Slaying the Authorial Guilt Monster

[rj_anderson]

matociquala speaks Great Wisdom, and not for the first time:

I hereby declare today, December 16, 2008, the first annual freedom from writing guilt day. On this day, I empower everybody who is engaged in some kind of creative endeavor who reads these words to quit feeling guilty for doing it wrong.

She then goes on to mention five popular pieces of writing advice she will henceforth be ignoring, and ends with the only four musts that any working writer really needs to follow. It's a mighty fine post, and I am grateful to megancrewe for pointing me to it.

For my part, I am slowly coming to the realization that I tend to write in bursts -- not really dramatic bursts where I spend eight months of the year daydreaming about the next novel and then whip off the entire first draft in six weeks (though there are successful, published writers who do that, too), but I definitely do need some down time in between projects or I start feeling frazzled and unhappy about the whole process of writing.

Exactly how much down time I need, I couldn't tell you -- I suspect it varies with the length and ambitiousness of the project I'm working on, and the length and ambitiousness of the project that's gone before it. Not to mention all the external stresses and commitments that can interfere with my ability to be creative. But I am coming to realize that forcing myself to write to a regular schedule may not be the best process for me... not if I want to be in this business for the long haul, anyway.

And now I am going to have a nice relaxing cup of tea and some of that stuff in my icon. Mmm.

Comments

[imaginarycircus.livejournal.com]

I work differently but also need downtime. I think of it like pie crust or puff pastry. It needs to chill and rest before you bake it.


Hmmmm. I read that post and I actually disagree with it except that different writers do work differently and there shouldn't be guilt about that at all.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

I'm curious now: what specific elements of her post did you disagree with?

[imaginarycircus.livejournal.com]

I tell my students to try to write every day or on a set schedule until they get past the starting hurdles and write on whatever a regular writing schedule is for him/her.

I do think pushing past instead of stopping or fiddling is the way to go. I also believe you should have a complete draft before you do any major revision. I do get that that poster was saying you shouldn't be guilty if you don't do things this way and that I agree with.

I do not think all books should be "released" because there are always still born ms's.

And I think all writers should read and fiction. The "I'm to good for it now that I'm published" attitude seriously pissed me off. I read books I'm not entirely happy with or stop reading them. But there are a lot of wonderful books who keep teaching me. And it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when I hear from other writers who are "too critical" to read much anymore.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Yes, but she isn't talking to or about beginning writers who have not yet learned the discipline of finishing a book. She's talking about herself, an established pro who has already written and published several books, and she's writing to people who are in a similar position. Her advice boils down to: "If it works for you and it's producing books, then don't feel guilty that you aren't following conventional wisdom about how to write." And I think that is eminently sane.

As for pushing past and having a complete draft before doing major revision, that may be something that works for many, and is certainly something that every writer should at least try. But for some other writers the refusal to let yourself revise results in a deep unhappiness with the writing process that can actually shipwreck the entire project. (I found this out the hard way.)

Anyway, it seems to me that the point she's making in the post is that you don't HAVE to finish the book before you revise -- IF you have found that revising on the fly makes you happier and still results in a finished book. After all, having the finished manuscript (by whatever means) is the important thing, no?

By "released" I took her to mean "shared with its intended audience". Whether that's fanfic or your critique group or your editor or whatever. And not that every single piece of prose you ever compose has to be shared with someone, but that if you have put the time and effort into completing a manuscript, then it needs to be sent somewhere and not merely languish in your desk drawer because you're too afraid to send it out.

I do agree about the importance of reading, but that came up in the comments and not in the original post.

[imaginarycircus.livejournal.com]

I understood her point and I did get that she was already published. I just don't agree with "by whatever means necessary" to produce a MS. It sounds sloppy to me and it hit a nerve so I'm being needlessly defensive over something I essentially agree with. I think I didn't like her tone really--or maybe I read it incorrectly because I don't know her at all.

Also "I'm published" doesn't really mean much. There are a lot of bad books--and many of them sell quite well.

I think maybe the difference here is that I was trained to write literary fiction and process can be very important. Craft is essential. And those rules are kind of important and reitirated for a reason. But I think there are ALWAYS exceptions and other ways. And everyone has to find his or her own way.

Writing books that people like is a wonderful thing and I should be so lucky. I know.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

I guess what I don't understand is how refusing to let yourself revise as you go is a recipe for producing "literary" fiction. Isn't it characteristic of literary fiction to take endless pains over the quality of your prose? And isn't an author who polishes each sentence and each paragraph until it resonates like poetry before moving on to the next just as "literary" as the author who follows the Rules that say you shouldn't revise until you have a complete first draft? How is refusing to go on until you're fully satisfied with what you've got so far a "sloppy" approach to writing?

Of course, if what you've got is a would-be author who spends so much time revising their first chapter that they never finish the book, then you definitely have a problem; but you could also have an author who pushes forward until she's finished the first draft and then hates what she's written so much that she puts it away and never looks at it again. In both cases, the book never makes it to completion -- but is it the method at fault, or the author, or the combination of that particular author with that particular method?

Also "I'm published" doesn't really mean much. There are a lot of bad books--and many of them sell quite well.

True, but in the case of matociquala, she's a multiple award-winning (and I'm talking the BIG awards -- like the Hugo) SF author published by a major house, whose books are often praised for their complexity and their literary prose style. (I haven't read them myself, but this is what I hear from those who have.) So not a self-published hack blowing steam out of her ear, by any means.

[imaginarycircus.livejournal.com]

That is a lot of questions. I feel like we're not understanding each other--probably because I am not being clear or precise enough. And what is bothering me is slippery and subtle. And I did not think the poster was a self published hack. I do think her advice can be read as an excuse to be lax about craft and process and that most writers are not where she is with her process.

I guess what I don't understand is how refusing to let yourself revise as you go is a recipe for producing "literary" fiction. Isn't it characteristic of literary fiction to take endless pains over the quality of your prose?

I didn't mean to imply zero revision until you get to the end--there are times when you need to change something in a draft before you get to the end. None of this is black and white. I feel like I tried to answer in shades of gray and you are interpreting what I said as black and white. The fault is mine for not being clear. I do honestly believe that it is better to save major revision to the end.

Isn't it characteristic of literary fiction to take endless pains over the quality of your prose?

Yes. Of course. I'm not sure how I implied otherwise. Of course I think there are other elements that need just as much attention as prose. Narative, plot, character, pacing, setting, dialog, etc.

How is refusing to go on until you're fully satisfied with what you've got so far a "sloppy" approach to writing?

Man, I must be really off today. Again that was not what I meant. But first drafts tend to be so splotchy and full of things that get trimmed or changed anyway--it doesn't make sense to spend a lot of time making something perfect that it is never going to be perfect and that will eventually be put aside as a sort of blueprint. Later revisions are a different story.

I don't know. This is clear in my head and I think I'm being a bit of a jerk about it. I'm realizing I have some rather purist opinions that just don't jive with a laissez faire approach.

Like I said--I should be so lucky to be as successful as that poster so what do I know? :D

Sorry for jumping in -

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I do understand what you mean, because, as a rather underconfident person, I tended to procrastinate when younger (I still do, a bit) and I've also been reluctant to actually submit my work. I can see how the original poster's advice might strike a reader for whom the standard writing advice works well.

But, as a relative beginner, the standard advice can sometimes seem like a bludgeon. Some of us do need encouragement to trust our own process, and that is how I took the post RJ Anderson linked to. I found it very encouraging.

It's also true that some great literary figures have worked exactly this way. Tolkien, for example, who's one of my literary heroes. He was a very slow and painstaking writer who tended to revise and polish as he went. Yes, he wrote very slowly (and yes, his writing certainly isn't to every taste.) But, if he'd been forced to use a process that was unnatural to him, I'm not sure his book would have been as good as it actually is.

I hope you don't mind my commenting. I'm not being argumentative, really, and I do see what you mean, but I loved the post RJ Anderson linked to. I really did.

Re: Sorry for jumping in -

[imaginarycircus.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you found the other post helpful and I don't think you're being argumentative at all. Keep writing and by all means find the method that works for you. It certainly isn't a paint by numbers process.

It may be that I can see beyond my own process these days. Though I do tell my students and anyone who asks my advice that it is more important to have a regular writing schedule than to write every day. If that means you write in bursts and then take breaks--that is cool. It's like the difference between being a sprinter and a long distance runner. You can run the same distance eventually, but your mode of doing so is different.

[jenwriterr.livejournal.com]

I tend to revise as I go. My rough drafting is very, very rough with lots of telling rather than showing. It works for me, but once I complete a chapter, I like to go back and revise it before moving on. It keeps the love alive for me, and gives me the confidence that my book isn't a terrible piece of crap. I'm not published yet, but I've found a method that works for me. Not every writer is going to do things the same way.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

[Revising when a chapter is done] keeps the love alive for me, and gives me the confidence that my book isn't a terrible piece of crap.

Yes. That's how I feel, too. I need that boost of being able to look back and say, "Hey, I know it can still be better, but for now that's pretty good." If I look back and all I see is a mess, I start to feel overwhelmed and discouraged, and the joy leaks out of the writing process for me.

Great post!

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thank you for that link; it's excellent! And what a relief to know that successful, published authors sometimes skip a day of writing. For years, I have criticized myself for (1) not writing every day and (2) not sticking to one project at a time, and (3) not being able to work at more than one project/type of writing in an average day. I've gradually been coming to the "rule" that I should try to write almost every day - but not beat myself up if I can't manage to - and that I should strive to finish projects and put them out there in some form. And now I know there are others who work this way. Yay!

Those are the only two rules I'm sticking to. Brenda Ueland, author of If You Want to Write had two more. She said the only rules she followed were: Always tell the truth, and never do anything you don't want to do!

Oh, and I loved what the original poster said about (not) forging ahead, too. Sometimes you just don't know what comes next, and you have to find out. That's part of the process, for me. I can't outline everything in advance because I have to be in the process of listening to/following the characters to discover what they do.

Still looking forward to reading Knife -

[deva-fagan.livejournal.com]

Interesting article! I agree wholeheartedly that while rules can be good guidelines, the most important thing is to stick with what works.

I need downtime too, and I do feel sort of bad about it. But when I push it, and start a project too early, I often end up having to toss it.

I just have to try to be good about recognizing what is real necessary downtime and what is just me looking for an excuse to procrastinate...

I can see why as a writer gets more and more busy the writing time would cut into the reading time, but I do believe it is really important for writers to keep reading a wide variety of stuff. If anything, getting published is making me read even MORE.

Also, I am envious of your baked goods.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

I just have to try to be good about recognizing what is real necessary downtime and what is just me looking for an excuse to procrastinate...

This is very true! And when you learn to tell the difference, let me know. :)

I also agree about the reading. If that had been part of her main post I would have been considerably less enthusiastic about it. I've done more reading in the last year than I have for a long time, too... I was always a big one for reading, but a lot of it was re-reads, whereas now I'm reading the new stuff.

[persephone-kore.livejournal.com]

I think this may be where I am simply not... something or other... at heart: while I recognize, obviously, that there are worse fates, I honestly recoil from the idea of losing the ability to enjoy other people's stories. To the point that if I would inevitably or even probably have to accept that as a consequence of becoming a better writer, or of studying literary analysis, I'd probably give up the writing improvement and literary analysis.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

The thought of losing pleasure in reading for its own sake makes me recoil, too. Fortunately I have so far managed to separate my reader-self from my writer-self for the most part, so this hasn't been a problem.