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
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-12-16 08:25 pm (UTC)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