Mine are pretty bad. They don't have too many interesting turns of phrase, or developed similes, and they aren't sprinkled with telling details or observations.
My writing isn't very good the first time around.
Is that strange? Is that bad?
On the one hand, there are people like Anne Lamott, who, in Bird by Bird, writes that "shitty first drafts" are the way to go... but then, she also says sometimes it takes her a whole day to get down 250 words.
(But Anne, if you're willing to be shitty, why does it take you so long to get down one page, double spaced?)
On the other hand, is Elizabeth George, who, in The Art of Writing, goes on at length about her pre-writing process, and how she needs full bios of every single character, and maps of hundreds of pages of plot at least, etc, etc.
I blast out A LOT each day- between 3,000 and 4,000 words. It's tough and exhausting to do that, but I think it's best. Whether, I think like crazy about a rough draft before I write it, or I just type it down faster than I can think, it turns out to be about the same quality- for me, first draft is first draft is first draft.
So, to save time and anguish, I just type it out, based on the barest possible outlines. And after months and months of boot-camp-style writing quotas, I finally feel like I've got the rough-draft-writing process DOWN.
But, I haven't hit the editing process for most of my recent work yet. Maybe editing the slop I've got into something to be proud of will change how I approach rough drafts?
No comments:
Post a Comment