Careful, Rosy - you're going to blow one of the received beliefs of writing! Or at least, put an argument against the accepted best practice of doing a rough first draft then re-writing tons of times until you get it right. I'm like you, in trying to hit it first time: do the pre-planning, think it out, etc, then sit down to write, trusting to instinct and just going with the flow; at least until Match of the Day comes on.

I totally agree that we all work differently and there is no one way. However, at various times, I've put myself in positions of having to try completely different approaches to the ones I'm comfortable with and the result have nearly always been beneficial. Similarly, I agree that no one should feel underendowed (great word!) if they're not producing a higher daily word count. Then again, I find I can often produce a lot more if I'm pushed, e.g. at a workshop last year, we were all pushed way past our norms to produce 40,000 words of original fiction in two weeks, while also doing 7 hours class a day and six or seven daily assignments. I'm still in recovery but at least proved to myself it can be done.

Terry

40k in 2 weeks, while also doing a full day's class? Sounds really horrendous. I found 50k in 30 days bad enough.

Deb

I just think there is no Single Right Way to write a novel. Being a perfectionist, rough first drafts are just not my thing - and twenty years of not working that way with non-fiction writing had formed a habit too hard to break when I embarked on fiction. Contrary to all advice I never used to 'plan my essay before I wrote it', either - and now I do not plan my novels. Sucks boo to all having to do things a particular way. Experiment and find what works for you, I say. Write slow, write fast; work in short bursts or for long, concentrated sessions; write every day or blitz is at the weekends; try NaNoMo or don't; write at night or in the morning, or while the baby's asleep, or in the bath. Do whatever gets results!

R x

<Added>

Though not using electrical equipment (the bath thing). And biros tend to stop working, too.

I'm with you completely, Rosy, that we should all find what works best for us. Terry, I don't think anyone should prescribe the right or wrong ways of working. There can be right or wrong about things like grammar, but not with working methods.

And the joy of forums like this is that we can all pitch in with our own methods, and anyone unsure what they should be doing can choose from the offerings!

Deb

Deb, I didn't think I was prescribing right and wrong working methods. Apologies if that's how it came across. What I was trying to say is that - for me, at least - being pushed beyond what I'm comfortable with is usually more beneficial than not. What I would argue universally, though, is that hard work - in whatever form it takes - seems to bring a whole range of benefits that not working hard misses out on. For example, the two people taking that course I just mentioned work extremely hard. They produce an incredible amount of writing on a regular basis as well as handling most of their own business affairs, run workshops, etc. On the whole they write more commercially-geared fiction, and that is obviously not to everyone's tastes. However, I've been on lots of workshops, taken by all kinds of writers, yet the degree of insight, technical know-how and sheer facility with the writing process was at a different level there. My view of that is that hard work on a continuing and improving basis, brings levels of awareness and intelligence about the craft to hand that a less committed approach can't match.

So, again, I'm agreeing that there is no right way of working. However, I would argue that working harder - in whatever way does the job for you - is a vital key to success. Knowing whether what you're doing is work or not - well, that's the fine line that all writers have to struggle with, I guess. I heard Elmore Leonard on Desert Island Discs recently, saying he doesn't have a mobile phone, computer or TV, because he likes to lie in the dark and think. Coming from him, I'd be inclined to say that's writing work; if I tried to use the same argument on myself, I'd be more inclined to say it's having a kip.

Terry

Terry, you did say...

you're going to blow one of the received beliefs of writing! Or at least, put an argument against the accepted best practice of

which does kind of suggest One True Way. But your posts are always interesting, so I was only making a point, not trying to castigate you...

As for the more general point, that the more time you spend doing and thinking about a skill, the more you will improve... I totally agree. There's a book called Outliers which talks about this (amongst other, more random reasons for success).

With writing fiction, however, there's an argument that you benefit from being out in the world as well as immersed in your WIP. If you spend ALL your time writing, reading, thinking about writing, discussing writing, you have less raw material on which to base your fiction.

Deb

What I meant was that the common method that's put forward as the One True Way is to write a rough first draft, then do lots of re-writing. I don't agree; I think there are other ways but because that particular view is so commonly and strongly taught, anyone who doesn't follow it tends to keep quiet for fear of being castigated for not doing the right thing.

I really enjoyed Outliers. Loved the research into other kinds of intelligence beyond the very limited IQ test. I also agree with the basic premise that you don't get really good at anything until you've put in 10,000 hours of practice. Mind you, I'm not sure his example of the Beatles quite holds up: that they did 10,000 hours practice during their German gigs; more like a third of that, I'd say. Also, while 10,000 hours might be the requirement, it's not a guarantee. I played table soccer to international level, where most of the players had put in the same amount of hours, but the skill levels were still varied. I remember playing the European champion once and every time I did something that was at the peak of my skill, he just stepped up a gear and did something beyond that.

I agree with your last paragraph, too.

Terry

To complicate the picture, what does the word count actually refer to?

For example, I took a week away and wrote a 5000 word synopsis on the first evening. It wasn't hard work at all... it was simply splurging my mind onto the page while sipping a rather good bourbon.

Later that same week, I spent an entire day trying to get a transition between scenes right. It was utterly exhausting and resulted in perhaps 200 words... but, like Rosy, I had rewritten those same words about sixty times...

On one of the days, I found I had actually _reduced_ the overall word-count by in excess of 1,000 words, but it felt like I had really achieved something because what was left was so much better than what I started with...

At the end of the week, I had restructured 40,000 words of which probably 9,000 or 10,000 (excluding the synopsis) were actually "new" and the rest were cut, pasted and modified from a previous draft. But to do those modifications, I had to re-read and tweak everything...

Based on the above, you could make up any number you wanted for my peak output and it would be as meaningless as any other number you might care to come up with.

There is one specific point in the writing process, churning out the obligatory SFD, where a word count can be a motivational and meaningful measure of progress. Otherwise, I think it is just another damned statistic.

Gaius

<Added>

SFD = Shitty First Draft

Gaius, those are all excellent points. Which is another reason there can't be a right or wrong.

Terry...

that particular view is so commonly and strongly taught, anyone who doesn't follow it tends to keep quiet for fear of being castigated

Do you not think you're propagating that fear by saying what you originally said? If it was a subtle joke it was too subtle for me.

I think it's really important that less well accepted views and experiences on writing are also discussed, because although 9/10 people might find a fast, rough first draft followed by rewrites to be the best approach, there will always be some who follow Rosy's model.

Deb

Which is another reason there can't be a right or wrong.

Well, there is. It changes based on what you want to achieve though.

Terry's point that you can write a lot in a short period if you really knuckle down is valid. Even outside of writing, in my paid work, I suspect that there is a part of me that deliberately leaves things to the last moment because of the clarity of thought and productivity that occurs in extremis. There are innumerable occasions that I could cite where I have worked something out under pressure but cannot afterwards understand how I did it...

That said...

I'm still in recovery but at least proved to myself it can be done.

I had a crap January and February because I overcooked it all in December and couldn't think afterwards. NaNoWriMo is great, in its way, but how many participants then had a "NoWriFoMo" (No Writing For Months)?

It's like marathon running versus sprinting; slow, steady progress eats up the miles but extreme exertion gets you a short distance much faster.

G

but how many participants then had a "NoWriFoMo" (No Writing For Months)?

Lol, Gaius. Yes, I've been a bit lax since last November. Although, saying that, I only wrte 5000 words during Nano, but they were 5000 perfectly crafted words which took me several hours every evening to write.

<Added>

...I was tweeting it, so they had to fit in 140 characters.

I write loads of words in a day but the aim for me is always to get rid of about half of them, so all this counting words is futile - for me at least. And I also tend to think in stories, so if I can write one a week, be it 1000 words, 2200 or 5000 it's all the same - money in the bank or a "thanks but no thanks."

Gaius, I agree you can write a lot in a short period, but if (as you then suggest) you then can't write for ages, the initial effort is somewhat counter-productive.

I wrote 50k in November and haven't written a lot since. I felt drained in December, and didn't even start again till Jan. But am getting back to it now.

Deb

I wrote 50k in November and haven't written a lot since. I felt drained in December, and didn't even start again till Jan. But am getting back to it now.

You know it's now March?

What happened in February?

Personally, I think February should be cancelled.

Emma