(I posted this on another thread but thought it might have wider interest.)

For anyone who hasn't already seen them, these are Robert A Heinlein's Rules for Writing:

1. You must write.
2. You must finish what you write.
3. You must refrain from rewriting, except to editorial order.
4. You must put the work on the market.
5. You must keep the work on the market until it is sold.

I heard a podcast recently, made by three unpublished SF writers, discussing these rules. They started by saying they generally agreed with them but then went on to find all sorts of exceptions to them. They didn't seem to see the irony in the fact that the purpose of their podcast is to try to help themselves and others get their work accepted.

Robert Sawyer added a sixth, by the way:

6. Start working on something else.

Which is probably not as obvious as it first looks. I think a lot of writers send out a story or two then sit back and wait till they see what happens to them, instead of adopting the attitude and practice that writing is an ongoing process, acceptance and rejection just part of it.

I wouldn't be so bold as to try adding to Heinlein, but I do think it's also important to study the market - magazine, novel, audio, etc - you're submitting to. It's not always easy to do so, of course, when you're sending out lots of stories to lots of magazines. But all the editors I know get understandably irritated at having to wade through piles of stories that are obviously just doing the rounds, many of which are totally unsuitable for their needs - in some cases with cover letters still bearing the details of the previous magazine submitted to!

Terry


<Added>

P.S. Just did a site search to see that these rules were posted here a couple of years ago. Still, there may be some new members who haven't seen them.

I think a lot of writers send out a story or two then sit back and wait till they see what happens to them,

Very true, and I think it was Stephen King (amongst others) who said start the next one as soon as you finish the last.
But then I think there are two sorts of writers - those that live to write and have numerous projects bubbling away in their head just itching to be give free rein. And those who must wait for the muse to strike before launching into the next project (or at least can't sustain a novel without it), and maybe it only comes once in a lifetime.
I would probably place myself in the latter catagory.


- NaomiM

I think there's a third kind too, which is the professional approach. Professionals write whether they feel like it or not, and write specifically for publication. The results aren't always artistic or thought-provoking, and sometimes the best that can be said is the work is competent, but at least they get it out there. In fact, there's something of a discussion about this in the Science Fiction world at the moment, i.e. that a lot of magazine and novel space is being taken up by competent writers but with a question about how much innovative and challenging stuff is appearing.

I think it's good for any writer to adopt at least some professional ethics, e.g. to get bum on seat and just write; to force the quality right from the start, to avoid too much re-writing; to get stuff out there on a constant basis. Jay Lake mentioned in an interview recently that he writes, by necessity, in two-hour sessions but produces 5,000 words each time. Needless to say, he's very prolific and one of the most widely-published SF authors today. It's easy to find reasons why one can't match this ouput, but actually anyone can if they just smash aside all those sneaky little voices in the inner ear, mentioning that the Olympics only happens once every four years and isn't it time you polished the canary.

I guess the trick is to produce plenty of work while also remaining open to the muse, to not drown it out in robotic productivity.

Terry

Thank you for that Terry.

Thanks Terry - always good to be reminded

After a week on my hols the canary is gleaming so back to work. Hi ho...

Sarah

to force the quality right from the start, to avoid too much re-writing

I think you need to be a natural writer to write quality prose from the start. The rest of us have to rely on re-writing until it comes right.

I think you need to be a natural writer to write quality prose from the start. The rest of us have to rely on re-writing until it comes right.

The danger, though, is we can get anchored in the lower quality of the first draft. What I meant by 'force' is not so much to avoid re-writing, as to try to make every word, right from the start, the best you can make it. Because that generates the habit of reaching for the best in oneself all the time, instead of settling for the competent-for-now. I suspect most poets try to get the right word first time, when they're attempting to capture a specific mood or feeling, knowing that if they settle for something lesser, that mood or feeling will remain uncaptured and eventually disappear. I don't think it's that different in prose, really.

Hi Terry,

I realise that, as a complete amateur, I haven't a clue what I'm talking about; but . . . isn't there an opposing view that says, free the imagination by stilling the critical part of the mind and just write balls-out in the first stage?

~Rod

The 'fiddling as Rome burns' approach, eh, Terry?
If you saw my first drafts you'd find words missing all over the place, and, yes, I do come back and fiddle, trying to find the right word or phrase to fit before moving on. That doesn't necessarily mean the whole excerpt is worth keeping. It might still be balls, albeit nicely composed balls


- NaomiM

<Added>

My point is, you don't know if it works until you have the rest of it. The danger of trying to get it right first time, is you end up with a string of little darlings you can't bear to part with.

My first drafts are pretty dire. It takes me loads of revisions just to get it reading as coherent English. Even now I'm thinking of merging those first two sentences with a semi-colon.

I realise I've polarised this point, by talking about trying to force the quality early rather than later; so, apologies for that. I think there are actually two different issues here.

First is to do with drafting. The advice that's mostly given is to write a quick, rough first draft, on the basis that it's better to get the story shaped before you deal with the minor details. However, having tried this lots of times with only patchy success, I think it may just come down to preferred learning/development styles. The Myers-Briggs model, for example, talks about the two attitudes, Introvert and Extravert. Extraverts prefer to talk something out in order to see what's important to them; introverts prefer to think it through first before speaking. So, I believe another valid mode of drafting is to work at a slightly less fast pace, thinking through what you want to say before you actually commit to paper.

So, perhaps it comes down to knowing what is one's preferred style. Once you do then it's very useful I've found to deliberately try different styles - not only to widen one's scope but also because it's good for writing characters who will also have different preferred styles.

The second is not quite to do with drafting, and was what I tried to explain earlier: something I don't have a name for yet but is to do with always seeking quality. It doesn't mean don't write first drafts, for instance, but advocates searching for the best word, description, dialogue and so on even with initial attempts. This, I've found, really focuses my writing mind. If you believe that a large part of the materials for good writing lives in the subconscious, then the conscious mind has to find ways to access/release it. Personally, I find this works best, at least for me, when my conscious mind is always looking for quality. Then the subconscious gets interested; it sparks up and wants to get involved. Conversely, I find that when I'm just slapping down words, the subconscious retreats even further. But then I'm an introvert; it could well be that the opposite is true for an extravert accessing his/her subconscious.

Terry

Guess you won't be doing the NaNoWriMo then?

I'm too anal about rewriting sections until they feel right - I reckon I'll last about three days.

NaNoWriMo is about writing 50K words in a month, isn't it? See, I don't think that's a particularly big deal. It works out at around 1,700 words per day, which is peanuts. Anyone serious about writing should be able to write that amount in an hour, especially if they're of the bang it out fast persuasion. Say you get two hours per evening for writing and five hours each Saturday and Sunday, that amounts to 90 hours in a month. Writing fast and rough, a writer should be able to produce at least a thousand words per hour, which therefore makes 90K.

Terry

When I did Nanowrimo I did go back and correct a little along the way simply because I think faster than I type and if I hadn't I wouldn't have been able to read it

There is a 9000 word section towards the end which I wrote playing catch up over a weekend which - although it has some glitches - I still think is one of the best things I've ever written. Way out of my comfort zone and 'on the edge'.

Writing fast allows you to take risks and surprise yourself - I agree you have to find the right word but sometimes if you can't you push on knowing that you can dig for that word later is you need to - and the subconscious does tend to work for you.

I don't think I could write 1700 words in an hour - two hours maybe on a good day but I do think that sometimes it is tempting to say put in the two hours and then think - oh - I've done my quota I can take a break - leave it until tomorrow - when maybe if you pushed on you break through barriers and get further. Stop start writing means you have to write yourself into the story again each time and the less you have to do that the faster you can write and the less redundancies/ editing - i.e those 3 hundred words or whatever at the beginning of a new chapter that is really just you reminding yourself where you are?

I know real life gets in the way but I'm beginning to think that the closer you can keep to the WIP the better?

Having said I can't write the 1700 words in a hour I think I might just try - anyone else up for it?

Sarah

Now that might be a more interesting challenge - see who can do the most in an hour with it still resembling some kind of story - or at least monalogue.