@BayView - agreed. The two appear fundamentally different on the surface, but quite often that loss of interest is unwanted. When a writer loses interest in writing, it's wrong to think they just happily skip-off and find something else to do. Very often they mourn that loss of interest. You could argue then that technically this means they haven't really lost interest, but until you experience it yourself it's very difficult to understand.
Not just losing interest vs. not being able to write, but there is also burnout. That doesn't mean you're done forever, but you might need a couple weeks to read some new books and go hiking.
It depends what you mean by profession - I'm writing because I want to be a novelist... ie someone who sells books that people read. To date I've not published anything (apart from some journalism bits in magazines), but I see it as a second business, pretty much as I do my wedding photography, it's not a 'hobby' in the same way my carving and turning is EOTD if its a pure past time and you aren't interested in earning anything from it or having peer recognition, then yes just write is bad advice.... write when you feel like it, and if you don't who cares you can always take up clog dancing or whatever instead. On the other hand if you actually want to be a serious writer (with either money or peer recog or both as your yard stick) then you need to write on a regular basis, and just write is good advice
Okay, let's say you wake up one morning and writing is the last thing you feel like doing. You ignore your negative thoughts and force yourself to sit down and write. This results in 500 words of utter garbage. Given this scenario, what have you achieved? Also, does this mean you can now pat yourself on the back and go find something easier to do for the rest of the day?
Thing is it doesnt - at least not in my experience - I write something, it dosnt work, i write sometiung else still not working, the delete key is glowing red hot, nothing works ahh buggeration then finally success 500 words or whatever that move the story forward. Tbh it sounds like you are suffering from 'perfection paralysis' - personally I know whatever i write in the first draft is going to be editted and rewritten to a farethee well anyway so the important thing is to hack the story out not bto make it word perfect in draft 1
No. If writers treated 'writing' like any other craft, writers would be a lot better off vs. spinning their wheels endlessly. Again, Creativity is built from self-restriction and understanding the technical aspects of writing. Someone could have the 'coolest idea' ever, but what good does it do them if they don't have the skills to put it into reality. This is what I believe writer's block is, a lack of having the needed skills to accomplish your goal.
I'll admit, when I am writing, I do suffer from this. But the long-term problem with me is that I can't rid myself of the on/off approach to writing. About a month ago I hit the 'off' period, and will remain in this state for the foreseeable. I gave up on any literary ambitions a long time ago because of this.
There is no need to be in a zone for hours and to write for hours. It is much harder to be in the process of writing a novel and taking long chunks of time off before writing again. It is much easier to keep the flow going for shorter sessions almost every day or every day than taking a long break and you don't "lose your place" for lack of a better term. If you are always waiting for the perfect time to write for hours and hours, then you are going to end up with 1st drafts that take a decade to write. If you are a perfectionist I would say two things 1) practice makes perfect so practice daily 2) read your stuff out loud...go over and over and over again getting the words right until you are satisfied...this is a thing you can do with any period of time to write from 15 mins to 2 hours. Even if you write ONE WORD in a day, write everyday it keeps your story at the front of your mind. If you live to write, then you would have to write everyday and SACRIFICE other things so you can write. You may lack discipline. If so, I suggest writing short stories or poems or maybe even essays until you can handle something longer. And yes, it took me 10 years to write a first draft because I was lazy. Writing every day and a draft takes about a year. I am talking about 350-500 pages.
Possibly you're missing the diagnostic element of the "butt in chair" method? And, of course, assuming the worst possible outcome. So, for the diagnostic part... if you sit down every day, day after day, and produce nothing effective (when you used to be able to produce something effective) then you don't have a solution to the problem, but you have helped yourself to understand that it's not a reluctance to put the time in that's getting in your way. There's some other problem. So, no, it's not a solution to the problem, but it helps you to narrow down the area in which the problem is being experienced. (And would also, of course, help illuminate the people who want to be "writers" but don't want to actually do the work of writing.) But there's also the possibility that the 500 words won't be utter garbage. They may not be great, but they may have the seeds of something useful in them. If I have a stuffed up nose and don't know why, I might take an allergy pill. If it doesn't work, I'm probably not suffering from an allergy. (This is the diagnostic element). But there's also a chance that it MIGHT work, in which case I've not only diagnosed my problem, I've also gone a long way toward solving it. I'm not sure what the stuffy-nose equivalent of your approach to writers' block would be... just accepting that sometimes everyone's nose gets stuffy and it'll go away eventually on its own? I don't think that's a wrong approach, necessarily, but it may result in me having a stuffy nose for longer than I need to...
Well, I think everyone needs to find their own way on this. I tend to be a binge writer - I certainly don't write every day, but when I do write (which, yes, is when I have long periods of uninterrupted time) I produce a lot. I usually write four or five books a year. It's all about experimenting, I think, and figuring out what works for you.
Let's say "getting it right" is writing a book that sells. They have that saying in physics: Not even wrong. You have to be pretty smart and well trained to come up with something in physics that's even wrong. Not that I'm published or anything, but I feel like the ideas I used to have for stories weren't even workable. One was, "what if people got magical powers from sitting alone in deep space." So, I wrote a chapter about this guy flying around in space, alone, navel gazing until he had magic. It was the worst. I feel like I had to learn a lot of craft and write a lot of bad before I even started to come up with ideas that could be stories, even if the full story was bad.
So basically you wrote a chapter and I am guessing you did not do a real outline before just jotting down this chapter and you wonder why it failed?
Again, though... there are lots of different ways to write. Lots of successful writers don't outline.
The analogy of a surgeon reminds me of my time as a technical writer. I had the scene and the characters and a direction to go. There was no creativity about the haze of the morning or undulating breast. The creativity was to make it read simple enough for a 12 year old. Just like the surgeon who only had to keep the patient alive.
I don't wonder. I was new to the art and it was crappy writing. I didn't know how to structure a story.
It failed because a guy navel gazing in space isn't interesting, its got jack shit to do with the outline/don't outline debate
Bullshit. Flat out bullshit. Other than stream of consciousness writers like Keroac (sp?) have an outline. Now, an outline can be all in your head (if you are skillful enough or the story is simple enough). I am saying they may not put the outline to paper, but you best believe they had an outline in their head. Wut? I said he didn't do an outline (which would be the whole book) and just wrote a chapter. Of course that is a disaster. The poster said this "One was, "what if people got magical powers from sitting alone in deep space." So, I wrote a chapter about this guy flying around in space, alone, navel gazing until he had magic." Break this down, his premise was "what if people got magical powers from sitting alone in deep space." <-- which can sure as hell make a good story But he didn't do an outline and his chapter was this "I wrote a chapter about this guy flying around in space, alone, navel gazing until he had magic" So maybe, now call me crazy, but just maybe if he had done a full outline he would have 1) determined if there was a story that could be novel length 2) think of something more interesting than staring at his navel. Shit, look at what happens during sensory deprivation? You can work with that as a basis and come up with all interesting kinds of shit.
lol yeah, it would have been nice if I came up with conflict and an outline, but then I would have been good enough to write a story then, which I wasn't. "If only you were smart, good and knew what you were doing." No kidding.
To be fair, when someone as published as BayView says that " lots of successful writers don't outline," it's probably best to consider that she may be right, or at least challenge her assertion by asking for evidence before dismissing it out of hand. Not just because she'll block you if you're a constant ass, but because the penalty appropriate to ignorance is to make the effort to learn from the wise. That comes from ya boy Socrates.
But with all due respect, clicking a button on a camera isn't the same as thinking of a story, in the same way doing surgery isn't; they are physical acts. Unless we are talking about writers block in a physical sense but I take it as people meaning they don't know what to write rather than an inability to type words. Edited to add, I'm not saying photography is as simple as clicking a button and I appreciate there is a lot more to it, I am just trying to emphasise what I see as the difference between a physical action and creativity. I was worried this sounded like I was dissing photography which I wasn't intending.
