Methods of self-editing to be a better writer

June 17, 2004 7:57 AM

I want to be a better writer, but I don't like laboring over every sentence until what I was trying to communicate is dead, dead, dead. How do you self-edit for your website, memos, or letters?
posted by pomegranate to writing & language (45 comments total)

I usually don't edit. Just spit it out and let 'er go. That said I'm not the best writer, though I have done it profesionally.
posted by trbrts at 8:20 AM on June 17, 2004

It's an ongoing process. But my writing style is to write in a "stream of consciousness". Write what's in your head, and exactly how you would say it to a friend offline.

Most (99.5%) of my posts are type into TextEdit, where they're spellchecked. After I make those corrections, I read through everything and make sure it makes sense to me. Honestly, when you're writing for yourself or a small group of friends, speak to them the same.

Also....keep writing. The more your write, the better you become. Not everything has to make it online. Spend 10 minutes writing about something, if it needs to be a post, then make it one. If not, close and don't save the file.
posted by mkelley at 8:22 AM on June 17, 2004

Many writers confuse tinkering with grammar for editing. A real edit will rip apart what you've written: whole paragraphs will go; new ideas will float in from nowhere; critical elements will suddenly take an about-face. For writers who are insecure about their ability to retain what's good, these things can be too scary. They'll prefer, as I say, to pick nits (until they've picked the scalp clean off).

I'd either just write them once and forget about them, or I'd prepare the mental space to really perfect them. If you've had practice with serious editing you can improvise better. Perhaps take up a hobby of working on poems? They can be fun to tinker with endlessly until they run.
posted by argybarg at 8:32 AM on June 17, 2004

I'll third the sentiment of the above posters. Basically, you write first, then edit.

If you get stuck in the minutia while writing, you won't get much writing done. So write away, not worrying about grammar, spelling, repetitiveness, etc. Then you can go back and edit later.

It's a method that's actually taught in creative writing courses.
posted by yesster at 8:33 AM on June 17, 2004

The answer depends on what you mean by "better."
1. Do you have that sneaking suspicion that there are some problems with your mechanics or usage?
2. Do you feel that your style gets caught in a rut, and you re-use the same words and sentence patterns?
3. Do you just feel uninspired?
4. Something else?

I'm not saying that my own writing is free of any of these defects--hardly--these are the things I worry about with my own writing.

Reading widely and writing a lot will help with any of these points. The more you write, the more that the editing process becomes part of the flow of writing--you think of the better way to express it as you're typing

For point 1, there are style guides out there that you can read like a book. I liked Lapsing into a Comma, and Fowler's Modern American Usage has lots of interesting nuggets. If you have a friend who you think would be a good editor, ask that person to red-pencil some of your writing to get some outside perspective.

For point 2, I think this is where reading widely comes in. Find authors with distinctive writing styles--if you read enough of them, a little of it will rub off on you.

For point 3, I hear that hanging out in seedy bars and drinking a lot helps.
posted by adamrice at 8:36 AM on June 17, 2004

I'll third the sentiment of the above posters. Basically, you write first, then edit.

was there a thread that compared the "hemingway" vs. "fitzgerald" method recently, or was that a real life interchange (uh oh...)? The claim was that hemingway struggled with each sentence as he was writing it, while fitzgerald (I think he was the counterpart - many writers could be, as it probably is the more common way) wrote first, and later went back to clean up / strengthen / alter.

I'd say reading a lot is good also for inspiration, adamrice. reading is one of the best ways to improve your writing in general... just below "writing more" on the list. Workshopping your stuff can be useful, but in my experience only to a point - you often kinda already know what the problems are; it's just learning how to fix them that's hard.

Personally I find editing really difficult. The stream of consciousness part comes without effort, generally, but then going back, choosing where to cut, trying to make sense of the entire story line, noticing when I'm getting repetitive or boring (using similar metaphors or images over and over, etc) - this part is real work, not like the initial exhilarating stream of writing... And I'm still not very good at it, but I need to do it, both in fiction and in writing long papers, to organize the ideas and make the whole thing coherent.

On the other hand, I find it pretty easy to express short ideas or images - epigrams, vignettes, aphorisms - I don't know what the right word would be, but when my idea fits into a few paragraphs or so, I'm happy enough not to bother with the editing process (not that that's always the best decision, but - it is a less desperate situation, at least).
posted by mdn at 9:05 AM on June 17, 2004

It depends on the content and context. For day-to-day stuff (ask.mefi for example), I find myself tinkering with sentences for significantly longer than needed and pressing "Post" once I get bored or irritated.

Professional writing is different: When preparing articles for clients, I find that it's critically important for me to distance myself from the text as originally written. Although I do a substantial amount of inline editing, I:

1. Spend as much time as possible doing other things between completing a given draft and editing it.

2. Make sure to mark up a paper copy - somehow, errors are more obvious in print

3. Read what I've written aloud, whether to an audience or just to myself.

4. Repeat. This would be a great time to say something like "you can never edit too much," if that happened to be true. It's not, unfortunately, but multiple passes are a near-necessity.

This, of course, is just the process by which I apply the applicable editing rules. If you're unsure of those rules, it goes without saying that innumerable style and writing books and online resources can help give you a better technical understanding of how to write and what to look for when you're editing.
posted by Sinner at 9:07 AM on June 17, 2004

(For example, had I printed that out beforehand, I would have noticed that I omitted the period after "in print." Sort of the editorial equivalent of the "don't know what you've got 'till it's gone" syndrome.)
posted by Sinner at 9:12 AM on June 17, 2004

I agree with what most everyone is saying. My last job consisted of my boss throwing a pack of information at me, and then giving me 20 minutes or less to write a 1000 word article. This was the best thing that could've happened to me as I learned to a) edit quickly and without mercy; and b) not dwell on the imperfections. For this style of writing, I would also use the stream-of-consciousness method, and then go back to fix glaring errors and awkward sentences.

For long-term writing, I also stream-write and edit directly afterward, but then I let it go for a few days and come back to it. The distance allows me to be more discerning with sentences I thought were brilliant or awful, and edit accordingly.

I'm a firm believer in the idea that the first draft (of a good a writer) is usually the best. This isn't to say tweaks and edits shouldn't be made; but the original ideas are original for a reason.
posted by Zosia Blue at 9:22 AM on June 17, 2004

I'm hardly the best writer in the world, but this is what I know:

I too try to get a complete draft before I start to monkey with it. Bang out a whole stream of words, then worry about structure and message. If I have the luxury, I like to write something, then put it aside for a while before I revise it.

Editing is all about focus and emphasis. Are you saying what you want to say? Can you say it better? Is your message structured poorly? Distance from the first draft helps. Faulkner's advice is well taken: "Kill your darlings." Be clear rather than cute.

A second editor is worth their weight in Belgan chocolate, but you need to have a thick skin. Give one of your manuscripts to a friend whose writing you admire and tell them to go nuts. Discuss the manuscript with them afterwards. This is probably the most painfull thing you'll ever do, but it can be a great learning tool. Buy them something lavish as a reward.

The last pass is the copy-edit. This is where you worry about phrasing and those last commas. It's an important step, that final polish, but not one to get too hung-up on.
posted by bonehead at 10:02 AM on June 17, 2004

Take it from an editor: your first draft is never the best. Ever.

An original idea doesn't just spring fully formed from some deep pond in your breast (or rarely does it). It takes work and thought and careful mulling. In fact, most writers when using stream of consciousness tend to use whatever phrases are uppermost in their heads, which are of course the commonest phrases.

But to answer the question: what adamrice and Sinner said.
posted by dame at 10:02 AM on June 17, 2004

Surely the dame knows quantitative statements in writing are never a good idea. Ever. Right?

Silliness aside, I respectfully disagree. I am not an editor, but I have seen talented (and I emphasize "talented," as someone who is not a good writer will rarely have a stellar first draft) writers scrap their original ideas for something that makes them feel less self-conscious. I'm not saying the first draft should be printed without a glance; but sometimes endless drafts interrupt the flow and "magic" of the first draft.

I think there will always be two different camps with this idea -- those who believe first draft instincts should be listened to, and those who believe the first draft is just clearing the brain of debris. I think both are equally valid, but, of course, YMMV.
posted by Zosia Blue at 10:38 AM on June 17, 2004

I've never seen a good first draft of anything from anyone. All they're good for is plucking out the real ideas which are the true themes. (And you can take the case of untutored genius you feel compelled to bring up and stuff it: I don't believe in untutored genius, even when I'm told that's what it is, the same way I don't believe in Santa Claus even though i see him at the mall.)

If we're talking professional writing, not just for friends and family, then "stream of consciousness" is a code word for "utter bullshit," or more politely, "notes" or "first pass." For professional fiction or autobiography, it's the sign of a writer without a plan, self-control, or self-respect. You plan in order to have your plans overturned, you control yourself in order to not permit yourself to get away with writing behavior that is wrong but easy, and you have self-respect in order to honestly tell yourself what is good and what is shit.

In addition to everything said by everyone above, I would add: let the writing age before editing. Like wine, balsamic vinegar, and furniture, nearly all writing is better if it has aged before you judge it. Maybe a week or a month, just enough where the work has begun to feel foreign, but not so long where you have forgotten your original intentions or mood. Even on a tight deadline, an hour can make a real difference.
posted by Mo Nickels at 11:18 AM on June 17, 2004

I want to be a better writer, but I don't like laboring over every sentence

In my professional experience as both a writer and an editor, you don't get to be a better writer unless you're willing to labor over every sentence. Laboring over every sentence is 95% of the task -- the rest is just mechanics.

I have seen talented writers scrap their original ideas for something that makes them feel less self-conscious

That's a problem with the writer's confidence in their work, or simply bad editing. But the problem is not with the editing process. Editing should increase the writer's confidence, not erode it.

To answer the question: I find that I have two editing homunculi in my head: real-time editor and review editor. The review editor is the one everybody's talking about above, looking at the work after some time has passed. The real-time editor watches over your shoulder as your write, piping up when you stumble into traps the review editor has spotted.

The real-time editor can't catch everything that the fresh perspective of the review editor allows. But the more you exercise your review editor, the more attuned your real-time editor becomes to your most common mistakes. And the better your initial drafts become.
posted by jjg at 12:13 PM on June 17, 2004

sometimes endless drafts interrupt the flow and "magic" of the first draft. . . . I think both are equally valid, but, of course, YMMV.

It's kind of like I'm in a Prius and you're rocking the Hummer. Look: this isn't personal at all Zosia; you just happen to be the one propagating the ideas that seem to be at the root of most of the crap that filters in to the slush pile round these parts.

Writing isn't "magic." Thinking isn't "magic." Talent only gets you about ten paces ahead of the untalented. The rest is fucking hard work (and I know because I don't work as hard as I should, and it shows). Romantic notions of brilliance being vomited forth in perfect form might have been entertaing a few centuries ago, but now they are only crutches for people who are into the idea of being a writer but balk at the effort. Encouraging people to think this way just guarantees the production of more awful writing, and if there is anything the world needs less of, it's underedited "brilliance." If people are removing the original ideas from their work for "comfort" that's a problem of spine, not editing.

However, to say more about the question that was asked (yes, I'm trying to make up for that tirade): I think the key is to learn to edit in a manner that doesn't take all feeling out of what you wrote, but instead makes sure your work does what it sets out to do, whether its just to communicate (a memo) or something more. Interrogate each sentence, but know when to break rules.

I have done none of the above in this, but I gots me some proofs.
posted by dame at 12:14 PM on June 17, 2004

I'm really thinking more about blogging primarily for friends/family, work-related memos, and e-mails or letters to people outside my company.

Adamrice hit the nail on the head with # 1 and # 2. It's not that I don't have things to write about, I just get worried about grammar while I'm writing and I get stifled. I also have a tendency to use clichés and mix metaphors.

I think the key for me will be to write it once, save as a draft, and come back later. I don't want to over-study it but I can already see distracting grammar and spelling issues on previous posts, and if I had just set it aside for a bit I would have caught them.

Also, I'll be happy to trade resume review services for some overall editing tips on my little blog. Thanks!
posted by pomegranate at 12:25 PM on June 17, 2004

If you're really having trouble with editing technique, and your editing is only making your writing worse, try this:

Write. And then, for your "edit" phase, simply cross stuff out. Remove. Excise.

Chances are 99% that this will improve your writing at least a little (since almost all of us overuse language and punctuation) and you'd be surprised how much you can simply lift out without doing a lot of complicated rearrangement. Try it out.
posted by scarabic at 12:27 PM on June 17, 2004

If you're really having trouble with editing technique, and your editing is only making your writing worse, try this:

Write. And Then, for your "edit" phase, simply cross stuff out. Remove. Excise.

Chances are 99% that This will improve your writing at least a little (since almost all of us overuse language and punctuation) and you'd be surprised how much you can simply lift out without doing a lot of complicated rearrangement. Try it out.
posted by scarabic at 12:27 PM on June 17, 2004

If your editing is only making your writing worse, try this:

Write. Then, for your "edit" phase, simply cross stuff out.

This will improve your writing at least a little (almost all of us overuse language and punctuation) and you'd be surprised how much you can simply lift without complicated rearrangement.
posted by scarabic at 12:28 PM on June 17, 2004

Excellent object lesson from scarabic there. Reminds me of a high-school English teacher I had: he would mercilessly mark up my essays, probably writing as much as me, all in the interest of brevity. He'd sometimes recast sentences to shorten them by one word. Very eye-opening.

I will add my voice to the "print it out and review it later" chorus. This is what I do when I have time (I had a client once that suggested I read aloud my work while standing in front of a mirror--I've never tried. The exigencies of my work often don't make it possible, and I'm glad if I can just account for all the red squiggles Word throws at me.

I rarely look back at an old job with satisfaction. I'm not sure if this is a sign that my standards are always getting higher, or simply that what passes for good enough in the moment doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny.
posted by adamrice at 1:05 PM on June 17, 2004

Scarabic, I kiss you.
posted by pomegranate at 1:05 PM on June 17, 2004

In my professional experience as both a writer and an editor, you don't get to be a better writer unless you're willing to labor over every sentence. Laboring over every sentence is 95% of the task -- the rest is just mechanics.

I will second this, but also add, you don't have to do the laboring and the writing in the same pass. I write first, sometimes just spazziness, walk away from the keyboard, then come back and try to make it into something more manageable. I keep a short list of things I try to avoid: cliches [not allowed, not at all, if I can help it, which I sometimes can't], boring verbs [I said, he went, they feel, etc], fancy words replacing just-as-good shorter ones, and my own particular pecadilloes which are too many brackets and too many hyphenated words-made-phrases [see?].

When I write for publication I always print a draft so I can get at it with a pen. When I write to friends I try to sometimes use a typewriter, an old manual with no correcto ribbon, so I will be more deliberate with my language. I try to think about grammar rules as guidelines, but don't let myself be enslaved by them. Especially if you're writing for a blog audience, think about them more than you think about your high school English teacher. You might enjoy just reading some fun to read grammar books such as The Elements of Style, which I bet you've read, and the Dictionary of Modern American Usage, which you may not have. Both take a take-apart look at the language and help you see it a bit differently. This, combined with doing a lot of reading, can help you improve. I am firmly in the "there's no magic in it" side of the equation, but then again I write a lot for people who pay me to do it, and the magic argument doesn't go too far with them.
posted by jessamyn at 1:22 PM on June 17, 2004

All of the above is great advice. Especially printing it out and going over it with a pen. I'm OK at copyediting my own work, but I'm downright error-blind if I'm staring at a computer screen.

An alternative/supplement to Strunk & White would be When Words Collide. It's intended for media writers and so contains some idiosycratic style guidelines, but it's written in an entertaining and engaging way, with lots of examples. I recently gave it to a friend who's working on a novel, and he read it cover to cover.
posted by me3dia at 1:42 PM on June 17, 2004

Thanks pomegranate, that's a better reaction than I've gotten in peer-review writing workshops!
posted by scarabic at 1:54 PM on June 17, 2004

Adamrice's comment reminds me: for the sake of your sanity, turn off Word's grammar check.

And scarabic: your lesson makes me so ashamed of my tirade. Always better to show than to babble.
posted by dame at 2:08 PM on June 17, 2004

scarabic's example is excellent.

After five years of teaching college writing courses, I use a sculpture analogy for rewriting. Consider your first draft raw clay, the stuff from which you'll shape your finished work.

If done well, carving away excess material sharpens your points, and forces you to clarify your message. Clear writing follows clear thinking.

Letting time pass before a second draft, and reading work aloud to let your ear pick up snags, are two powerful tools I second.
posted by sacre_bleu at 2:28 PM on June 17, 2004

So write away, not worrying about grammar, spelling, repetitiveness, etc.

The best way to not worry about that kind of thing is to internalize it to the extent that you don't even have to think about it anymore. It's easier to just write grammatically correct sentences full of correctly-spelled words in the first place than to have to go back and fix it later. Edits should be on the level of ideas and organization, not mechanics. Mechanics should be, well, mechanical.
posted by kindall at 2:43 PM on June 17, 2004

If you're worrying about grammar, learn grammar! If you're worrying about style, learn style! There are tons of excellent resources online which show or teach the most important grammatical rules. You can read Strunk's classic "Elements of Style" online for free too.
posted by wackybrit at 5:02 PM on June 17, 2004

Not to pile on poor Zosia at this point, but I do think that a lot of bad writing follows from the myth of the natural genius of the first draft. There are a very few writers who can approximate that notion (and I'm not even sure I include Kerouac), but most of the people who think that editing dims their stardust are wankers who aren't willing to put in the hard work that might make their writing worthwhile.

I would suggest reading the 1983 Paris Review interview with Raymond Carver (not available online, but look it up). I'll paraphrase: Most of his first drafts were just terrible, but nothing gave him more pleasure than having a day to fix old stories. That's a saner attitude than jealously guarding the childhood innocence of your first thoughts.
posted by argybarg at 5:13 PM on June 17, 2004

mdn wrote:

"The claim was that hemingway struggled with each sentence as he was writing it, while fitzgerald (I think he was the counterpart - many writers could be, as it probably is the more common way) wrote first, and later went back to clean up / strengthen / alter."

I've enjoyed the comparison between Hemingway and Faulkner written by Gabriel Garcia Marquez in Gabriel Garcia Marquez Meets Ernest Hemingway. I'd like to see the Fitzgerald vs. Hemingway thread if you recall where it was. This was the phrase that I liked from Marquez:

At the time, I was a 28-year-old newspaperman with a published novel and a literary prize in Colombia, but I was adrift and without direction in Paris. My great masters were the two North American novelists who seemed to have the least in common. I had read everything they had published until then, but not as complementary reading - rather, just the opposite, as two distinct and almost mutually exclusive forms of conceiving of literature.

posted by bragadocchio at 6:42 PM on June 17, 2004

There's no right answer for the "genius of the first draft" question. It depends greatly on the genre you're talking about, and in particular on the individual writer. The whole issue doesn't hang on whether or not you like Kerouac.
posted by scarabic at 6:57 PM on June 17, 2004

I will say that no amount of editing will help someone who can't pinch out at least a little genius on the first draft.
posted by scarabic at 6:57 PM on June 17, 2004

scarabic: I will say that no amount of editing will help someone who can't pinch out at least a little genius on the first draft.

And I'll respectfully -- but emphatically -- disagree. I've written innumerable first drafts that did nothing but provide me with the most basic building blocks of the article that I would eventually complete. No "genius" to them at all. What's more, I've probably written even more drafts that were useful only in that they demonstrated what not to write in subsequent drafts. Hardly genius.

Perhaps what you meant was "no amount of editing will help a first draft whose writer couldn't pinch out at least a little genius on that draft," but that's essentially implicit, isn't it?
posted by Sinner at 7:17 PM on June 17, 2004

Kindall, something else to internalize: you don't need to hyphenate a compound with an -ly adverb (correctly-spelled). The hyphen is to make it clear that the former is modifying the latter, but the -ly does that on its own. Unless you're British. They have funny conventions, them.
posted by dame at 7:55 PM on June 17, 2004

Sinner - if these 1st drafts of yours served as the building blocks for what became good articles, then I suppose they did have some genius in them, didn't they? If they didn't have something invested in them that was worth editing, you would have thrown them out. That's exactly what I mean.

I'm not trying to turn this into "people who can work genius spontaneously" and "people who can only try to edit it in but will always fail." Of course I mean "on that draft." So if you want to go with your rewrite of my statement, cool. But it seems an incredibly small nitpick.
posted by scarabic at 8:32 PM on June 17, 2004

scarabic,

I agree that there may not be much value in this little sub-debate, but I'll respond. Your argument is deterministic, assuming that if a good product is produced then its antecedents must been good as well. As I said, I don't agree, unless your definition of "[having] some genius in them" covers drafts that were valuable only insofar as demonstrating what not to do.

In your words, "if they didn't have something invested in them that wasn't worth editing, you would have thrown them out." Yes. I've done that many times, with draft after draft, and still turned out a solid product -- often because those drafts lacked anything useable and showed me what not to do. So I have a hard time calling them "genius." Yes, those drafts were essentially hopeless but I, the writer wasn't hopeless as a result, which is what your original post stated.

I don't think it's earth-shatteringly important, but I don't see it as a nitpick, either.
posted by Sinner at 9:50 PM on June 17, 2004

For my personal writing habits, I must back the old Edison quote of "1% inspiration, 99% perspiration". My first step is to construct a highly detailed outline, but since your question is about writing, I will not detail this.

I often rewrite the first 20 pages of longer projects 3 or 4 times before I am happy with my voice. Then it's off to the races for me.

In my first drafts, I labor over each sentence to the extent that it says what I want it to say with only a furtive regard for my chosen voice. At predetermined mileposts, I backtrack primarily to hack out unnecessary text. I am happy if I throw out about a third of what I wrote. A lot of what I delete is quite good writing, but for whatever reason, it does not serve my overall purpose.

Once completed, I read through the entire draft, ensuring that it flows as I intended. Thereafter, I make a pass to clean up the grammar and tighten my voice. By this time, I know very well what I have written, and I do a detailed sentence by sentence polish. A final read through, and I am done.

Purely speculation on my part, pomegranate, but if you are laboring every sentence into its grave, perhaps you are not starting with a sufficiently clear concept of your goal.
posted by mischief at 10:10 PM on June 17, 2004

scarabic:

I appreciate your comment about the "genius of the first draft" depending on the style of the writer. That was a point very much worth making.

I would, however, argue that it is possible to create a work of genius from a first draft that is crap. I can't imagine the amount of confidence and work it can take, but I can imagine that someone could write a draft of no value, then transform bits and pieces (perhaps even reverse them) until something remarkable results. At this point the first draft becomes something like a surrealist game -- just a mechanism for generating words and ideas.

You might then debate whether we're talking about a first draft or a freewrite. At this point a very dull argument breaks out.
posted by argybarg at 12:19 AM on June 18, 2004

Sinner, I think I have you right now.

You're saying that it can be productive to sit down and write a completely worthless piece of crap that you throw away. Maybe it doesn't give you workable material to carry forward, but it takes you closer to your project's goal, teaches you something. Your second draft is likely to be better. Is that right?

I can agree with that absolutely. I'm speaking from a creative standpoint, but yes, sometimes there are cobwebs you need to clear, or red herrings you need to flush out. True.

That false starts are useful, however, seems unrelated to what I originally tried to say, which is that keen editing skills alone can't necessarily get you from blank paper to greatness.

Whether you're a "freewrite" purist or a compulsive re-writer, you're still going to need to experience a spark of genius at *some* point if you wish to produce great work. Aborted first tries may be necessary before that happens.

And I guess you have something there, argybag, in that sometimes the moment of genius might happen on the final revision. That's certainly true.

I think we're all together on this now.
posted by scarabic at 12:36 AM on June 18, 2004

Eh. I still think all notion of genius is the first mile on the road to twaddle. Change it to brilliance, and I think I could join that page.
posted by dame at 6:50 AM on June 18, 2004

scarabic: keen editing skills alone can't necessarily get you from blank paper to greatness.

Well, unless you're an editor (but I think that actually may be a nitpick). So otherwise, yes, agreed..
posted by Sinner at 9:26 AM on June 18, 2004

It will likely seem still more nitpicky, and I should probably leave this alone, but there's one other thing gnawing at me. I've glossed over it thus far because it's sort of specific my writing style and hence not necessarily relevant to a thread about general advice.

Nonetheless ...

The only way I produce anything of quality is through applied logorrhea, essentially. I write and write and write until I feel like I have an idea of where I'm trying to go and what I'm trying to say, at which point I start cutting a lot, pasting a little and adding where needed, much like argybarg said a few posts above.

In editing the crap I originally threw out there, I eventually figure out what to say. The point being that the initial editing is in fact more essential to my work than the initial writing. Your argument calls those original thoughts "genius," which isn't really what I consider them while discounting the "genius" (such as it is) of the editing.

Anyway, this really is a pretty semantic point, kind of me-specific and perhaps not terribly germane to the discussion.
posted by Sinner at 9:36 AM on June 18, 2004

I'm going out to the cafe to write now :)
posted by scarabic at 2:38 PM on June 18, 2004

Just returned from a trip myself. May whatever you write be genius (at one stage or another).
posted by Sinner at 3:53 PM on June 18, 2004

I did some great writing once, maybe twice. Not a lot, I couldn't keep my attention that focused that long. I can do good writing fairly easily, but the great stuff? Ha!

What is great? Melville, for example. Every sentence wrung from the writer's soul. The result something so rich you want to take it in small doses. Perhaps only a paragraph or two becomes an overwelming experience.

I've managed a bit of that. Having been to that mind-space, it becomes easy to understand why a writer might tend to madness. Certainly the exact whereabouts of reality becomes hazy, even for awhile, irrelevant.

Writing that way, I think the bulk of editing has to be done before you write, which is to say, you need to work in the confines of a well-planned outline.

Of course, the bulk of writing done simply doesn't fall into this special realm.
posted by Goofyy at 10:47 PM on June 18, 2004