I think there may be two basic approaches to first drafts. To use painting as an analogy, one is the equivalent of lightly sketching outlines with the intention of putting in depth, light and shade, emotional content and so on, at a later date. This approach probably works more from outside to inside, so to speak, using the emerging imagery to search for a deeper connection as one goes. The other is to start with the full power of the image and attempt to get it on to the canvas immediately. Later re-working refines and clarifies the image, but doesn't substantially change it.

I got to thinking about this after commenting on 'A Monologue' by Shani, which has a very strong emotional core. And it seemed to me that the most useful reflections we could give her would be, first, on how well she'd succeeded at producing a piece with real emotional depth, second on how she might refine its expression. If the existence of a strong core is recognised, then detailed feed-back is useful.

By contrast, other people post stories on WW which clearly need more depth. Then, the only really useful feed-back would be to comment on directions it could take to gain more emotional impact. (Well, actually, this raises the question of whether or not there is a lot of point in even posting a first draft which takes the outside-to-inside approach.)

So - and this is just a suggestion - it may help, in guiding feed-back on our stories, if we could give an indication of which kind of first draft it is we're posting . There's nothing more frustrating, for instance, than to spend a lot of time giving specific feed-back only to have the writer say, "Oh, thanks, but it's just a first draft." (Or in some cases, "I don't agree, and in any case, this is just a first draft." Which is often an indication of an outside-to-inside draft; one which is probably going to be substantially changed. By contrast, specific feed-back on an inside-to-outside draft is more likely to be useful.

Terry

Terry, I think it would be really useful if people said where they were at with the piece - first draft or final, for example. If it was a first draft, I wouldn't necessarily be looking for any depth or great character development, but more interested in seeing whether the plot was working and whether my interest as a reader was piqued.
As far as inside/out outside/in is concerned,that's more complicated. I tend to write quite 'deep' from the beginning, in a rather 'tell-ish' way. Not subtle. In my later drafts, I try to intensify the theme both by clarifying it and by making it more subtle where necessary. Haven't tried the outside in method, but can see that it might be very useful for getting the structure down rapidly without getting bogged down.
Susiex

I'm not sure how helpful or useful asking someone to qualify a first draft would be, if I'm honest - a lot of time I don't think the writers would know themselves. Is it not enough for someone to say 'this is a first draft'?

I completely take the point that the more info a commentor has the more help (s)he can probably provide, but first drafts are first drafts and are bound to be changed (99% of the time) considerably anyway, aren't they? And not forgetting that people upload their work for their benefit, not for the benefit of those who might comment (though of course there's benefit in that, but that's probably another discussion). And so what if they say 'it's a first draft' or 'it'll change a lot' - it's the comments they recieve on those unshapen first drafts that can help shape them into something better, surely.

Nik.

Susie,

I suspect people sometimes post pieces which they actually think are pretty much 'there'; then, after receiving less-than-glowing feed-back, decide to tell people that it's actually a first draft!

Like you, I don't really use the outside-to-inside approach very often, but I know people who do.

Nik,

Actually, I was referring to when people post without saying it's a first draft, only revealing this after someone else has made detailed comments on their work. I'm not sure why you think writers don't know what state their drafts are at - how can they not know? Anyway, I don't really think we're talking about writer's self-knowledge or lack of it so much as common courtesy. If you want feed-back, it's simply good manners to give people an idea of what kind, which means letting them know how advanced the draft is. It's similar to when people suddenly remove a piece from the site without warning: it's not against site rules, but it's sometimes discourteous to do so - I'm sure I'm not the only one who likes to see others' comments on a piece I've also commented on.

Yes, of course first drafts will be changed, but I think you're missing the point. I'm suggesting that it could help if people gave some indication of what kind of first draft it is. For instance, some writers - as I said earlier - like to use a first draft just to rough out the shape of a story. They aren't bothered at that stage, for example, about typos, grammar, punctuation, etc; in which case, a critiquer would be wasting their time spotting such.

So, while, as you say, a writer uploads 'their work for their benefit, not for the benefit of those who might comment' (although I wouldn't actually say that's true in all cases by any means), having invited others to invest thought and time into commenting, I would have thought that brings with it certain considerations. First, as said, to be as specific as possible about what you want from feed-back. Second, to take that feed-back with good grace and not, for example, imply that the problem is with the critiquer not the work. Third, if an interesting discussion transpires around the piece you've posted, to give it its time and space to develop; which, of course, can benefit everyone, not just the writer who's posted.

Actually, the more I think about it, I really don't agree that uploading work is only for the writer's benefit. Having the chance to critique is terrific practice in analysing the written form - to articulate for oneself what works and what doesn't. This helps immeasurably with then critiquing one's own work. So, I see writing and critiquing as part of the same process, with pretty much equal value.

Terry

As I said, the more information the uploader gives, the more helpful the crits can be, I'm not questioning that at all (nor am I questioning the benefit of critting though I think that's a different point). What I'm saying is that it's up to the writer, for better or worse, what they say about their piece. I know I read and comment as I see; doesn't matter whether it's a first or fifteenth - if something's wrong with it then it ought to be mentioned.

The more information the uploader can give, the better, but let's not forget (or possibly alienate) the beginners or less experienced members. People can, and should I think, be able to upload what they want and get feedback on it. Shouldn't they?

And of course the feedback should be taken (and given) in good grace, but there are always going to be disagreements, for whatever reason; and it IS so much better when they turn into discussions.

Nik

Another point: people on WW are at many different stages with their writing and therefore may not know, yet, where they're 'at' in terms of drafting. As someone who had never completed a novel and who had been writing non-fiction for several years, I assumed that my first draft would be the final one, especially since I revised each line many, many times. Little did I know! It's only now, on my second draft (with a third draft to come, and maybe more) that I'm realising just how much work needs to be done.
Susiex

<Added>

Crossed with you, Nik!

I agree with what you both say about beginning writers, and certainly the more experienced people on the site need to take their possible naivety into account, and I'd say on the whole they do that pretty well. But I think in a way that proves the opposite should be true, too: that the more experienced writers are more willing to put themselves in the firing line. For example, to put their very best work up there, declare that this is as good as they can get it, then tie on the blindfold, light up a cigarette and shout, 'Open fire!'

But this is getting away from the point a little, I suppose. I raised this issue originally because I'd been thinking about the different approaches one needs to make when working with another writer's work. If the goal is to get into story-form a powerful theme, working through memorable characters driven by and driving in turn a compelling plot, all fuelled by rich emotion, then the two ways I've been trying to describe can take very different routes. The outside-to-inside author can have trouble accessing their own emotional content, preferring to keep on painting the outside window frames, so to speak; whereas the inside-to-outside author can find it hard to appreciate that the reader is only going to be drawn inside his deeply felt emotional home if he can read the signs on the front door. And the person commenting on all this can sometimes get caught up in incredibly naff analogies . . .

Terry

I do love these kinds of discussions, Terry. Not because they will necessarily lead anywhere, but because they move the brain around a bit!
Would you say that you can recognise who writes inside/outside and who writes outside/inside from the final novel? And if so, would that merely point up the 'failures' in the novel? Are the two writers aiming for the same thing? Is one more of a story-teller and the other more of a message-giver? Is one more of a genre writer and the other more of a literary fiction writer?
Susiex

I think the original 'outside-inside' point/discussion/question/whatever it is is an interesting discussion, a really interesting one, and definitely one to think about. Maybe it's not wholly applicable or relevant to this site as a whole though, there are many different people here, writing many different things in many different ways, and all at very different stages.

I would say that members, experienced or not, don't have to put their work here for analysis; they pay their membership and can, in my opinion, do what they like. There are ways, other than workshopping, that can help others - from the forums to 'jobs and opps' and the directory. It's easy to forget how big this site is, I know I'm guilty of that at times (I looked at the directory for the first time in about two years this week).

And this discussion has raised another question for me, and that is: how do we know that the 'more experienced' members here are right in their comments? That's not a dig at anyone, it's a genuine question.

And finally (gulps for breath)

If the goal is to get into story-form a powerful theme, working through memorable characters driven by and driving in turn a compelling plot, all fuelled by rich emotion,

but what if that isn't the goal? Doesn't make what they've uploaded less worthy of comments, does it?

Nik.

Susie, I love these kinds of discussions, too. It's a shame they don't go on more but I guess that's because people tend to spend a lot of time defending their positions, rather than throwing themselves over the edge to see whether or not they're going to fly. It's kind of understandable - publishing, like everything these days, is highly competitive; opportunities are few, and the climate is geared more towards predictability than to creativity. Therefore, people are frightened to admit they might just not know everything, or that their work isn't perfect.

As for your question, yes, I think you can tell if a writer is inside-to-outside or vice versa. Commercial fiction tends to be outside-to-inside, if it ever gets to inside at all. And you may be right that this direction lends itself more to pure story-telling - not that that means they're can't be a message, too. I'm not sure, though, that these always equate to 'genre' and 'literary', but in general perhaps they do. Having said that, I can think of plenty of literary fiction which, despite appearing to do the contrary, never really gets inside its theme; and vice versa with genre fiction.

Personally, I prefer inside-to-outside writers, as long as they can shape it round a good story, too. These kinds of writer tend to have a good instinctive grasp on character, and produce people who don't just bear witness to the plot but do their own thing, too.


Nik, I wasn't saying that experienced members have to post work on this site, only that if they comment on a less experienced members' work they need to bear in mind where that writer is on their journey. Similarly, I wasn't saying there aren't other ways to help people, although it would be an interesting discussion to have some time, about the nature and value of help in all its different forms. For example, there's general help, which is simply passing on one's experience to anyone who might find it useful; then there's specific help, which means looking at a writer's actual need and taking the time to find something critical which may help.

I also wasn't implying that experienced writers are necessarily 'right' when they comment. However, providing they always give reasons for what they're saying, and those reasons are clearly based on experience not just personal like and dislike, the validity or not should be apparent.

The bit you quote was my attempt to encapsulate what I think makes a good story; one with some bite and depth. But you're right: this might not be a writer's goal. If not, I don't think it means their work isn't worthy of comment, but it does place a responsibility on them to say what it is they're trying to do and therefore what kind of feed-back they require.

Terry

<Added>

That should be 'member's', of course.

I think a lot of this is sorted when people join groups and get to know each other a bit as then they can know what stage people are at and people will trust each other's critting and know how to judge the critting as well as how to judge the work.

I think it is helpful - though not necessarily the most important thing -for people to have knowledge or sympathy with the genre they are critting in. This is why I think joining groups is probably the most helpful thing and maybe newbies can be directed towards a suitable group if they are just asking for crits but not attached anywhere.

I think it is helpful - though not necessarily the most important thing -for people to have knowledge or sympathy with the genre they are critting in.

That's a great point, and one I mentioned to another member just the other day. Genre 'styles' are quite different and should be taken into account.

I'm not one for 'colouring in' later. I tend to write all out when in the 'creation phase' and allow myself to be as purple as I want to be, as verbose and elaborate as my imagination desires. I find it easier to cut than to add, and sometimes know I'm writing a tangential scene that probably won't make the edit. It's easier for me to see how twenty words can be reduced to two when I already have the twenty, so crits that mention how 'wordy' I am don't bother me at all, because I know that behind my back I have a nice shiny cleaving knife and am more than willing to murder my darlings when the time comes. That's all part of the fun.

JB