Everything seems like a bad idea when you start. Just write and write and don't stop to criticize yourself.
If you enjoy writing, who cares if you suck? If it brings you joy, why not just do it? It's a safe and affordable pastime to write. Besides, if they like doing it, they won't get any better if they just stop. So if they like writing, why stop?
As many have already said; JUST WRITE! I'm terribly critical of my own work and am only now getting to the point of fighting through the pain and enjoying story-telling for its own sake. Frankly, I love the revision and editing process, but you can't revise something that doesn't exist, can you? Power through! Good luck.
I assume that that natural, flowing feel comes from a whole lot of editing, and that the first thing to come out was stuttering and awkward, with plot holes and gaps and over explanations and under explanations. I think that, again, the illusion that writing ever comes out perfect the first time may come from the illusion that we're already all masters at language. When you see a sculpture, say, that looks flawless, flowing, graceful, I think that you know that it didn't just come out that way. You know that it was made of some physical material, and that shape had to be roughed out and refined and refined and refined again. You know that the sculptor can't just wave his tools and have the sculpture magically come out perfect. What you're doing is analogous to the sculptor placing his chisel on the stone, gouging it once, and then throwing up his hands and walking away because the stone didn't instantly transform itself into a recognizable part of a perfect sculpture. Because it's theoretically possible for the perfect words to come out, because we don't have to physically carve the words, we can form the incorrect illusion that they did come out perfectly the first time. I'm still a beginner writer, but I know that my bits of writing that seem the most smooth, flowing and effortless are that ones that I've edited many, many times, and often come back and torn apart and rewritten. It's a long, long process of discovering the right structure, smoothing out the rough spots, lifting this, lowering that. The first draft is the rough shape hacked out of the wood or stone; once you're done revising, you may not even be able to see the relationship between the first and final draft. As for whether you should stop, you can't tell if you suck at writing until you've taken the time to write a few hundred thousand words, many of them really lousy words. ChickenFreak
I have the same problem so I try to trick myself that I'm doing an experiment to see just how much 'fail' I can perpetrate in a single novel manuscript. This appears to satisfy my inner critic enough to let me write at least something. However, he gets impatient, often rattling the 'presents' under the 'tree' and tapping his foot while reading over my shoulder. I like that though. Screw that inner critic! Let him stew. He's never made anything in his life!
What I took from your post is that you try to reach perfection in one go. I am a beginner in fiction, but wrote a lot of non-fiction. A Cat, I can confirm you ditch 20 pages for keeping one you are sort of satisfied with. Just my two cents on how I plan to do my fiction writing. 1. I make a rough plot, outlining the main scenes - say two pages. 2. I start writing without taking too much care about grammar, style and lively details. 3. I lay it down for a few weeks - then I do a cold read, making notes on needed improvements. Rewriting is the rule rather than the exception I guess. 4. I check consistency in characters, events and environment. 5. I add body language and speech tones to make it vivid. What I am trying to say is that I go through several refinement passes. I guess even the greatest writers work like this (but I can be wrong). HTH.
I stumbled upon a random article awhile back that I have adopted as my mantra of writing. Although I don't have the article anymore (stupid computer crash months ago) this has helped me continue to love writing in the stories I work on. Basically, when a writer begins thinking about how to further a story, they are thinking very logically and statically. They come up with simple ways to further the current scene, emotion, etc. After about ten minutes, however, the writing mind morphs to a more cognitive way of thinking, and finds it much easier and more enjoyable to insert new story ideas, plot lines, and conversation. The article basically stated that at the moment that you decide you want to quit for the time being is when you are at the peak of your creativity intellectually. Once you do quit, however, your mind tends to relax and get back into a logical way of thinking once again. So, what does one do to try to quickly attain that way of thinking again? Instead of saving your document and ending it there, try to type out your thoughts on the page (perhaps even a separate document for quick reference.) What were you feeling at the time? How were the characters feeling? Where did you want to go next? Who wanted to say the next thing? Try to write as much as you can, and you will find it much, much easier to jump right in once you find time to return to your project. Not exactly the best solution for why you're negative about your stories, but it certainly keeps you engaged in your writing and allows you to jump in quicker Hope this helps and happy writing!
Don't worry about what others will think of your writing. Therein lies madness. Write the same piece, the same paragraph, the same sentence, over and over again until you are happy with it, then let everyone else be damned. If your plot interests you, that's enough. Don't try to sum it up in a few words because all plots stated in simple terms sound either stupid, or boring. A crazy man chases a whale around the world (Moby Dick), life in a rabbit warren (Watership Down), a woman falls asleep near some standing stones and wakes up in the past (Outlander). The story is in the telling, and the words are in you . . . find them.
I agree - after reading my completed novel, which was good. I have decided to rewrite it and my goodness what a difference this time round I know I am unlikely to manage any better. 10,000 words in I have gained about 5,000 words and lost a chapter lol
Thanks for the advises, guys. Updating you on my writing Actually, yesterday I wrote a little short story (about 6 single spaced pages), inspired by the comments - it felt pretty natural while I was writing it, which surprised me. I would probably post it somewhere in a forum after my return from Cuba (going from Jan-25 to Feb 1) so you guys can look at it and judge it. However, today I looked through my story again, and i'm afraid you will find it well... a little mad. Don't take it seriously while reading it, please =)
Art for art's sake? Is it art if nobody ever sees it? Woe to the story teller who can't tell a story. This might not ring true to the wordsmiths, those who can manipulate letters into compelling stories, but to the storytellers who cannot find the words. I can only assume that if those in my boat were to congregate, my pirogue could not sink for there be more bodies than water. What of us? The campfire gods, the recounters of adventures gone awry? Those who can entertain a circle, but can't pass the word? The 92,000 word fictions that we can fit in a college exam blue book? Give me a microphone, yet torture me with a pen. Can the craft be learned? Truly everybody who can craft the word cannot write a story, and those who tell the best are lost to the ink. My passion and respect truly lie with those who do both best. For me, I am but an imagination at the bottom of a well with no bucket from which to draw.
Seems ironic to me that you're complaining about not being a true wordsmith and then here you are ranting in the most convoluted way possible and trying for poetry - and it isn't bad - which tells me you are a wordsmith, but you're feeling discouraged and want a little pick-me-up. What I don't get is what your post is supposed to do? Seems to me like you're going for the "woe is me" route so people will come and say, "You're a great writer!" You can clearly write. Your post says as much. Stop pretending that you can't. If you want some encouragement, say it straight. If you have a more specific problem regarding telling a specific story, ask a question. It'll help you more than doing... this.
Yes to which one? Jesus Christ, Garball, if you can't even answer a simple question correctly, you shouldn't be voting, let alone writing! I think what you're trying to say, is that you think you have a great imagination but no writing skills? Is that correct?Yes or no?
I'm actually having trouble deciphering his post. He's equating story telling with art, which is often the opposite.Then he's calling someone a story teller who can't tell a story (also makes no sense? ) He's also using "tell" to mean three different things. So I am confused.
Ummm. @Garball is a long-standing and respected member of this forum, who often gives great advice to other writers. I think he might just be having a bad day, or is testing the waters a bit. Or is annoyed at himself because he's run out of ideas. As I said earlier ...I await developments....
If this is true then I'm sorry to him for what I said and in the tone it was in. All I really wanted to say was that we've all been there and that it takes tears and work to get to where we want and that he doesn't get to get there just because he can write beautifully.
Well, I won't deny it's a strange post. Let's wait and see if he makes himself clearer at some point. I trust he will.
In all honesty, I think @Garball might be just having a bad day. Like I said, my initial reaction is really that he needs some encouragement. It's an odd way of going about asking for it. It feels like an odd blend of clear self-doubt and well, showing off... Seriously, you don't write about how you can't write and then write it in basically prose poetry. The post does not read badly - might not be everyone's style but to me it's obvious he can write. I get that people doubt themselves from time to time and cease to believe they're any good at something regardless of whether they are. But would you really write like this if you didn't think you can write? That's the contradiction I can't get my head around and which I find a little annoying. @drifter265 - from your other thread, I assume you're quite an emotional person. I didn't read everything you wrote and I can see you've since edited or deleted the offending post. I'd just say that in future, if you wanted to express annoyance, do it in a little more... diplomatic way. If you seriously can't think of anything good/constructive to say, rather say nothing at all. You don't know who you could be hurting, and if you antagonised too many people by being overly aggressive, you could probably get yourself banned, which wouldn't help you either. Forums are indeed good for rants. Sometimes we just need to rant, really.
Fellow Writers, Please forgive the margarita laden spewings of a madman. Masked in this toxic cloud of inebriation is the simple message that the ability to come up with an idea and even being able to verbally express that idea are not conducive to being able to transmit that idea through written word. Some of us have better imaginations than others. Is that an innate feature? Can we train ourselves to have more of an imagination? Writing is a skill, a craft. While we can take classes and practice to improve our writing skills, how many of us can master that craft? Is there an innate physiological trait that allows some to become better writers? The same can be said of athletes, of geniuses, of contortionists... Am I giving up? No, not yet. However, I do insist that a person be introspective and honest enough with themselves to be able to ask if they truly have the ability to accomplish something. We can all be good at something, but the simple wanting cannot elevate you to the elite.
