I tend to write when it's quiet. Some days I'll get a couple pages done, other days I'll crank out an entire chapter in 3 hours. Some days I'll try a couple of sentences, and if it's not there, I'll stop and go clean the pool or do a brake job on my truck or something. Anything but write, and I try to forget entirely about the WIP. Seems to work for me.
Once I get in the "zone" I find it very difficult to get out until I finish my objectives for that day. What is difficult to me is the blank page, but music helps me start. I also can't write unless I feel I have enough time to finish my goals. I guess is kinda a "everything or nothing" aproach.
Yeah. It's a mistake to think you MUST write x number of words every day. That works for some people, and gets them to produce something every day. This might be a good thing. However, if all you get down is something you get rid of the next day because it was forced and uninspired, I don't think you're necessarily moving forward. The only thing you must do, to be a writer, is write. That means you have to move beyond the thinking, planning and tinkering stages at some point. You do need to produce results. But how (often) you do that is up to you. Personally, I can't write original drafts when there are distractions or lots of noises in the background. I can't envision a scene when I'm distracted. I can edit and proofread with thunder in my ears, but I can't produce original writing unless I've got space and peace in order to let my brain create scenes, without fear of being interrupted. Just can't.
I don't force it when I'm not in the mood for writing. I'm in the mood often enough that I don't need to worry about not meeting my deadlines. Since writing has such a poor financial return the only point in doing it is because we enjoy it, surely, so why force yourself when you're not enjoying it? Makes no sense to me.
One good way to not write a book is to only write when you feel like it. The best writers have always accepted it's a horrible, agonising chore. You have the good days and then every other day you have to sit down for 8 hours and smack the damn thing out.
Come on dear, it's an opinion. You don't need to evidence an opinion. There's no set way to write, but not doing it because you don't feel like it isn't going to get that novel finished. For some people it isn't a hobby.
This isn't opinion: The best writers have always accepted it's a horrible, agonising chore. You have the good days and then every other day you have to sit down for 8 hours and smack the damn thing out. So you agree that the best writers haven't always accepted that?
I remember an Anne Rice interview (and you don't have to like her writing to understand she's a very successful novelist) where she said she often lets months go by without writing anything. And then she restarts. Forcing yourself to write every day is NOT a requirement for being a writer. Getting something written is, however. Ideas that just float around in your brain or take shape in a detailed outline, or can't get past the first few pages don't make you a writer. My own opinion is that you're not a 'real writer' till you finish something. Until then, you're just testing the waters. How long it takes you to finish, or what method you use is up to you.
Why would anyone write if they only enjoyed it rarely and most days it was a slog? Unless you're JK Rowling you can make more money for your time doing literally any other job. Most other hobbies, even. So once you've discounted financial gain and enjoyment, what reasons are left? None, to my reckoning. What I see famous authors saying is that they write because they love it, even if it has poor returns and is hard work. Edit: It sounds like I'm disagreeing with Jannert but I'm not (I don't think that's ever happened? ). Anne Rice writes when she enjoys it. I can't see why any author would take a different approach, unless it was writing through short periods of frustration.
Actually, Anne Rice did say that never a day goes by that she doesn't THINK about writing. Think about her plots, what she's going to write next, work through story problems, etc. There is always some aspect of story going on in her head. She just doesn't feel the need to sit down and produce something tangible every day. She knows that when she's ready, she will produce. Enough to satisfy her agent and publisher.
Sure, maybe they didn't. There's probably that one person out there that can write a best seller in three days only because s/he was bored. But for those like me, writing ought to be treated like any other skill; unless you work at it day after day, through the rough and the smooth and plug at it even when you don't feel like it, you won't improve. I doubt any mathematician or scientist became a Nobel prize winner by only doing maths or science when they felt like it. Obviously, it's hyperbole to suggest you write EVERY day, but it ought to be in the mind as often as possible, and take precedence for those with the passion.
I write a lot then I take breaks (handwriting is hard because I have to transfer it to the computer lol). I'm a firm believer of MBTI types and it shows for my personality that it's not very good to write consecutively, or else my ideas turn mediocre. Writing everyday is a good habit to me but not a required one. As long as you keep on writing, that's good. Everybody should take breaks.
Ah, but for me, "forced and uninspired" has no correlation with whether the writing is good or whether I get rid of it the next day. It's a sad truth for me--JUST for me, I'm not saying it's true for everybody--that my enjoyment, sense of inspiration, or sense of immediate quality, in the writing of the first draft has nothing to do with the quality of what I've written. In fact, I suspect that there's a negative correlation--that the times when I'm feeling least inspired and am forcing myself to grab words by the tail and glue them down despite their kicking and screaming, are the times when the work is best. Because they love having written. I love having written. I love having a first draft to edit and tweak, and I love reading the result over and over and over and over and over again. I hate writing fiction. (I like writing nonfiction just fine.) I love HAVING WRITTEN fiction.
Raising a child is difficult and nightmarish and expensive and riddled with emotional uncertainty and doubt and hardship. But you love it and wouldn't get rid of it or stop caring for it for anything. You do the hard stuff knowing that, if you put the hours in and devote your life to it, the end result, and all the wonderful positives that come with it, will make the hardship worthwhile. The same goes for writing.
Well that depends on whether you're writing mostly for yourself and the desire to publish is more a personal achievement thing, or if you're trying to make a career out of it and/or have a publishing contract/deadline to fulfill. To some extent, enjoyment plays a role - I doubt Nobel prize winners pursued what they did because they found the whole subject dull. As with most things, it's just a matter of balance - however if the slog drags on then it might be good to start asking if this particular field, whatever it might be, is something that 1. you're actually into, 2. worth it, and 3. you're good at for the level you wish to achieve. To some extent, with writing, if there's no enjoyment in it at all, or the enjoyment level is so small that 99% of the time it's hell, then yes I don't think it makes sense to continue. But if all it is is you get some good days and some bad days - like a job you actually do enjoy and care about but you know, it's Monday and everyone hates Mondays or your boss just yelled at you so you're feeling shit - then yes, stick with it! At some point you have to ask yourself if the balance works for you, if it's worth it for you, that's all.
There more to the skill of writing than just chucking words onto the page, though. Especially if you're writing a novel. There will be a lot of thinking through problems. There may be research to do. Scenes to envision. Story problems to solve. Connecting bridges between events that need to be worked out. A lot of this kind of work is done away from the computer. As long as you're thinking about your story and working on the problems connected to it, I'd say you're working. You don't have to actually be writing words all the time. That can actually be counter-productive, if what you really need to do is step back and think and evaluate. Or solve a problem that has just cropped up, or plug a plot hole. Or do research, then fit the research into what you will be writing. That's a lot different from procrastinating. Although even procrastination has its place, as long as it doesn't get out of hand. I've discovered that what may look like procrastinating, for me anyway, usually means there's a problem I still need to solve. I beaver away at it in my head, until suddenly bingo, there's the solution. Then I can't wait to get it written.
But--and again, this is just for me--for me I'm not. If I'm not writing, I'm not working. I'm stalling. It doesn't matter how much brilliant research I do; if the research is being allowed to stall putting words down, that means that I am not working and that there is no particularly realistic prospect of that research ever producing anything. Now, if and when I actually stop stalling and get a decent writing habit in place, that habit will probably involve a modest minimum word quota, to allow for time spent on other aspects of writing. But if I'm not putting words down, I'm not working on my writing. That's just who I am.
Writing is fun but it's also tough. There's not much fun or inspiration in editing. In fact looking at my ms after setting it aside can be depressing. Where did all those plot holes or weird metaphors come from? So I'm for powering through ... a bit. Sometimes it's easier said than done - I also find that even if I start a little uneasy in a writing session doesn't mean it's going to be a wash out. Two paragraphs later I can hit my stride and finish the night with five pages done.
I'll attempt to answer the question you posed. "Who writes like this?" So far I've usually written in the third person. Also, my style is a bit different from what's up there in the quote, but I can't quite pinpoint how. Maybe I use less commas. I guess I don't write like that and I'm not sure who does. I do know that there are a lot of people that do write similar to what's in the quote. However, when you get specific enough with the word choice and phrasing your style is probably unique. You have to get pretty specific though.
