I've been thinking a lot about this issue lately, especially when it comes to finishing a project. Is it better to write on a schedule, or should writers just wait for the artistic moments to come along? I've heard arguments for both sides, and people seem pretty adamant about their choice. Personally, I've found that I need discipline in my writing. I guess this stems from the fact that my "artsy" moments come when I'm not really able to drop what I'm doing and write. If I just waited for those moments, I wouldn't be able to really finish anything. Plus, there's a bigger temptation to just wait for the moment, which has led me to wait months between writing anything. I absolutely have to make myself write to finish things. But it works out, because I've realized that my writing flows better after I just sit down and start. The moment comes out of the discipline. I guess I use both styles, in a way, but they flow together. Nice how things work out that way. (Hopefully, there hasn't been a big conversation on this already and it turns out I just suck at searching )
In my opinion, inspiration is important but what's more important is what you decide to do with the idea. Everyone has bursts of inspiration and come up with great ideas which stay as ideas unless they decide to put it down. From there, I believe discipline is imperative. I had the same problem you were facing, I used to stop writing for months and just spent waiting for that idea. So this time I decided to write something everyday on the idea I got a few days ago. It didn't really matter what I wrote and they are usually no more than a page but it's still better than not writing. I switch POV's, write random scenes and so by the end of this week, I'll have a small collection of random scenes and maybe I can look through them and flesh out the main plot. But yes, I think inspiration and getting the idea is important but what's more important is how your going to transform that idea into reality or a novel. My advice would be to write everyday, anything relating to the plot or characters but make sure you write everyday.
The way I see it, is like a nuclear reaction. Yes, it can be incredibly useful, and is incredibly powerful, but if left to its own devices, it just makes an incredibly big mess. It's only constructive when it's propperly channeled. So yeah, artisic flow is important, but you have to actually channel it towards something, or it doesn't get anywhere. So a bit of both, I guess
I find I'm much more likely to get inspired with my backside in a chair, pen and paper in front of me, and a determination to write in the forefront of my mind. Funny how that works out.
Yeah, I find that once I start writing, even if I had to force yourself to do it, I soon get into the 'zone' anyway. The more disciplined you are about writing, the more productive you may well be. I'm nowhere near as disciplined as I'd like to be, though.
I have to make myself write...every morning. If I don't, then I lose focus and I wont write anything. Some of my most artistic work found it's way through those moments when I made myself write. I think Banzai said it best, when he mentioned channeling our artistic flow...I absolutely agree.
You'll never get much accomplished if you only write when you feel like it, goes the cliche. I'm afraid that's true. Sometimes you just need to sit down and force yourself to write. It helps, though, if you don't force yourself to write anything specific. I tend to sit down and say, 'Okay, give me a page--on whatever'. I generally get a page of whatever. A way I found to keep myself encouraged is to make a note on my callendar of what I do that day. When I have a blank day on my writing log, I feel guilty. And I feel especially bad if there's a whole month of them...
there's no 'should' on this... only what 'works' for each individual writer... that said, if you're writing for a living, and not just as a hobby, then some discipline is needed, to keep the bills paid...
I am working on something that might be as long as a novel, but will at least reach novella-length. It will be divided into chapters, with each chapter focusing on a particular angle of the topic. But the transition of chapters is weird. It’s almost like some of the chapters don’t follow from the previous one, or that before I start a certain chapter I should explain more in the current one. In other words, it doesn’t seem to flow. Reading it seems to give a kind of foggy feeling where it makes sense locally, but not globally. Is this attractive? Are stories with almost, but not quite, standalone chapters enjoyable? Must a story necessarily be straightforward in order to be readable?
Transitions are important. It seemed choppy to you, right? And you're predisposed to like what you've written. That alone should tell you that something needs fixing.
i personally like something to flow, but I am sure there is a market out there for what your talking about. Do the chapters confuse the reader when going from one to the next? That would be my only concern, is if the reader gets to frustrated and doesnt want to keep reading.
To thirdwind and afinemess: no, it's more like one chapter focuses on a certain set of points and the next chapter focuses on an entirely different set of points, which might be confusing to some.
It depends, really. Flow itself is important, that is, the story must flow. The events, however, don't necessarily have to if you present them the right way. Case in point, The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman. Laurence Sterne, the author shows us the timeline of events as they are written [as they appear] in the book [well, at least one of them is TLOTS,G]:
Though it should be noted that TLOTS,G was (and still is) considered a work of experimental fiction, and should not be taken to be "typical" in the way it does things.
Aren't you writing events in chronological order? Why wouldn't you? If you're writing events in proper order, just give some indication as to the elapsed time between chapters. I think it's ok if the events seem unrelated, providing that the content is interesting. This could actually be a point of interest in itself, as the reader wonders how the different events will come together to form a complete picture. As noted, it would help if you explain better.
It would be quite hard for us to judge when we don't know the contents of your story. Therefore, you are the judge. No offense to you, but I've seen a lot of writers on here who ask questions that can really, in the end, be solved by their own judgement. And so, from that, it might suit the story you're writing to have standalone chapters. But the opposite might be true too. Generally, though, in order for the reader to enjoy what they're reading, the chapters *should* have a consistent flow. But that's entirely up to you.
It depends on how far you are into the story. If it's early on and there's no clear link between the events and POV's in each chapter, as a reader I wouldn't mind, and as Kas said would probably be more inclined to read on to see how everything links up. If it's later on near the end of the novel, you probably do have a problem. By the climax of a story the reader should have some ideas or expectations about where the plot is going, if only so the author can prove them wrong. It might also be helpful to get someone else to read through your work and see if they feel the same about the chapter transitions as you do. Also ask them if they pick up any other flaws in the manuscript. I've often found that self criticism often exaggerates certain area and ignores others, which is why it’s useful to get an outside opinion.
Yes, exactly. Although I didn't intend for it to have such a weird flow, I must say it's somewhat appealing on a certain level to me. Why not have a grain of confusion? Most fiction spoon-feeds you with information anyway. Wallow in the mental fog, trying to erode it. And thanks to everyone for the input.
How do you write? Do words quickly flow from you, or do you find yourself stopping every now and then, pondering on the proper word for a specific sentence?
Both. Every once in a while, I'll stop and tell myself, That didn't come out quite right. I'll try to come up with something better then and there, and if it doesn't immediately come, I'll mentally bookmark it and move on. But the whole time, that bookmarked passage is churning in the back of my head. Evenyually I come up with something that works the way I intended, and I'll go fix it, and I'll be free to move ahead without the distraction of the sour note.
Bit of an open ended question, eh? How I write depends on any given idea, story, character, temperature outside, hunger level, whether there's a ball game tonight, etc. Anything to get the job done, basically. If you're struggling on a sentence level and never finish a story, well, then you probably need to do something differently. If you let words pour from your soul and get to 'the end' but the stories never get polished to the point their any good, well, then you probably need to do something differently. Great writers don't become great by what they typically do, but how they manage to respond when they find they need to do something different. The writers who claim brilliance just flows from their arse are full of something relevant, but it isn't brilliance.
