If you just started writing it's not easy to know that most writers tend to change a lot, regardless of doing it in their first draft or third. I read it as a simple question like "is it just me or is it common to have to make a lot of editing/rewriting?" To some it might seem like other writers nail their ms right from the start.
I have yet to see how good my first draft will be, because...well, because I have not written not a single first draft of any story But what I have heard from other people is that the main goal should be to just put story down, no matter what. Then comes the second, third, fourth, fifth draft...revising, polishing, re-writing. So, I am, I can say, at the start of the long and hopefully succesfull journey and I am yet to see how good it (first draft) is actually going to be.
But again, no one said they write a perfect ms without any editing, only that they write one draft because they edit as they go. I don't see how that could be misconstrued. Nor do I believe that any but the most naive would think it possible to write without editing. Never listen when someone says you should use Method A or Method B. If I (and others who edit as we go) tried to write the whole thing and then go back for editing and rewrites and multiple drafts, well, I would never finish the damn things. I'd look at the huge mess and toss it in disgust.
I think you can write a good first draft that doesn't need editing for anything but typos and wasn't edited as you wrote. I've done that, but it doesn't happen often. Have to really be in the zone.
I'm doing a second draft at the moment. Its a range of emotions. Disappointment when I reconcile what I thought I had written with what I did write. Some satisfaction with sorting it out and tightening up the story. And a lot of hard work, it takes a long time. It takes me a lot longer to go through a second draft than it does to bang out a first one.
It varies. Did I write each scene in under twenty minutes or did they take me days each? The first one probably flows better, but the second likely has a more defined focus. Did I go into it with a plan or wing it? The latter is more likely to need more rigorous editing, whereas my better planned scenes usually need minimal editing. Was I sober when I wrote it? I love what I write drunk, but it's not necessarily good - but there's usually something I can take away from it. If I wrote the entire thing sober then it's probably in a better state to begin with. Did I edit it as I went along? Obviously changes how much work is going to be needed later. Am I re-reading it immediately or three months later? If I read it straightaway I feel it's terrible. If I leave it a few months I can usually better identify the good and bad points in it. Regardless, there is always something that needs editing.
When I am writing them, I swear I am a literary god - upon rereading them, I realize I am the literary equivalent of primordial ooze.
Most of my first drafts are pretty rough. No, that's not really true; a lot of them really suck. I try to edit as I go along, but when I read a first draft I see all the grammatical errors, clumsy sentences, crappy transitions... Fortunately I enjoy re-writing. Writing a story, for me at least, is a long process. I've long wished I was one of those authors that write in a white heat, spewing forth mind-blowing prose that tells the story as if there were no other way. Do you think Hemmingway ever had to pause for a pee break?
My first drafts are crap piled upon crap. My second drafts are crap. My third revisions are okay. It depends on what I'm writing as far as when I consider it "presentable." I don't feel like I ever have that moment where I'm like, "YEAH. BOOM!" At some point, I accept that I've done my best, and my various readers seems to enjoy it. But even after that, I think there is something I could have done better. It's a long road for me. While it's irritating to be overly critical of my work, I'm glad that I'm never at a place where I've lost my humility; it helps me continually strive for the best possible outcome.
Hemingway is quoted, saying: "There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed." Taking that into consideration, I have a feeling that he didn't feel he wrote in the way you described. I think most artists are exceptionally critical of their work, even the greats.
You know, I never actually answered this, either. My first drafts are a steaming pile of nut ridden dog turd. Though, I'm very self critical.
I don't really know, I took a creative writing class at my college and every time I wrote a story for class I thought it was rushed and that it could be much better, but after I turned it in I always got rave reviews from my teacher and a high grade. I actually think I got an A on everything I turned in, even my poetry (which is not my forte!). I also got good reviews from all my classmates who read my stuff, and the only constructive criticism I got was like "Make it longer! I want to read more!" or something like that ('cause they had to give criticism, even if they couldn't think of anything that needed changing). So, you never know, ask somebody else to read your stuff and they will probably think it's amazing. Don't worry about if it's "good", I don't think that's healthy, just write for the fun of it.
You did read the other posts in this thread, right? The ones from people who do just that? Or did you mean to say you haven't done it (yet)?
Might be because critical skills evolves with time. I remember some stuffs I wrote years ago and now look back at in horror, if with a little fondness. Another thing I found recently, at least for me, is that I need not a first draft but a proper summary for my story. A three lines thing in which I can express what is happening to a third party who know nothing of it. If I can't get it out straight, I know completing the first draft won't work.
Well, I can only relate my own experiences. I read somewhere that Isaac Asimov always turned in first drafts, never rewrote anything and he had over 600 stories published. It was once my goal to be just like that, but I've come to realize that it just ain't gonna happen. I'm sure there are people out there who do write amazing first drafts, but I can't imagine they're all that common. I was once asked to read the first draft of a friend's novel and it was in dire need of a rewrite. That's the only first draft I've ever read of anyone's work besides my own... unless you count all the Asimov I've read.
My first drafts come out as pure dorkiness. After various re-writes I have something actually presentable. Then I work more and more on it to make it just right.
And that's important to note when making "pronouncements" You'd be surprised how many there are - particularly among those who edit as they go, or pay close attention to what's already happened before they add something new. Well, see, reading one other person's first draft hardly proves anything. And let's bear in mind that having a clean, submissable first draft doesn't mean there will be no editing on it ever again. One does have the publisher's editors to deal with, though one isn't forced to follow their suggestions. But it does mean that the first draft/only draft is as good as one can make it before the professionals get hold of it.
Okay, I've been properly chastised. I did read a lot of the comments before my original post and so somewhere in the back of my mind, I guess I knew there might be ruffled feathers, so I beg forgiveness. I guess I was only thinking of the pantsers in the crowd. But to set the record straight, in my original post, I did say, "in my experience."
Depends how you define first draft. Ranges from vomit drafts > first draft you'd hand in for a paid gig, which can be quite good.
Depends how you define first draft. Ranges from vomit drafts > first draft you'd hand in for a paid gig, which can be quite good.
Okay, you got me again. Sorry if I insulted you. That was definitely not my intention. I guess my understanding of what makes a pantser needs revising. Having always written quickly myself, I always picture pantsing as: dive in and write like mad for three weeks until I've got 70-80k words. I don't think about it, I just write. I thought that was what people meant when they used the term. From what you're saying, I guess there are various forms of it. But then again, I do barely any research until after the first draft, so I'm not sure I do--or see--things the way the rest of the world does anyway.
This is the key to any "method" of writing. Each writer does it differently - if they come up with a finished manuscript, it works. For them.
