He wasn't right. No absolute statement like that is right (except this one ). I think a lot of us have had first drafts that were great, and other first drafts that were complete crap.
Nope. Not the way I work. If it's the way you and Hemingway and your anonymous analogy friend work, that's great. But it's not an absolute truth. ETA: Steerpike beat me to it. Cats are QUICK!
I'm sure old Grampa was thinking only of his own work (I don't actually know where that quote comes from). I'm pretty sure Kafka's Metamorphosis is a first draft, written though one night, and the saccharine-sweet ending always gave me the slight feeling he started racing to the end as the sun came up. Mind you, Grampa Hemingway never struck me as the type who would have liked Kafka anyway.
Probably true. I think any time writers make such statement they're talking about their own process, whether they believe it applies universally or not. I know I've had some great first drafts and bad ones. There are writers who have published works that were essentially first drafts, with little editing apart from proofreading. One of the more famous examples of a good first draft that gets thrown around is Kerouac's On the Road, which was actually edited for publication. But apparently the unedited 'scroll' that holds the original manuscript is quite good (I've read some opinions by Kerouac scholars that it is better than the edited product, but whether that it true or not I can't say, not having read the original).
I've read parts of the 'scroll' version, and I for one can't tell any real difference between the two. Kerouac certainly had talent as a writer (and as a typist, have you seen the original scroll? It's beautiful!) but he wasn't a very poetical writer. Never tried to be. There are a few phrases changed here and there, a few paragraphs that are structured differently; and the version I read kept the original names, so instead of 'Carlo Marx' you just get Allen Ginsberg. I'm willing to say that a change in phrase or simile or sentence structure isn't going to make any real difference to a Kerouac novel for anyone outside of people who study his work. On the Road isn't exactly coy and teasing with what it's trying to say. The same cannot be said of someone like Robert Frost, whose 'Stopping By Woods on a Snowy Evening' is apparently a first draft.
Define great. Story? Text? Originality? It's not a stretch to say that a first draft might be glowing with potential, but great? I think aspiring writers with that frame of mind are in for a harsh wake-up call.
This assumes that such a broad statement about drafts would hold true for each and every writer, which doesn't make much sense.
I have seen photos of the scroll. It is quite beautiful, as you say. I agree that On the Road and other works I can think of are the sort of works that more susceptible to being written well in a first draft. Also, sometimes when you're sitting down to write everything just clicks and the first draft turns out to be wonderful. At least, that's how it works for me. Other times, some things click and others don't, or else nothing clicks, and you have a first draft that is pretty bad.
Like it or not, many writers do write clean, publishable first (and only) drafts. As to Hemingway, his grandson has stated that, contrary to popular belief, most of his drafts were very clean. Every famous writer has and will make statements as to how other writers should write. It's all bull. They can only speak for what worked for them, which explains why one successful author will directly contradict another as to the "right way" to write.
Well from my experience, most writers who have spoke on first drafts usually refer to it as a rough cut. Also, what is clean writing? I think that's an opinion based matter. I've read some published books that, to me, seem like a mess. I know some people like to revise each page or chapter after writing them, which might give the illusion of a clean first draft, but I find it hard to swallow that people can bang out a clean first draft that hardly needs any work, especially in a short amount of time. Maybe veterans can come close, but even they surely make significant changes in their second draft.
Seems like these discussions often come down to people just not able to accept the fact that some people write differently than they do. Like the whole panster v. planner argument. Kind of silly. Writers are all over over the spectrum in terms of how they write and how their first drafts look. And I suspect most writers are all over the spectrum themselves at any given time. At least that's how it is for me. If I'm in the right mode I can bang out a first draft of a short story in 3 or 4 hours that doesn't need anything but a check for typos and its ready to go. If I'm not, I can go through multiple drafts and still not have the end product I want.
I think the two key points in this kind of discussion is:- 1. What constitutes as a good first draft? 2. How seasoned you are as a writer. If you're a veteran and have written lots of stories, having a good portion of them published, then you're probably a lot more concious and aware of your writing quality.
Well, I sold one story for $100 (which I believe came out to a semi-pro rate based on word count), which was then produced in audio form and has presented a couple of times at dramatic readings (it was kind of cool in one case - I got an email from a guy running a charity event in Canada wanting to do a live reading of the story for the event. No payment in that instance, but it was nice). I think that qualifies as a good first draft. Although in that example, the last paragraph or so was rewritten. Here's how it went: 1. I got this vague image in my head that I wanted to write a story about. 2. I started writing (I'm a panster for short stories), not really sure where the story was going. 3. I finished the story about 3 -4 hours after starting it, read through it checking for typos and thought "I like this." 4. I sent it off to a professional-rate market. The editor rejected it, saying he liked the story but didn't like the ending (a hazard of being a panster). 5. I took maybe 15 minutes at the most to rewrite the last paragraph or so to change the ending, then sent it back out. 6. It sold. So, with the rewritten last paragraph it's arguably not a first draft, but it is pretty darn close (and I only took one pass at the new ending as well - just a single write and check for typos). Contrast that with my current work-in-progress, which is a novella. The first 5000 words or so I wrote in a single sitting in much the same way as the story above, and the first draft was great. The last 3000 words or so are already done, and were also a first draft. The middle I have re-drafted a handful of times and it still isn't any good. Contrast that even further with the first episode of a serial I've completed, where the opening scene was written in one sitting and was essentially a first draft, but the remainder of it has been drafted, re-drafted, moved around, deleted, etc. numerous times. So in just those three works I've run the spectrum of having a first draft that I've done almost nothing to and was ready to go, to a work where almost the entire thing has been thought, re-thought, and re-drafted numerous times. Who says there is only one possible way?
Now I'm starting to feel like we need to discuss the concept of 'drafts.' Still, it doesn't matter if you are redrafting in one sitting or five, you're still redrafting, editing, cutting, adding, changing things around, and that's the whole point I'm getting at. Congratulations on your short story, though. I was planning a short story to submit to the Bridport competition, but it never came together. I've got another one in the works about a graduate who gets addicted to alcohol and parting, until it turns dark -- got a lot of research done for that one.
Thank you. That one I didn't re-draft as I was writing. It was very much just sitting down and typing until it was done. But the last paragraph did change after an editor said "I don't like how it ends." I did have one story that was really a first draft with no edits, start to finish, but it was a 1000 word flash fiction story that had to be written in under an hour. I only got $25 for that one, and I don't usually count it because it was more a vignette than anything. Good luck on your short stories. I find they're my favorite to write, but I'm working on my skills for longer material.
I've been trying to write on and off for the past 6 years (with significantly large gaps in between for various reasons) - what I'm finding works for me now is to write in a journal whenever and wherever, just scribble it down as it comes to mind - when I read it back its flippin terrible - but that allows me to get the basics down as quickly as possible without worrying too much about grammar, flow etc - then when I have a little more time I type it up as I think it should be, spend more time on it, re-read it, edit it, type some more. As previously said earlier in this threat I don't think I could do a complete draft before editing, a lot of the editing I do reflects on where the next scribbling session will take me.
I don't know that anyone has said they didn't edit/revise their stories at all, so your point is kinda moot. What most of us are talking about is whether that editing/revision happens in one draft or over multiple drafts - and yes, there are a great number of successful writers who do it in one draft. So unless you're one of those types who, when discussing outlinging versus pantsing, insists that thinking about the upcoming paragraph is actually outlining and pantsers just won't admit it, I don't know what your problem with first draft = final draft is.
You've identified where you think you've fallen short, so you're already ahead of the game. The quality of your "first draft" will vary depending on your experience as a writer. Someone who has written and revised a couple of complete manuscripts will produce a more polished first draft than someone who is just making her first attempt. Writing is a learning experience. My advice is to pause, go read something published in the same genre and compare with yours. Then go back and start again (you can also edit what you've done thus far, if it doesn't require a great deal of revision, but sometimes one feels one has gotten off on the wrong foot, and since you're only four chapters in, starting over might give you a better shot at resolving the pacing problem). Good luck.
My first draft usually provides a good reason to do a second one. But don't be downhearted. Ernest Hemingway said that the first draft of anything is shit.
My draft is usually 70% of my work. they look almost similar to the end result: i just check them for spelling and grammar mistakes, make them more "readable" - smaller paragraphs, visual media, etc.. and here they go! ))
My first drafts aren't usually horrible. The biggest problem is that I usually get pulled into them and make a lot of spelling or grammar errors without noticing. So I have to go back and edit those out.
I think what the op is referring to is how much you have to change/rephrase/correct etc the things you write, or if it comes out pretty much perfect right from the start.
I'd probably give a similar answer - no one has stated their work comes out even "pretty much" perfect right from the start. For those of us who edit as we go, well, personally I don't even attempt to keep track of the corrections, additions, subtractions or rephrasing I do. What's the point? The only thing that matters is the finished product.
