Has anyone tried using smelling salts after getting eyeball strain and general fatigue from the computer screen? I know it will jump start you for a couple minutes, but I was wondering if I'd go right back to being fatigued after the initial burst, or if it will have some long lasting effect?
I've only experimented with smelling salts once, and it was more then enough for me. I would describe it like being stabbed in the brain with an ice pick. But after the initial (and visceral) response there is no increase in energy or vigor. Your body thinks it's about to be poisoned and responds. After a tiny shot of adrenaline you are entirely on your own. And none of that is going to have any affect on the eyestrain. Stick to clear-eyes and Red Bull.
My husband was a journalist, and their union made the company he worked for allow their onscreen employees to take a 'screen break' every half hour. A screen break of 10 minutes. That is not excessive.
When the Irishman was asked why he kept banging his head on the wall, he said because it'll be nice when he stopped. So stop. Get away from the screen. It's hard, but twenty minutes is enough, then have a few minute's break. Oh, but you want to keep writing? Practice your longhand. Or re-focus your eyes on the horizon, across landscapes. Or simply close them and imagine the next scene. Either way, get away from the keyboard and screen.
The long term effects of constant sitting go far beyond tired eyes, which usually take care themselves with rest.
Time is the only thing that will help. A nap works well for some people although, alas, I am not one of those. Turning down the brightness on your monitor makes a big difference in eyestrain. Also "computer glasses" help, if you wear reading glasses.
First time through, I read..."get away from the keyboard and scream"...and thought, that sounds like a really good idea! There's research into studying that reckons that twenty minutes is optimum, you won't learn any more after this time. Take five, go and do something different (even if it's only playing solitaire), then come back for another twenty minutes. Repeat. I suspect that writing is similar.
Hey guys Just wanted an opinion, how do you rate 2 to 300 words per day? would you call it average, low or normal? many thanks
Idunno whether it is below or above average, but to put it into perspective, that is one 73k-110k word novel per year.
Don't do word count, I go more by page or scene so about 1 - 3 pages every other day. But on a good day I can do up to 8. It's definitely sporadic.
For me, it varies a lot. Right now I'm hitting about 3000 words per day but I can get up to 15000 if I work all day, nonstop.
I'd say, if you find that 200-300 words works for you, then go with it. Don't care about averages, recommendations, what other people do, etc., etc. Care about what you enjoy. (Personally I write up to 500 words in a day, and I don't write every day. And I'm happy with that, mostly. )
I really struggle. I don't normally write in the evening, but tonight I forced myself - mainly because there was sod all on TV and I felt a rare pang of inspiration. I started at around 21:30 and have just closed the file (at 23:00), having written a mere 259 words. Earlier this afternoon, I got down 704, so in total, for the day, that's 963 words. I wish I knew what the answer was, but sadly I don't. Constant negativity and demons telling me I can't write for toffee don't help. Having said that, it's not so much my writing, but how utterly lost I feel in terms of structuring a novel.
While this is true for the finished product, aiming for quantity produces quality better than aiming for quality.
Improvement yields diminishing marginal returns. You can only improve one thing so much. You will probably create something better by creating many things and improving them up to a certain point before letting go. Or else risk magnum opus dissonance. To me, that is the point of the ceramics class story, not "practice makes perfect."
I don't think comparing ceramics to writing is valid. Marginal returns - pretty much this whole response - has nothing to do with my point. People who cannot see tense errors, purple prose, SpaG issues or inconsistent characterisation in their own work would probably quickly see holes or asymmetry in a piece of ceramic, or even an aesthetic that could be mistaken for "quality". Constantly writing prose with all those issues will not, IMO, lead to them being removed. They are there in the first place because people do not see them.
Based on one experiment in a completely different medium? Care to back that up? Aren't you the guy who's never picked up a camera who said photography is piss easy compared to writing? el oh el.
Do you mind if we continue this here: https://www.writingforums.org/threads/aiming-for-quantity-produces-quality-better-than-aiming-for-quality.140696/
I'm not taking sides - I'm sick to the back teeth of petty arguments on forums, 95% of which stem from nothing more than a difference of opinions. All I'll say is that I wish I could write more in my sessions - quality or not. I think I would be a better writer for it, if only because it would indicate a fluency that I've always strived for, but ultimately lacked.