I can relate to this. I tend to write in my head until completion before I ever type or pen one word. After this process I write whatever it is I had in mind. However, I tend to write frenetically causing my tempo and pacing to inhibit the piece I'm crafting. This is my style so I cater to it, by editing and polishing to an extreme extent, with a final step at a much slower pace. I believe this is the best method for me. As I think I must allow my thoughts to progress without interruption to produce the best results. When I write I do so quickly so as to not lose any information I have thought up. The most important parts must be laid out first like a solid foundation. The rest can be tweaked at whim.
I try to identify a few salient sensations or circumstances that are vital to the setting, and make sure that they are supported in the scene. I try to report the scene through a character's eyes, as much as possible. And if I can't really get a grip on the scene, I write it with the desired actions, and with a hell of a lot of details, and then when I rewrite I will strip the details that don't support the desired mood. I think of it as leaving a large chunk of rock as a placeholder so that upon rewrite I can chisel it into shape.
I'd say this is my number one problem when writing. I can't get it on paper the way it feels in my head. I constantly feel the need to edit the passages which just feeds the vicious cycle of not progressing the story
I quickly skimmed through most of the replies, so, if something like this has been said, I apologize. But, I can really relate to the OP's experience. As a result of similar things happening, I've recently switched up my creative process, and found better results mentally, though I am still having the same mechanical problems come up (but the happenings are becoming fewer and fewer). I like to run through things, get things done quickly. So, this made me pause and analyze my process. I need to slow down. Before, I'd get hit with an idea that would seem great, make me laugh even, and then I would start to write. I would try to churn it out in one sitting. (As of now, I only write shorts... between 4k-7k words.) Every time, I would hit the 5 page mark and lose steam. The rest of the process would be agonizing. My sentences would feel shitty. The story would lose its fire, the characters and interactions would feel boring, the scenes bland. And I would keep trucking, with only the end in sight. Personally, I cannot write that way, at least, in this stage of my development. It fatigues my mind, depletes my creativity. Now, I write in spurts. I put down about 200-500 words, and even if I still have tons of things racing in my mind, I force myself to take a step back. I take a break, smoke a cigarette, do some other things, or jot some ideas regarding the direction/brainstorm the rest of the story. And then I come back and do the same thing. I won't do this all the way through. Sometimes, I'll do two sessions and take a break until the next day. I went from writing a rough draft in one night, to 3-4 days, sometimes an entire week. It keeps me connected. The story keeps its edge. I don't feel exhausted anymore, and I think as a result I was able to keep up the emotional intensity necessary for the story. Hope this helps. -Ghost
Is there something else going on in your life causing you great stress? Typically built up frustration or unresolved issues torment us in ways we don't expect. If there is an issue to be resolved and you ignore it most of the time it will manifest itself in different debilitating ways until it is addressed. If all else fails, do something very relaxing for yourself. I find a very hot shower to be very relaxing and wouldn't you know it? This is where my best ideas are born.
I do want to know, though, if you're not writing, what are you doing? And if someone is considered a Hack writer, since they write all the time, or write every day, then how is it that so many masters, who wrote DAILY, don't fall into this category? And, to add, all these masters have been quoted saying write every day, to a certain extent. I feel like that advice has been around for ages. Why? Because there's something to it. It works. You can sit around and muse and do absolutely nothing, because you're not 'inspired', but I feel like that's a cop-out.. an excuse to simply not write, because you don't want to admit that you probably could write something, wanting to hold onto this 'struggling artist' image who only does things when he's inspired. Give me a break. Are brains act like computers. It runs constantly. And if your writing script constantly, new programs develop, and run. How else are you supposed to discover those new programs, unless your attempting to write new script? Thousands of things get triggered... things we can't sit here and assume we already see. By writing even 'trash' or 'uninspired prose', you're indisputably putting yourself in a position to have something trigger your brain, or a new idea to arise, a new perspective, SOMETHING, that can then send you into a fit of inspiration, complete with a solid idea. That's not logic, that's science, it's how our brain works. And if you want to sit around claiming you have writers block, because you just don't want to 'write for the sake of writing', I'd love to see these 'great ideas' you come up with when 'inspiration' hits. I'm sure they're nowhere near as good as you think they are, and low and behold, you sat around wasting your time for no reason, and that lightning that struck you, was simply a breeze blowing on your neck and as quickly as it came, left you with nothing but chills running down your spine. As I've stated before, this idea of 'writers' block is simply a lack of motivation, a lack of trying to put yourself in a position to receive experience. Do scientists sit around and wait for answers? the great solution to their problem? No, they do experiment after experiment, attempting to see all possible routes, angles, and sides until they reach a solution... and how often do they come across something in this process they NEVER EXPECTED was the answer as a result? More times than I can count. Without those multiple experiments, that constant diligence, the willingness and open-mindness to allow themselves the opportunity to find an answer, wherever it may be, they would have never come across a solution. Writing should be treated the same way. We should never limit ourselves from possibility, under this disguise that inspiration is all that matters. Inspiration doesn't magically come, it's worked for, and involves discipline. If you feel that you can only write when you're 'inspired', good luck pumping out solid ideas, consistently, for you'll spend most of your time waiting.
Writing isn't a science. And it's not one shoe fits all. Go back and read a few things. I don't feel like writing it again. Maybe I have writer's block.
No, writing is not a science... but how you brain interprets, processes, and generates concepts/ideas/perspectives is.. and I don't know how you can deny that. And we're not talking about a 'one shoe fits all'. We're talking about this myth of 'writers block' and this real thing that depresses motivation and prevents someone from wanting to work through it, and there are tons of ways to do that. It can be applied to all things in life, not just writing. Why do you think athletes watch videos of their games? Why not just sit around and replay the game over in your head using memory? Because it's limited in its application. When you see yourself on the video, it triggers things, things your mind wouldn't remember unless stimulated, by way of visual cues and euphoric recall. Why do police bring people to the scene of the crime? Why not just rely on their mind, what they are already processing? Because the physical activity stimulates their mind and allows repressed memories to bubble up. So when you're writing every day, whether it be nonsense, small dialogue, re-creating something you see at the coffee shop, it's stimulating your mind, and allows your subconscious room to WORK. Bam, you've just opened yourself up to a whole new realm of possible ideas. I have yet to see an established author say, "I can only write inspired prose, and when I'm not inspired, I don't write." If you can cite me, verbatim, words from established authors who only write when they are inspired, and that they sit around musing and musing and musing until an idea strikes, and then, only THEN, do they write, I'll stop posting entirely.
For you this seems black and white. One way or the other. But it isn't. My point is, it is real, and it isn't as simple as just writing garbage that will fix it for everyone. And like I said, wanting to write, and being able to write, are very different things. But for starters: I also said writers block is often not being able to solve a problem, or to get the ideas out. I said a way to unblock is sometimes to give yourself room to think, through walking, or simply waiting. Not 'only writing when inspiration strikes', but to give the brain room to muse and work out the problem. WRITING ISN'T JUST TYPING Conrad puts it best, and THIS is the type of writers block I am talking about and believe in.
Well, I mean, I don't interpret this as 'writers block'... To me this is just part of the creative process... But there are ways around it... which I'm beginning to feel we agree on, we've just been misinterpreting what each other is saying... Exactly what I am saying... These are all activities that help stimulate the subconscious, trigger repressed things.. but what I am describing is there are also ways that act in the same way, and involve writing... such as brainstorming plot direction, jotting ideas, re-writing memories, visiting dark parts of your life, or bright ones on the page... re-creating dialogue that's overheard with the idea you might have missed something one said that would trigger a new idea/character, or even 'inspire' you to write an entire scene... endless things that encompass what walking/driving/taking a break help bring to the table, but add the physical activity of writing into the mix..
I think so. See, I agree with you that it is useful. I just disagree it's for everyone or the only solution. And I really disagree that writer's block doesn't exist, primarily because of my definition/understanding. I think that's where we're getting friction.
Um, as a scientist I can tell you that sometimes taking a break from experiments is EXACTLY what leads to unexpected answers. Constant labor can lead to routine, which can lead to mindlessness, which might actually cause you to ignore the answer despite it staring you right in the face. What I said above I am strictly applying to the discussion of science experiments, but I will say you probably don't know enough about the brain to be making such bold statements about how inspiration works....
You're absolutely right.. I don't hold the credentials, I am just using logic, personal experience, and what I've read on the subject as the basis for my statements. So, how about you enlighten us on how the brain generates ideas, the way memories are triggered, and what causes such things to happen. Or am I incorrect in inferring that physical stimuli and activity play a role? And now we've moved on to what I've been talking about... There are all these things that we do in order to help generate ideas... I've simply been trying to state that you shouldn't limit yourself and be open to all possibilities... Everything has a place, even if you are 'filling your head with the stuff of life' through writing.
Ironically, I felt from your previous post that you were the one limiting yourself. That's why I said that bit about not knowing enough about the brain to make such statements. I don't know either, which is why I'm not making any claims. Saying writer's block doesn't exist is limiting yourself. Same with saying cures for it don't exist.
Maybe I was explaining myself horribly, which is a result of my poor writing skills. I was simply using logic, not making claims with certainty, in regards to stimulus and response. I guess, to summarize, I am really posing this question: There are different modes of acquiring ideas, which we've all agreed on, or, to put it concisely: different ways of 'filling your head with the stuff of life' Can you not also do so through the very act of writing as well? I guess I'm trying to process this idea that one isn't completely blocked from writing, since you can readily write about other things, or life experiences that would serve the same purpose as taking a walk or a drive... Such as filling your head with the stuff of life by documenting/recording it through words? Can we agree that writing holds a very intimate experience? If so, wouldn't it be beneficial to add writing about/recording/documenting the stuff of life to the list of cures, under taking drives, long walks, breaks, reading, seeing movies, attending social gatherings or concerts, etc. ?
No terrible writing skills. I just personally find pathos (and ethos) more appealing than logos. To answer your question, yes, I have tried recording/documenting before, and no, I did not find it to cure anything. I do however think it's not a bad exercise to do before writing regularly, as a means to clear your head.
My story is going nowhere. It seems like there is just too much going on inside my head. I write something and see that the story could go in so many directions that it's almost overwhelming. Each time I write something, I find myself adding another element to the story, and I'm afraid I'm making it all too complex. At most, I would say that there are 4 main characters, but there is a gigantic backdrop of people that live in the same town. So... I feel like I have too much to work with. I don't want readers to become confused. I don't want myself to be confused. Any advice?
I definitely have had this problem! I was a huge Twin Peaks fan - so my first novel was massive - a whole town, 365 name drops - like eight main characters. Hugely complicated. First off I'd focus on the main characters and their goals, no side or town character should appear unless it's relevant or affects one of your main characters in some way. A town has a lot of people up to who knows what but it only affects others when they know about it - or whether they care to know about it. It's like a fight in a restuarant - you can either observe it without much interest or it becomes a metaphor to what's going wrong with you're own relationship. Four characters is a lot to deal with - it doesn't sound like a lot - but it's four goals, if they're in relationships that expands it to eight characters. If you don't want to cut down on the main characters maybe cut down on the goings on, or keep a few goals relatively easy.
I agree with Peach. I have four main characters, and a couple drop out and are replaced with two more mains, but in the towns they come from, its not necessary to develop every single character. You might have a baker who only influences the story by baking bread for one of the main characters. Thereby its not necessary to develop him. His role is a small one. Its just like bit parts in a movie. Each character has a part to play, but as in movies, they don't necessarily need names, or development, or even try to keep track of them. They do their part and are filed away. You might see them from time to time, but unless they add to the story, or drive it in some way, you might just be adding fluff.
If you keep adding to it and it seems to be going in a direction you didn't want it to, save what you had originally and then copy and paste it all into another file and just go crazy. Maybe it will go out of control, but maybe from what you have written you can being to peel away what you feel is something worth while. If it doesn't work, then at least you got it out of your system and then you will know how to keep your old story moving having gotten the bug out of your system. If a short story is turning into a novel, then let it grow. Don't fear what you write.
Just remember the incidental characters are exactly that incidental. It is the main protagonists and antagonist the reader is interested in and how they interact with the world around them and how they achieve their goals.
Yeah, I definitiley don't focus on any of the background characters, but I keep feeling like I have to drop names - to give it a small-town feel or something? I avoid naming anyone unimportant whenever I can... but I feel like I've picked up a bad habit from reading too much Robert Jordan, haha. Nah, I wouldn't say it's that bad. I'm on the ninth book of his series and I probably only know who seven of the characters are, at most. I suppose I drew too much attention to the large backdrop of largely unimportant characters. A bigger concern for me is the directions the story keeps taking. I write so many different directions, almost never feeling like any of them are the ones I want. I think my characters need more clearly defined goals. That could definitely be one reason I feel like I'm on a treadmill; running but going nowhere.
