Writing in volume

[B.C.P.]

http://www.hughhowey.com/another-way-to-make-a-living-as-an-author/#more-4614

I'm an aspiring writer. There is an aspect of the approach to writing success that Howey mentions above that does not seem right to me.

The best I can define it at this point is that a writer either does his work to entertain people or does it to express himself.

What I mean by "express himself" (or herself) is to make a very precise and accurate representation of how he or she perceives reality.

The difference between these approaches is pretty obvious. The first produces, I think, a James Patterson novel and the second gives us great a great piece of art like Les Miserables.

By focusing on quantity over quality, it seems these people aren't artists at all. They're just salesmen who see demand and seek to exploit it.

I don't think Victor Hugo, or any great writer, would have ever sacrificed the quality of their writing to meet some "books per year" goal. In fact, this seems like the death of the kind of literature that can change a person's entire outlook on life.

What are your thoughts on this topic?

 

[Rook]

Modern novels are quite linear and bland. A hero rescues the day through tough trails and hardship etc. There is an inherent lack of philosophical meaning, they are a relentless onslaught of emotions and action. The science fiction genre does not conform to this format per se, and this may be why it interests us intp's. There is also a lack of humorous books (catch 22, Hitchhiker's Guide etc.), wich is dissapointing.

 

[B.C.P.]

There is an inherent lack of philosophical meaning

I agree. This is primarily what I look to fiction for. I'm a fan of Ayn Rand because her books have so much philosophical meaning behind them. Ironically, she did not write any of her books, as far as I'm aware, in a year's time or even two.

Good literature takes time!

More opinions please!

 

[Hadoblado]

Thoughts?

a writer either does his work to entertain people or does it to express himself

False dichotomy.

I do agree that the method suggested in the blog will produce less quality writings in general, but the quality/quantity scale is also impacted by the writer's output capacity. Some people can do a lot of good work with less time. The trade-off only comes into play when time-constraints are too tight, which writing output capacity is a large factor of.

 

[B.C.P.]

Good points, Hado.

That dichotomy was the best expression of my thoughts at the time. But it's a shallow description of my actual thoughts at best.

False? I'm not sure yet. False at the surface? Yes.

Thank you for taking the time to read Mr. Howey's blog post though.

What I really mean by that dichotomy is that writer's either create stories with a focus on characters/actions/emotions for their own sake, as Rook mentioned. That's what I meant by "entertaining." Other writers take the same elements and use them as a vehicle for deeper insight. That is what I believe takes time.

But you're right that some writers can produce this kind of work much faster than others. This is even more true if the writer goes into the project with a clear set of opinions they want to express, rather than using the book itself as a vehicle for developing them.

Any more opinions/thoughts? Please, this is something I'm looking for input on.

 

[Hadoblado]

Well, as someone who aspires to one day be an aspiring writer, I'd say that you have vision, but lack pragmatism, which is something I heavily empathise with.

You are looking at the great writers and their great works and thinking to yourself that Howey's approach could never produce anything of the same quality, and you're pretty much spot on in doing so.

However, the quality that defines these great works is not the entire portfolio of the writer. One person can produce separate works towards separate goals, and there is a great deal of synergy in writing both for profit and for the product itself. Practice makes you better. Write a lot in service to one goal and you will be better able to achieve another.

The purity of your portfolio is not sacred. Refusing to write in any capacity but the one from which you were initially inspired will produce a less rounded writer that is less able to produce their masterwork.

 

[redbaron]

I think it's important to think of this on a broader scale.

This will give you a lot more practice than you'd otherwise get by sitting around and not writing. Even if the books are not successful, you're learning how to write well and write fast.

I think the point of the blog is a more pragmatic approach to writing: that realistically, writing just doesn't pay the bills and that it needs to be approached like a regular job. I say, 'needs' in the perspective of the blog - I don't necessarily agree.

I guess in 5 years of doing this, you'd at least be a pretty efficient writer and if you really wanted to you could take the time needed to create the kind of book you want to (you could even work on it as a side project while doing it, slowly shaping your, 'masterpiece').

 

[B.C.P.]

The purity of your portfolio is not sacred. Refusing to write in any capacity but the one from which you were initially inspired will produce a less rounded writer that is less able to produce their masterwork.

That is precisely what is getting in my way - an "all or nothing" approach to my portfolio. I would hate to be identified with something I wrote that was not indicative of the literature I really want to write in my lifetime.

I'm a goddamn perfectionist when I get afraid, and perhaps as an aspiring-aspiring writer you feel a sort of sensitivity to criticism toward your writing, which causes you to never finish or release what you write.

RedBaron, your analysis is correct that Howey's perspective is that it needs to be treated like a regular job. The reason this is so important is that I have an uncle (INTJ) who wants to create this kind of venture.

My beliefs are getting in the way of doing this sort writing business venture, namely the belief that I'll turn into another James Patterson.

I don't want to write more shallow novels to be sold at Wal-Mart, thus I have always believed the writing portfolio to indeed be sacred.

Please, post more thoughts if you have them.

 

[redbaron]

Please, post more thoughts if you have them.

I'm curious to know which describes you (if neither describe, feel free to elucidate)

1. You write because you love to write.

2. Writing is less about love of writing than love of self-expression through writing.

I suspect it's number 2, in which case I'd say that's fine - however you need to find the means to combine love of self-expression with your daily life in a realistically sustainable way. This is why I suggested working on the things you deem truly important, while still honing your talents in a more regimented/regular way.

The best comparison I can draw with this, is practicing free throws.

The game of basketball is your passion, and shooting free throws helps you realize your passion by increasing your ability and technical skills. I think you might be pleasantly surprised by how much your writing skills improve by undertaking a project like this - I think you'll improve more as a writer than you realize.

Perhaps the best way I can express this elegantly is:

Quantity is a quality all of its own.

 

[Hadoblado]

I'm exactly the same, BCP. I've been refining my ideas my entire life, but never written more than three chapters on a single narrative. I circumvent the problem by not actually wanting to be a career writer, so my failure to put pen to paper is not quite so damning.

I hope to one day write a book or two as part of a hobby, not a job.

 

[B.C.P.]

I'm curious to know which describes you (if neither describe, feel free to elucidate)

1. You write because you love to write.

2. Writing is less about love of writing than love of self-expression through writing.

I suspect it's number 2, in which case I'd say that's fine - however you need to find the means to combine love of self-expression with your daily life in a realistically sustainable way. This is why I suggested working on the things you deem truly important, while still honing your talents in a more regimented/regular way.

The best comparison I can draw with this, is practicing free throws.

The game of basketball is your passion, and shooting free throws helps you realize your passion by increasing your ability and technical skills. I think you might be pleasantly surprised by how much your writing skills improve by undertaking a project like this - I think you'll improve more as a writer than you realize.

Perhaps the best way I can express this elegantly is:

Quantity is a quality all of its own.

Writing is the vehicle of my self-expression, so Number 2 more-so than number 1.

Number 1 to the extent that I realize my intuition is very good at creating stories and connecting plot points, and since I'm not great at much else, I enjoy the act writing itself just to prove to myself that I have a unique skill.

It's like with your baseball analogy. A player who has developed a superb skill will find pleasure in throwing the ball, especially the better ones. I feel pride in my better work, and to be honest writing is one of the few things in life that satisfies me.

After I write something it's not like with, say, exercise where I always think that I should throw in one more set, etc. I write and I can call it quits at some point and relax, feeling contented.

I really didn't want this thread to directly concern myself as a writer. I wanted opinions on the writing strategies I first mentioned, which I could then use as input to reach closure on the topic. But thank you for asking regardless.

Hado, I know to an uncomfortable degree what you are describing. I think what we're experiencing is universal for writers, maybe even people pursuing any endeavor that is important to them.

 

[Puffy]

I'm a goddamn perfectionist when I get afraid, and perhaps as an aspiring-aspiring writer you feel a sort of sensitivity to criticism toward your writing, which causes you to never finish or release what you write.

That sounds like an excuse to procrastinate in honesty. I think a big mistake among aspiring writers is to not write out of fear you won't be good enough: there's only one way to find out! Your writing is never going to be perfect (especially to you) and getting feedback is a strong part of the process.

That said, I do identify with the "quality over quantity" school too, in that my motivations to write are not so much the love of writing generally as the love of using writing to develop specific ideas, themes and research. If that's the case I'd aim on setting sights low at first. Break down the things that interest you into short story ideas and use those as vehicles to develop. You're more likely to finish them (and get buzz/ motivation out of doing so) and they're easier to reconcile with perfectionist attitudes. Going from little to "novel" is daunting and unlikely to happen.

Also, there's no reason why the pragmatic attitude can't be reconciled with working on your own thing. Best advice I've read on writing was from Stephen King when he said "write every day, read every day", the more you do of both the better you'll be. Even if the words a day you write are impressions you don't plan on integrating elsewhere it will be valuable experience.

 

[B.C.P.]

Yes, essentially Hado and I (if I'm not mistaken) pre-emptively "just happen to never get around to finishing our work" because we anticipate negative feedback, whether that's a critic ripping us apart or our impression of our own work ripping us apart.

I never thought in my life that writing took such courage.

So in regards to our quality over quantity question, do any INTP's here, as writers or not, think that it would be wise to forfeit quality for quantity for some perceived benefit? Or would you rather be an idealist and keep your portfolio sacred?

I would love to hear from @EditorOne on this as he is a writer. Crossing my fingers.

 

[B.C.P.]

Ok well I typed a reply but it needed approval (?) and I'm impatient.

To recap what I said:
I, and likely Hado as well, preemptively doesn't finish writing something or doesn't write at all because of the potential for negative feedback from either ourselves or another person. I think we're aware of how stupid and wrong this is, but like all fears, irrational or not they are hard to overcome.

Then I said something like: "wow, writing takes courage!"

Then I wanted to ask if, writer or not, anyone here would be an idealist and preserve the sanctity of their portfolio or if they would focus on volume for some perceived benefit.

 

[just george]

Everyone is different, with different things to say, so everyone is going to have a slightly different method.

I write, and sometimes when I feel it coming on I can tap words out at light speed and wonder why the little hand on the clock moved a whole hour when it only felt like 5 minutes. Other times I'm not in the mood, or not as urgent in what I have to say, and it comes out in dribs and drabs, with the format all over the place and ideas in the wrong order.

So as with everything...it depends

 

[Puffy]

Yes, essentially Hado and I (if I'm not mistaken) pre-emptively "just happen to never get around to finishing our work" because we anticipate negative feedback, whether that's a critic ripping us apart or our impression of our own work ripping us apart.

I never thought in my life that writing took such courage.

So in regards to our quality over quantity question, do any INTP's here, as writers or not, think that it would be wise to forfeit quality for quantity for some perceived benefit? Or would you rather be an idealist and keep your portfolio sacred?

I would love to hear from @EditorOne on this as he is a writer. Crossing my fingers.

Personally, I can remember ever since I was 16 wanting to be a writer of some kind (fiction or non-fiction). But I found anything I wrote so painfully bad that I stopped trying.

Earlier this year, for my MA, I opted to do a screenwriting course as I had ideas but no practice or technique and wanted to learn. My logic was that if my grade for the year depended on me writing a piece well, the pressure would force me to come up with the best thing I could in the time-frame. Long story short, I thought it was terrible, then the teacher told me it was excellent and wanted me to continue working on it in my own time (and my opinion of it changed. )

What I take from it is a) writing something is better than writing nothing and b) writers need outside perspectives on their work. If you take the sanctity of your portfolio to the extent that you have no output it's likely things won't progress. There's no reason you can't keep to the ideas you're interested in, just finish something. Re-drafting is always an option.

 

[B.C.P.]

Did you ever finish your screenplay, Puffy?

 

[Puffy]

Did you ever finish your screenplay, Puffy?

I finished a first draft. A lot of the basic structure is there, but I don't think it's quite complete and will revise at some point.

 

[Pinion]

Also an aspiring writer.

A book a month seems a little intense, but if they caught any attention at all that sounds like a strategy with potential. This article was written for people who want to write fiction for a living, which is not only so sought-after as to be a cliche but difficult in and of itself. If you can't catch people's attention and hold it in a world where new entertainment is always at their fingertips, you're certainly not going to make enough money to feed yourself and pay your bills.

Couple of things, though:

1) I disagree that writing for others necessarily has anything to do with quality or quantity. The desire to, say, write novels that entertain, nurture, and inspire young adults and children is not a low-quality and high-quantity approach to writing, though it's other-focused. You could say that one of my childhood favorites, R.L. Stine, did that, but I got hundreds of hours of enjoyment out of it, was inspired to create new pretend games to play, stretched my brain imagining answers to the mysteries, and played monster outside or wrote my own stories instead of vegging out on video games or whatever normal children who weren't obsessed with monsters did.

Does it really matter that he was less artistic and individualized than the authors of classics or such?

Plenty of people who write for themselves churn out piece after piece about trivial personal things, like the Tweets and Facebook updates of poetry. For some reason, that bothers me a lot more than books written in the name of appealing to an audience and getting a paycheck. I think it's because if a child is reading a book and finding comfort, entertainment, and some seeds for personal growth there even if it was the brainchild of a dozen authors over the course of a month with no deeper meaning, that's better than a lot of things they could be doing (or not doing).

2) Exploitation of the market is simply a means through which to make your work more known and accessible. A writer can choose to write whatever will bring in the fattest paycheck regardless of their own values and tastes, choose to write whatever they want regardless of the pay, or look at their options and try to strike a balance.

There may be a market that sounds interesting and provides - hear me out here! - the potential for growth and expansion as a writer, but wasn't exactly first choice. I think it's crippling for a writer to take themselves so seriously and view their purpose, style, etc, as so static that they view their work as something magical that needs its sanctity preserved. I think it may also relate to many people's problem of not being able to finish a piece, show it to others, or let it stand against criticism without losing themselves. They can't stand to have failed a lofty goal they may have been very unprepared for.

However, beggars can't be choosers may apply more often than not. Who doesn't want a job where their thoughts and feelings are so fascinating and groundbreaking that they're paid just to share them? Not a good thing to count on, though.

Also, there's no reason why the pragmatic attitude can't be reconciled with working on your own thing. Best advice I've read on writing was from Stephen King when he said "write every day, read every day", the more you do of both the better you'll be. Even if the words a day you write are impressions you don't plan on integrating elsewhere it will be valuable experience.

I do love King's work ethic and relationship with writing. If only he was younger and not married.

 

[Pyropyro]

http://www.hughhowey.com/another-way-to-make-a-living-as-an-author/#more-4614

I'm an aspiring writer. There is an aspect of the approach to writing success that Howey mentions above that does not seem right to me.

The best I can define it at this point is that a writer either does his work to entertain people or does it to express himself.

What I mean by "express himself" (or herself) is to make a very precise and accurate representation of how he or she perceives reality.

You can do both at the same time in my opinion. I think you need to balance the two but it isn't impossible.

The difference between these approaches is pretty obvious. The first produces, I think, a James Patterson novel and the second gives us great a great piece of art like Les Miserables.

By focusing on quantity over quality, it seems these people aren't artists at all. They're just salesmen who see demand and seek to exploit it.

No, Victor Hugo refined his skills (quality) by writing a lot (quantity). According to this site he only wrote seven novels but created loads of poems, plays and even drawings during his career.

I don't think Victor Hugo, or any great writer, would have ever sacrificed the quality of their writing to meet some "books per year" goal. In fact, this seems like the death of the kind of literature that can change a person's entire outlook on life.

They don't had such a goal. They do have a more mundane "if I don't write, I don't eat" kind of problem.