The Writers Block Thread

Some believe that only certain people can be good writers. Since I barely practice, I can not judge myself when it comes to this. But the idea that some people will never write well bothers me. I can understand if someone is handicapped, but if someone has average intelligence, they should be able to learn how to write well through practice. All the necessary skills, those of grammar, logic, rhetoric, rhythm, thought, observation, story-telling etc, can be learned.

I think the reason so many people never learn how to write quality fiction is that they fail to divide and conquer. Clearly, seeing that writing skills are not one skill, but all these other skills, they must all be cultivated. But so many people have no idea what they are doing. They think they are practicing, but they are just repeating the same mistakes over and over again. The worse advice of all is that which suggests that one constantly write without putting any effort in to do things a better way, If I kept shooting a basketball the same way, no matter how many hours I shot it, I would never improve.

So I believe that everyone is capable of writing like a professional, as long as they are not mentally handicapped, but the reason why so many seem to struggle is that they refuse to do things a different way. Either they cannot see that they are doing the same thing over and over again, or they refuse to try new things.

Should we really believe that some people will never be good at math, people who have the same level of intelligence as those who are excellent at math? Why is it any different with writing?

Most of the people who think others will never be able to write are writers. They think that because they are writers, they are qualified to assess potential. But the people who are most qualified to assess potential are scientists, and what do they say? They are not in agreement with those writers.

What do you think?

 

If by "muscling through", you mean simply writing on, even if the results are unsatisfactory, I completely agree. I think it's much better to stop and understand what isn't working. Go back and read through what you've written so far. Do things flow logically? Believably? Are you trying to force an agenda on your writing? Adhering to a predetermined plan that's inhibiting your writing? Forcing a "message"? Focusing on being "literary" rather than telling a good story?

 

It's a horrible feeling, for sure. Having the desire and urge to write, but not the inspiration or ideas.

Thing is you will do what you do. You'll either force it (not always helpful as you've already discovered), or you'll take a break. Whichever you choose you've just got to ride it out. You'll be depressed and beat yourself up if you're anything like me, but what happens happens.

The next time this happens to me, I've promised myself I'm going to try something. Try it yourself now, see what happens. I'm going to forget about my WiP and open a new document. Then I'm just going to let fly with complete abandonment. Free of the constraints imposed by your current characters and plot, you may just find the cog's loosening up.

There may be other answers and methods which fix this problem, but I'm yet to find any.

 

If the tank is empty, take some time to fill the tank.

Read something in a style or genre you don't usually read. Watch a movie in the genre of your book and try to get really caught up in the characters and events. Listen to evocative music, look at beautiful art... whatever.

If you're more of an extrovert (certainly a challenge for a writer) try to meet with some people who are excited about the same things you get excited about, and get excited! Bounce ideas around, talk about favourite books... I don't know, do whatever extroverts do when they're being extroverted!

Feed your imagination.

 

I think you and @GingerCoffee are on the same page.

For me? I've seen quite a few people of more-than-average intelligence struggle for years or even decades and not be able to come up with satisfying fiction. I can't say why, but I won't deny my observed reality.

For what it's worth, the parts where these writers seem to fall down is generally the storytelling and/or characterization. I agree that lots of aspects of fiction can be learned, but I'm not sure these two can. Or at least, they can't be learned by studying traditional writing techniques. So maybe this ties in to your idea that they need to do things a different way, but I think it's pretty hard for adults to learn empathy or imagination, and I think those are the two vital skills that are often missing.

I'd like to see the studies from scientists you're referring to - they sound interesting. Can you link?

 

Yes, they're capable. Their SPAG is flawless, but does this mean they can write good fiction? Certainly not. Is style something that can be taught? No, but it's something that can be unearthed and honed.

But to unearth that style, does it not have to be there in the first place?

And does any of the above mean these people have no chance of writing a bestseller. Absolutely not. There are millions of 'by-the-numbers' authors out there.

 

I don't believe that. Some may be inherently talented as writers, but the rest of us (and I definitely include myself here) can study hard and get to the point where storytelling seems to be a natural ability (not that I'm saying I'm there just yet).

As long as you can make it look easy or learn to make it look easy, you will be seen as a good writer.

 

Some authors, F.Sott Fitzgerald a well known example, were appalling at spelling, but boy, could they tell a story. So the premise that some writers are born, not made, perhaps holes true. However, anyone of average intelligence and above can learn to write well. The brain is like a muscle; the more you use it, the stronger it gets as new synapses form.
Fora, like this one, are invaluable tools where you can get unbiased feedback from other writers; the sort of feedback you cannot get from family members. The trick is to accept the critique and learn from it, and more importantly, learn how to give it.
I've not been on here long, but the critiques I've read so far have been freely given and generally well received.
I sure as hell don't consider myself a born writer. It's hard work and every story is an opportunity to learn.

 

That's where outlining and planning come in handy. That's what gets me in the chair when creative sparks refuse to do so.

 

Hi Ed,

I'm really glad you made these posts, because it really helps me diagnose the problem I've been having with my own WIP.

In my book, my first 4 chapters of setup are great. I have areas marked for revision, but that's for smaller detail -- on the large scale, I can read over the printout and be generally pumped and excited about what I've created and where it can go. I'm very proud of these first 4 chapters, excited about the world I've built, the mysteries I've set up are intriguing, etc. If I were a reader, I would be hooked on my first 4 chapters.

But after the "turning point" so to speak, once the big "adventure" has launched, I find that I'm less into writing at that point. Which is a paradox, because the landscapes and encounters and plot-related things are even more interesting from this point on. But I find that I feel like I'm sort of forcing myself to write, and it's not that fun to me, like I'm making myself write a thesis or something. It ends up being exactly what Sparky19 posted.

I did some reflection on the problem, and I think it really boils down to not caring about the other characters as people. It kind of feels like they're chess pieces or something and I'm just hauling them along.

How do you create the nuances of the characters that impact the story, without writing the novel twice? Are there other exercises to make you care about your characters as people, and also figure out things about them that would help drive the story?

 

I don't think it's a matter of exercises. I think you have to think of them as people. And it takes time to get to know them. If you think about it, when you meet a new friend, you don't know them instantly. It takes time. You need to see them in different situations, how they react. Over time, you get to know what their values are; what their quirks are; what they like and what they don't like. Same with characters. You don't know everything about them when you start your story, but as the story evolves, you fill in the blanks, both for you and the reader. You show how the events of the story change them. How specific scenes change them. Also, how they impact the events of the story.

In his book Story Trumps Structure, Steven James calls this process "organic writing".

 

I think waitingforzion is wrong at nearly every level of his post. Of course the metrics for considering things such as "good writing", or of average or equal intelligence cannot be exactingly quantified. I don't think each person's intelligence is equivalent in every category, we all are unique in our thinking which ultimately defines our character, IMO. Sure practice can make you better; if you are shooting hoops over and over again you will become better whether you think so or not since a continuous feedback of each effort will "reprogram" your brain-muscle action and if your goal is to make the shot, you will improve, you may not ever be very good compared to the average person however. If SPAG were as simple as following a set of rules then a computer program could do that for us but the rules are vague, contradictory and seemingly arbitrary. We have whole major careers based on this ambiguity called lawyers who write in the most obtuse fashion possible, the layman calls that job security. Finally and probably deliberately, you didn't consider motivation, there are other things in life besides writing and only some are driven to work at a specific activity enough to become a specialist. This is not saying that if you simply work at something hard enough you will achieve it, we have limited life spans and spending time on something we don't do readily can lead you to second guess your choices as you get older, you want to look back and say I did xx.

 

This one sentence jumps off the page and demands attention because telling a good story is not only interesting to read, it's even more interesting to write.
That's the aspect of writing that keeps me going and more so in my current book and as Ed says, the characters become three dimensional as the story develops.
If I'm bogged down and feel as if I've hit a brick wall, I look at the characters again and ask myself if they have shape and personality. Are they likeable? Do I want them to be likeable? etc etc
Like others, I've gone for weeks on end without writing and more recently returned with a vengeance by putting my mind in the world that the main character inhabits and asking myself 'What would he do, given this/that situation?'
Mind you, what I'm currently writing is parody, so there's plenty of scope.

 

I like to find all sorts of things to rekindle the flame. One is learning new stuff, even if it is random. Sometimes those new things help you to better be able to apply nuance to better flesh out a character. Or I draw or doodle. Take the sticks out for a good set, and good cardio. Watch shows and movies that are entertaining and let me not have to overwork my own creativity for a while. And I get short bursts when it comes down to it, writing a page or two at a time. Sometimes it is every few days up to a week or more before I get the words on the page. Not an easy feat all the time.

 

While I agree with all the suggestions posted I wonder if there is also an alternative? What if you take a short detour and write your characters and story in a way you didn't want it to go for example. Could that allow you to refocus on what or why you had your story written the way it is written so you can continue with what you originally planned. Sort of a step back to see the big picture. Of course you might stumble upon a different direction that has more appeal which is fine too I would think.

Sit at the wobbly picnic table and think: dig deeper.

BTW I have it on good authority* that Ed builds all his picnic tables with peg and tenon joints, self tightening with a wooden mallet.

* okay just my imagination, I do have a few screws loose

 

I experience this "empty tank" frequently. I have 3 novels I'm working on more or less consecutively because when I lose inspiration for one, I can usually go to one of the other two and start working again, returning to the one I abandoned when I hit a rut with the others. It's not a very productive way to work, I admit. I've been experimenting with other options too - like what @big soft moose mentioned about writing random things that will never make it into the book - like a scene from another character whose point of view I don't take in the novel.

 

I don't think that only certain people can be good writers, but I defo think that only certain people will be good writers. I have no illusions that I myself might not fall into the latter category. I'm lazy with my writing. I have poor time management skills. I have a regular day job that I actually find immensely fulfilling and interesting, so my 9-5 isn't something I'm trying to run away from. I think I absolutely can be a good writer, but don't know if I ever will be one.

I think this is a common malady of which many would-be writers suffer.

Why? I work as an interpreter and I have been in that field of work since I was 18. I'm 46 as of today. I've met some mind-bogglingly amazing interpreters with as many as 6 or 7 languages at their disposal. Freakin' geniuses that make me hesitate to say I'm in the same profession. But I've also met some astoundingly bad interpreters. People who just don't have a feel for languages, or worse, people who speak their two languages very well but don't have a feel for making use of idiomatic speech in both directions to make sure that the correct content, tone, mood, and register transmit through the conduit that is the themselves, the interpreter. They can just pass, or they can do well in one venue where they understand the expectation, but cannot cross to another realm where the expectations are different. They can't hold their own when questioned on an interpretation, and they certainly can't explain - with correct terminology - why this choice was made rather than that choice. Many interpreters cloak themselves in an almost monastic attitude of servility which they hope will serve as a shield of sorts.

But none of that bothers me personally. Their individual paradigms have nothing to do with me, and the fact that I am certain many of them could be so much more if they just dared to be is a thought process that has no practical application. I cannot make them be other than they are, and frankly, I'm not interested in doing so. When I go to conferences or on the rare occasion when I find myself in a group project I gravitate to the ones who are most like myself.

Absolutely. But again, just because this can happen doesn't mean it will happen.

Sorry, but this is meaningless. There are uncounted reasons people who want to write fail to do so.

While I agree with the premiss you set - that doing the same thing over and over, in the same way, is not very likely to garner any new end outcome - you've not proven that this is in fact what is happening. Do I think it happens? Yes, of course. But I don't see this as a completely encompassing reason.

Again, I think that yes, this is very probably one reason why this happens - I mean, it seems logical - but I don't think it's the only reason. Not by a long-shot.

Yes. Allow me to assure you that I suck at math. I also have ZERO sense of direction. No internal map whatsoever. My nightmares are made of detour signs. In real life people tend to think I'm a pretty bright guy because I'm a great conversationalist and if I can swing the conversation into anything language related then I'm Steven Freakin' Hawking, but math.... No. o.o

Possibly because they're the only ones really giving any thought to the question.

I think they think they are at liberty to opine, which they are.

Which scientists? I would love to read what they have to say on the matter.

I'm going to be frank. I think you're feeling frustrated. I've known you in this forum for pretty much the entire time that I myself have been a member. I've seen you pop in every few months and ask the same questions, over and over and over again. Not unlike the scenario you mentioned above. I've seen you worry the same paragraphs time and again, and seen members try to help to little avail. I've seen you present certain assertions as undoubtedly true that none of the rest of us see as being at all sequitur. I feel like this post is clearly you talking about yourself and the experience you have had engaging other as a writer.

We all have frustrations. Even people with books for sale on Amazon that are selling well. Though I hesitate to speak for her I am sure there are days that @BayView feels like chucking it in and taking up gardening instead. Maybe not gardening. Maybe she wants to trick out big-block Hemis. Who knows. You get my point.

I also feel that if you are going to engage other writers in a venue like this, and participate in the venue, it might be of value to you to at least try out some of the things members offer as suggestion. I used to be a dyed-in-the-wool planner. Pantsers to me were whispy-whispy, affected, artsy little Luna Lovegoods having tea and scones in the backyard with their characters (pass the lithium, please). I've long since adopted a good bit of pantsing into my own personal process and I've learned from it. My attitudes and opinions on many things have changes greatly over the time that I have been a part of this community because - just as you say - I was eventually willing to try something different to the way I had been doing things.

 

To be blunt. Yes, I think for some people ANY art might be hopeless.
I spent many years trying to learn to play a musical instrument. I could learn the notes. I could learn to read sheet music. As amazingly fast as I can type without looking, I could never learn rhythm. Timing.

Most people who've watched me in the kitchen are amazed at some of the creations I come up with. Most people think I should have been a chef. I love cooking. I love the creation. But doing it every day for a job? No thanks.

I've seen people spend years painting & honestly trying to become great without success.
Storytelling is an art. You can learn the mechanics but I don't think you can learn how to be creative.

 

That's the crucial bit. Everyone can learn techniques, but you can't learn things like creativity.

 

I can only speak from my own experience, so here is my story, all puns intended.

Creative writing is a very trendy outlet in teen years, when life tends to suck the most and every angsty kid who thinks they're edgy will write something or another and fancy themselves a brooding "writer" because it's cool and don't fuck with me.

Personally, I've never met a person who truly loved writing ever dream giving it up. They might suck, their SPAG might be the worst thing you've ever seen, their plots might be the most contrived and idiotic childish flavor-of-the-month things... but those with passion are teachable. If they really want to write, they'll:

- practice
- seek advice from other writers
- look up their own resources like those god-awful "How to Write " books

...but they're writing. That's what makes a writer. It doesn't really matter how groundbreaking or beautiful or "deserving" their work may be.

So who the hell are you to judge? Some people like really bad writing. *cough*50shadesofgrey*cough*

The people who only picked it up because it was cool at the time? You never really see those people again, because they grow out of it. They pick some other form of expression and off they go. Could they have written something so brilliant it would have short-circuited the Matrix?

Maybe.

Are they a writer?

Only if they write something.

Should they be a writer?

Only if they want to be.

Food for thought.

 

Not sure about the logic "everyone who is not mentally handi-capped can be a good writer." I'm not a neuroscientist, so anyone please correct me if I'm wrong, but if someone who is "mentally handi-capped" is not expected to be a good writer, how do we know other smaller mental "deficiencies" don't exist which would prevent someone from being a good writer?

 

Yep. I'm smart. I think I'm a darn good writer. I think I'm good at characterization and several other things related to fiction. But so far, I'm lousy at storytelling--that is, the plot part of storytelling--and it's entirely possible that I will never overcome that. I'm not giving up until I've given it a much, much better try, but there's a Thing there just doesn't seem to be wired in for me. I might be able to build it, or I might not.

 

Everyone has potential, some people have more.

The lie we're told growing up is, "you can be anything you want in this world!"
What we should be told is, "You're allowed to try and be anything you want in this world. Most people will call you foolish, a dreamer. Most people can go fuck themselves."