or should not be a writer. Put the time and effort in and I will try to help you. If you decide, "Know what, I think this will just be my hobby" then fine by me. If you decide "Writing isn't for me" then I wish you the best of luck in your other pursuits. If you think "I'm going to make writing my career or die trying" then more power to you.

I'm here to help people write. Not be their mom and dad and tell them what to do in life without them asking for my nosy opinion.


----------



## PiP (Nov 20, 2017)

If I may...

... if this has already been mentioned please don't stick pins in me.

In moderan's opening post he states



moderan said:


> Writing is a skill, a teachable, quantifiable ability. Effectiveness and skill level may vary, but the act is the same. It is putting words one after the other in an attempt to entertain, amuse, educate. If you don't enjoy that, then you should probably do something else, and own that.



Agree.

Now we've moved on to the teaching/mentoring side to help us achieve our writing goals



moderan said:


> Wut?
> 
> Constructive criticism is an oxymoron? Do tell. Why should it be called mentoring? That makes no sense whatsoever. Mentoring is a protracted series of lessons. A critique is a one-off.
> If you don't improve weaknesses, you _stay weak_. What you can do well, you can do well. You need less repetition than you do for things you do less well. Just doing what you like to do is a child's way out.
> ...







Smith said:


> It's certainly interesting to note that people seem to be using two different definitions of the word criticism. One group sees it as strictly negative reinforcement, while the other group takes the film critic approach, where it's a judgment made through an analysis that properly and honestly weighs the good/bad of a work. When people say *constructive* criticism, I default to the second definition.


 ... when we offer critique it's not what is said it is the tone and manner in which the critique is presented. For me critique should not be offered as criticism. 

Slightly off-topic: I have poetry mentors. They do not look just at the negatives they look at the positives in my poetry, too. This is the foundation on which we build.

By giving people positives it shines a light on what they are doing right. Now the other side of the critique or at least should be (in my opinion) is why the creative work is shit needs more work. Now this does not need to be warm and fuzzy it needs honesty delivered in a respectful tone. IT should not be regarded as criticism... I see the word criticism being banded around here and I wince.



I consulted Mr. Google (as you do).

[h=2]criticism[/h]

To find fault with: _criticized the decision as unrealistic._.
To judge the merits and faults of; analyze and evaluate.
[h=2]critique[/h]

A critical review or commentary, especially one dealing with works of art or literature.
A critical discussion of a specified topic.
The art of criticism.
 
[h=3]The Difference between Critique and Criticism 

[/h]

Criticism finds fault/Critique looks at structure
Criticism looks for what's lacking/Critique finds what's working
Criticism condemns what it doesn't understand/Critique asks for clarification
Criticism is spoken with a cruel wit and sarcastic tongue/Critique's voice is kind, honest, and objective
Criticism is negative/Critique is positive (even about what isn't working)
Criticism is vague and general/Critique is concrete and specific
Criticism has no sense of humor/Critique insists on laughter, too
Criticism looks for flaws in the writer as well as the writing/Critique addresses only what is on the page
_Taken from Writing Alone, Writing Together; A Guide for Writers and Writing Groups by Judy Reeves_

http://abacus.bates.edu/~rrichar2/learn/ui/critique.html


----------



## Sam (Nov 20, 2017)

It's okay to be positive, but being positive about a piece of work ill-deserving of that positivity reinforces bad habits. You encourage a child when they do something right; you scold them when they do something wrong. That is how they learn the difference between right and wrong. 

Writing is no different. To get better at writing, you need to know where you're going wrong. Once you understand your weaknesses, you're better prepared to turn them into strengths. But if you're a mediocre writer and all you receive is encouragement, there is no incentive to get better. Everything you've ever written has been lauded as great in order to avoid negativity. Why would you seek to improve? There's no objective standard by which you can measure improvement. 

One of my favourite sportsmen of all time once said, "I don't like compliments. They don't tell me how to improve".


----------



## PiP (Nov 20, 2017)

Sam said:


> It's okay to be positive, but being positive about a piece of work ill-deserving of that positivity reinforces bad habits.



Agree. But it is all about tone and delivery. I welcome honest, tough critique. I think rubbing someones ego and telling them a piece is fantastic when it is clearly floored will not help the writer improve.




> Writing is no different. To get better at writing, you need to know where you're going wrong. Once you understand your weaknesses, you're better prepared to turn them into strengths. But if you're a mediocre writer and all you receive is encouragement, there is no incentive to get better. Everything you've ever written has been lauded as great in order to avoid negativity. Why would you seek to improve? There's no objective standard by which you can measure improvement.



I agree, Sam. However, if ALL you receive is negativity it can have an adverse effect. I can handle tough, no nonsense critique because I desperately want to improve... that's me. I've seen some members go into a tailspin not because of what was said more how it was delivered.

And I once again return to moderan's words


> Effectiveness and skill level may vary, but the act is the same. It is putting words one after the other in an attempt to entertain, amuse, educate. If you don't enjoy that, then you should probably do something else, and own that.


Agree.

You have to really want to write and improve in order to put aside the monster 'ego'. 
Perhaps writers need a check list: Do I want to write? Yes. 
Do I want to improve? Yes. 
Am I prepared to put aside my ego? ... (tricky question)

Am I prepared to study the craft? Yes.

Do I enjoy writing? YES!!!


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 20, 2017)

Bayview said:


> Just, why?



Nice post. I am still laughing. First, when we criticize another person's work here, it is all to often just "Here is how I would have written it." People write differently. Second, it's really hard to judge a work in a different genre. Third, if you are judging based on what you were taught, that's a problem because what you were taught is partially wrong and things change.

I remember in elementary school writing a 5-sentence story. My teacher criticized, telling me only that all sentences shouldn't begin with the same word ("there"). She taught me that writing was about following rules, which in fact is an ineffective and unenjoyable way to write. I _graduated from college_ before I learned writing was about feelings. So I am no fan of criticism. (And one of the best-known stories in English is 5 sentences beginning with "this little piggy.")

I don't learn much from criticism or praise. I learn mostly from trying to write. I learn here from trying to express my ideas, which usually means figuring them out a lot more than I would have otherwise. So discussion of any kind is useful to me. Rarely, but occasionally, I get ideas -- things to try, and use if I want -- from reading other books and advice on writing.

Sam kind of told me I was too analytical. I loved that feedback, I still think about it, it was a useful perspective. It helps me explain myself to other people. It was said respectfully and kindly. So I don't think Sam meant his above post the way I was hearing it.

I don't want a thick skin. I don't want to give anyone else a thick skin. Yes, I shouldn't dwell on someone's criticism of me for hours. I get that's not productive, and when that happens I regret my thin skin. If a thick skin means ignoring anything challenging, that isn't good. (And, what the heck is a thick skin?)

Someone once pointed out to a lady that she did something wrong. He was kind, and gentle, and he suggested things she might do differently in the future. It was a role-model for giving good criticism. I said to him, "You know she's got Alzheimer's and won't remember a thing you said, right?" He said, "Yes, but . . ." Humans criticize. Nitpicking is in our genes. But that doesn't mean it's useful.

Stopping here. See "over-analytical" above.


----------



## moderan (Nov 20, 2017)

A thick skin is one that negativity bounces off of.
Critiques -- my eye is always "would I buy it?" I rely on my experience as reader, writer, editor, publisher. It's how I crit my own work. Have been accused of being harsh. Probably true. I'm not sorry. I've helped at least a couple of dozen people become selling writers. That warms even my cold old heart.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 20, 2017)

EmmaSohan said:


> Sam kind of told me I was too analytical. I loved that feedback, I still think about it, it was a useful perspective.



Some writers are analytical. Some are intuitive. Some are a mixture of both.

I'm quite analytical as well. Sometimes it gets in the way. But I've also found that when I try to move in the opposite direction (taking a more intuitive approach), my writing tends to suffer even more.

So I believe there's a balance that everyone has to find—ideally one that utilizes your individual strengths. If you're analytical, find a way to use it. If you're intuitive? Make the most of that.

It shouldn't really matter what kind of writer you are, as long as it works for you. :encouragement:


----------



## Theglasshouse (Nov 20, 2017)

I feel like I need to build a context for what I am trying to recommend. Does anyone believe in workshops that encourage writing but also help with elements of the craft? The best one I have come across is by Josip novakovich (workshop 2nd, a book since I don't think I can pay a lot of money for instruction). I managed to brainstorm a small story as I wrote for 15-20 minutes. Needless to say this one and another book ( haven't bought a second one as of yet but will soon) I plan to buy later on might be the exceptions in that writing exercises like these tell you where to look for inspiration. I don't want to quote the book, but I feel I was able to imagine a story modifying an existing old plot. It even recommends history you may know off that could inspire you, childhood, family ancestors could who could tell you a small story. I feel as if a craft book is mostly useless almost always. But felt inspired reading the book since it is by a person who has taught and run programs.

Is this bad advice, because no one seems to have suggested instruction that anyone can try and its a matter of bringing it to attention? I bought a lot of useless books that were philosophical and theory based. The author's techinque is changed to an exercise from the author who wrote crime and punishment. Using some of the studied techniques is treated as a writing exercise (and he was well regarded as anton chekov). I think I saved some time of the process on how to write because of its specific exercises.

I think I already know the answer  to my original question but must be but wanted to share the reference.

Because I did things subconsciously I thought this way of planning is actually learning the basics but using the learnings and being conscientious on what previous writers did.

I think I agreed with the above post because intuition can take your far. By this I mean you can still make a story if you write as you keep thinking up the story. Some like me dont like being analytical since they must learn if that makes sense.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Nov 21, 2017)

Theglasshouse said:


> I feel like I need to build a context for what I am trying to recommend. Does anyone believe in workshops that encourage writing but also help with elements of the craft? The best one I have come across is by Josip novakovich (workshop 2nd, a book since I don't think I can pay a lot of money for instruction). I managed to brainstorm a small story as I wrote for 15-20 minutes. Needless to say this one and another book ( haven't bought a second one as of yet but will soon) I plan to buy later on might be the exceptions in that writing exercises like these tell you where to look for inspiration. I don't want to quote the book, but I feel I was able to imagine a story modifying an existing old plot. It even recommends history you may know off that could inspire you, childhood, family ancestors could who could tell you a small story. I feel as if a craft book is mostly useless almost always. But
> felt inspired reading the book since it is by a person who has taught and run programs.
> 
> Is this bad advice, because no one seems to have suggested instruction that anyone can try and its a matter of bringing it to attention? I bought a lot of useless books that were philosophical and theory based. The author's techinque is changed to an exercise from the author who wrote crime and punishment. Using some of the studied techniques is treated as a writing exercise (and he was well regarded as anton chekov). I think I saved some time of the process on how to write because of its specific exercises.
> ...



I didn't have any money to spare on buying anything when I first started. It had less to do with did I think such books could help and more to do with one can't eat books. Free was essential!

Some look down their noses at fan fiction, but it can be a good practice run, too. The characters, location and world already exist. You simply provide plot. And that can be taken from a book or movie.

There's lots of ways to get started writing fiction.


----------



## sas (Nov 21, 2017)

My mistake is that I assume those who post, in a workshop, want what I want....accurate arrows in my Achilles heel. Just let it fly. Cut to the chase. Bring it home. etc, etc, etc.....


----------



## Jack of all trades (Nov 21, 2017)

sas said:


> My mistake is that I assume those who post, in a workshop, want what I want....accurate arrows in my Achilles heel.



Yeah. There are those who only want positive reinforcement.

But those of us who critique need to own when we dictate too much, too. That "I know I'm right, so just do as I say" attitude. It happens. And it turns others away.


----------



## sas (Nov 21, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> Yeah. There are those who only want positive reinforcement.
> 
> But those of us who critique need to own when we dictate too much, too. That "I know I'm right, so just do as I say" attitude. It happens. And it turns others away.



Hopefully, I don't do that and the reason is simply because it's of no importance to me what they do. I simply share what I think. I come from a business background (only semi-retired) where we belly bump out of need to get it right. It is expected. Writers are quite an adjustment for me. More fragile. I workshop far less now, and try to stick with those I know quite well. I'm becoming one of those non-participant observers that I usually dislike. Smiles. Sas .


----------



## Smith (Nov 21, 2017)

moderan said:


> A thick skin is one that negativity bounces off of.
> Critiques -- my eye is always "would I buy it?" I rely on my experience as reader, writer, editor, publisher. It's how I crit my own work. Have been accused of being harsh. Probably true. I'm not sorry. I've helped at least a couple of dozen people become selling writers. That warms even my cold old heart.



If the answer to your question is "yes", then certainly there must've been something you liked about it? Something that you would not want the author to mistakenly fix because it ain't broke, and thus might be worth mentioning.


---

To the general public of this thread,

Encouragement and positive reinforcement seem to be very helpful after the first or second critique, once the author has demonstrated they are putting in the effort to improve their work based on feedback. That's when you can remark on the "good progress" they've (hopefully) made.

Or the same goes if you critiqued their first work, then you read one of their later short-stories and see, "Hey! Your dialogue is properly constructed now, and it's way more believable. Keep it up." The positive reinforcement will *reinforce* their self-improvement process.


----------



## moderan (Nov 21, 2017)

Smith said:


> If the answer to your question is "yes", then certainly there must've been something you liked about it? Something that you would not want the author to mistakenly fix because it ain't broke, and thus might be worth mentioning.



Well, sure. It's _constructive_ crit. Honesty works all the way around. I find I have to do it sparingly though, and not as in-depth as I'd like, because people sometimes assume they've been given an imprimatur and floodpost to get more attention.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Nov 21, 2017)

sas said:


> Hopefully, I don't do that and the reason is simply because it's of no importance to me what they do. I simply share what I think. I come from a business background (only semi-retired) where we belly bump out of need to get it right. It is expected. Writers are quite an adjustment for me. More fragile. I workshop far less now, and try to stick with those I know quite well. I'm becoming one of those non-participant observers that I usually dislike. Smiles. Sas .



I've moved more into the discussions than the critiquing.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 21, 2017)

I seldom critique other writers work on forums like this for two reasons; the first being that I don't have the time to devote to a proper critique and I don't like to short change people. The second is, too many beginning writers (and a good number of those who have been doing it for a while) have skins as thin as a politician's promises. I don't have a problem with 'negative' criticism. If a story is bad, or is told poorly, then it's bad and I'm not going to do the writer any favors by minimizing that, or by rooting around for the one or two phrases that the author stumbled upon like a blind squirrel looking for acorns. I'm not worried about my opinion of his/her work crushing a writer's dreams. If an on-line critique can do that, then the writer isn't going to make it anyway.

It's like an old story told about a famous violinist -- Jascha Heifetz I believe -- who was leaving a concert when he was stopped by an enthusiastic young man who begged for the maestro to listen to him play. Heifetz agreed and listed to the young man play for a few minutes then stopped him and said, "You do not have the fire." After the dejected young man left, Heifetz companion asked him, "How can you tell, after listening for so short a time, that he doesn't have the fire?". Heifetz replied, "I can't. But, if he does have the fire, nothing I could say will stop him from using it. And if he doesn't, better he know that now."

There are far more people out there who want to 'be a writer' than there are people who want to actually put in the work of writing. I can't tell one from the other by looking at my computer screen. All I can do is tell people what works for me in their writing -- and sometimes there is nothing -- and what does not. I won't be rude in my critique, nor will I try to tell a writer what s/he 'should have done' -- I hate crits which do that. I might give an example of how I might handle the same thing in a story of my own, but I'm always clear that I'm not making suggestions, just illustrating alternatives. The final decision must be the writer's own.

To get better at writing you need to know what doesn't work. You can't improve without knowing what to improve. You can get better without having your ego stroked. There's nothing that makes me feel better about my writing than seeing my by-line on a published piece, or cashing a royalty check.


----------



## ppsage (Nov 21, 2017)

I like judging the LM. In the first place, it's always appreciated: if somebody doesn't judge, there's no contest. Secondly it's just additional comments, not actually a critique; often about justifying one's deductions. I think it's more blatantly and 'expectedly' opinion, offered for what it's worth. There's other opinions on the same piece and the same opinion about other stories, all in a half basket of easy to compare. It has some of the feel of grading an exercise.  ..................  I also really like that the entries are complete works. It's often very difficult for me to comment on the sorts of things I like to point out, on something that's a fragment. ............. As a judge at least, I rarely have difficulty finding something to mention liking. This is, I think, abetted by having multiple pieces to compare, so it's easy to see this or that better here or there. I have no problem with doing this deliberately so as to have something 'nice' to say for each entry. Granted, the criticisms usually tend to come more readily, but I think judging has enabled me to appreciate a bit more thoroughly than might be my wont.


----------



## moderan (Nov 22, 2017)

ppsage said:


> I like judging the LM. In the first place, it's always appreciated: if somebody doesn't judge, there's no contest. Secondly it's just additional comments, not actually a critique; often about justifying one's deductions. I think it's more blatantly and 'expectedly' opinion, offered for what it's worth. There's other opinions on the same piece and the same opinion about other stories, all in a half basket of easy to compare. It has some of the feel of grading an exercise.  ..................  I also really like that the entries are complete works. It's often very difficult for me to comment on the sorts of things I like to point out, on something that's a fragment. ............. As a judge at least, I rarely have difficulty finding something to mention liking. This is, I think, abetted by having multiple pieces to compare, so it's easy to see this or that better here or there. I have no problem with doing this deliberately so as to have something 'nice' to say for each entry. Granted, the criticisms usually tend to come more readily, but I think judging has enabled me to appreciate a bit more thoroughly than might be my wont.



That's beautiful. I used to love judging/writing for/running the LM, in that order. Each had different satisfactions. The setup was neat and we maintained a very high standard of writing for a long time. I miss George -- we had some epic battles. And the other regulars...I sorta disagree as I always offer a short-form critique rather than commentary. But that's me. Also, as Terry mentions above. We're both paddling in the same crick, I think. There are others about.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 22, 2017)

moderan said:


> That's beautiful. I used to love judging/writing for/running the LM, in that order. Each had different satisfactions. The setup was neat and we maintained a very high standard of writing for a long time. I miss George -- we had some epic battles. And the other regulars...I sorta disagree as I always offer a short-form critique rather than commentary. But that's me. Also, as Terry mentions above. We're both paddling in the same crick, I think. There are others about.



George was one of the great ones... yes he was.

When I judge the LM, I try to look at each story as if I was an editor trying to fill space in my magazine and I make my comments from that perspective.


----------



## moderan (Nov 22, 2017)

Terry D said:


> George was one of the great ones... yes he was.
> 
> When I judge the LM, I try to look at each story as if I was an editor trying to fill space in my magazine and I make my comments from that perspective.



Hell yes. That's exactly right. I'm holding a check and you need to earn it.


----------

