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

[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.