Three Things I’ve Learned About Writing

I’ve learned three basic things about writing over the last forty-five years that are worth passing on.

  1. Real Writers Write, Would-Be Writers Moan About Not Being Able to Write

I learned this lesson from Judith Viorst, when I was just turning thirty.  I saw her at a party in TriBeCa and we walked about my writerly ambitions.  I don’t remember exactly what she said but this phrase is what I took away.

(Judith Viorst has written numerous terrific books in a welter of genres.  I’ve always particularly loved Alexander and the Terrible Horrible No-Good Very Bad Day and Necessary Losses, an irritating discouraging but ultimately hopeful book about why losing everything is good for you.

At first I was furious with her for saying this, but as I thought about it over months, I realized that, first of all, it was good advice: writing (as opposed to moaning about not being able to write) was within my power, and relatively easy to do (more on this later).  I also realized that it was literally true: if all you did was moan about not being able to write, you would never be a writer.  You would only be a wannabe.

So I started writing essentially every day, a practice I’ve kept up until now.

2) Writing Is Different From Rewriting

When you are doing the first draft of something, you are working against an internal critic I called — in my thirties and forties — The Censor.  The Censor wants to edit everything you write, I observed, and can paralyze you when you’re trying to get a first draft down on paper.

Once you have something written, The Censor becomes your friend.  And the work changes from getting something, anything, down on paper to getting it right, getting the right thing down on paper, getting the right effect.

These are two different jobs and they require two different philosophies, two different practices, and two different sets of techniques.

Writing — the first draft — requires a philosophy of toleration.  You have to subvert The Censor by pretending that everything you are putting on paper is peerless.

The practice appropriate to getting words on paper is write <X> pages of text a day without regard to its quality.  Quantity matters; quality does not.

A technique that corresponds to this is what Peter Elbow called “freewriting” in his terrific (and still relevant) classics Writing Without Teachers and Writing With Power  When you freewrite, you just keep writing, even if (as sometimes happens) you write the same phrase over and over again like Stephen King’s character in The Shining.  To be fair, it doesn’t usually happen that you repeat page after page; you usually start gushing again after a few lines, not unlike restarting a jammed pen.

A variant of this is Calvin Trillin‘s vomitout strategy which is such a good name I’ve taken it over as the generic name for my first-draft efforts.

Rewriting requires putting The Censor back in charge.

(BTW, rewriting is not the same thing as “checking punctuation, spelling, and grammar”.  That’s great stuff, but that’s after rewriting.  Rewriting is whipping the first draft into shape, getting it to achieve exactly the effects you want it to achieve.)

The practice appropriate to rewriting is write for <X> hours a day without regard to the quantity of rewriting you finish.  If you spend 4 hours dithering over a comma, so be it.  If, on the other hand, you read over 10 pages without making any changes, you are probably not rewriting hard enough.

Writing can be done in a notebook or on a computer.  Rewriting usually requires space.  You have to spread out the whole work, look at the whole thing, put the whole thing up on the wall or out on a table.  It also requires what Cal Newport would call “deep work”: big blocks of uninterrupted time spent worrying the material.

3) Everyone has The Censor, and His Aim is to Keep You From Doing Your Work

Have you read The War of Art yet?  No?  Buy it.  Read it.

What I’m Seeing In the Week’s Work So Far

This week I trusted my “vomitout muscles” a bit more than the previous week.

I was helped by the fact that I had even less of an outline to work with this week.  I kind of had my case study in place — in this chapter it was going to be Gun Violence, a textbook standoff between liberty (right to bear arms) and justice (right to life, so to speak).  But I didn’t have much beyond that incident.

So I kind of sat back and let what came to mind come to mind.

When I was thinking about gun violence, I recalled Stand on Zanzibar, an SF novel I had adored in the late 60’s, and when I dug into it I found a bunch of stuff about overpopulation, where “muckers” (slang in the novel for “those who run amok”) come from, how humanity might bridge the gap between liberty and justice.  Great grist for the mill.

Similarly, thinking about violence led me to the discussion in Debt: The First 5,000 Years about honor and saving face and why it’s important to understanding debt and solvency.  I think the several of the discussions in Debt are going to be indispensable for Ch. 2.

So I let my mind kind of wander a bit, or free-associate perhaps, and great stuff comes up that turns out to be incredibly useful.

Stay tuned, please.

Cabinet of Curiosities: John Brunner and “Stand on Zanzibar”

I loved John Brunner in the 60’s and 70’s.  His Shockwave Rider essentially introduced me to the Internet, and in an utterly relevant way: the Internet was a tool for nerds to have some power for a change!

I thought of Stand on Zanzibar this morning while I was working on my “Liberty vs. Justice” chapter for 7Hard.  The book takes a look at a complex world in 2010 (it was written in 1968) where people are clawing over one another for food, meaning, and happiness.  A world not that different from ours.

I haven’t dug into the book much — I found some references for my purposes this morning — but wanted to recommend it to this group for the way it made me feel then, and the way it makes me feel now: that our world is incoherent and horrible but also beautiful and full of wonder.  Good stuff.

Themes for Work and Learning, week of November 4, 2018

Last week I didn’t 100% complete the vomitout of Chapter 1 (“Individual Wealth vs. Commonwealth”, aka WEALTH).

But vomitouts are peculiar.  Or maybe my vomitouts are peculiar.  I suffer from terminal terseness.  I’ll go to vomitout the big love scene in the novel and I write down “They were happy together for at least a while.”  And that satisfies my writing unconscious.  “He did it!  He finished the big love scene!”

It’s only when I come back to the scene later — as I did this last week in my first encounters with the adequacy of my outline — that I find out I really didn’t even begin to capture the scene.

So the vomitout for WEALTH is still incomplete.  What to do?

I’m going to go on with Chapter 2, “Liberty vs. Justice”.  (I’m not sure I have a one-word rubric for this one).  My reasoning?  I’ve got a head of steam for vomiting out, and what’s holding back the remainder of WEALTH actually depends on doing more background reading.  So I’m going to try to multi-task this week, and do both “Liberty/Justice” vomitout (4 pomos a day) and reading for WEALTH (4 pomos a day).  If I can do that, I can probably make some progress and get my other stuff done as well.

So what’s the reading for WEALTH?  I’m going to try to do two books this week (in addition to Black Reconstruction, of course, on which the clock is still ticking).

Book #1 is Thomas Piketty‘s warhorse, Capital in the Twenty-First Century.  The title is an obvious nod to Marx’s Capital but the books couldn’t be more different.  Marx is deeply theoretical; he is intent to teach you a new way of thinking about history.  Piketty is deeply empirical: he is intent on proving, even to the satisfaction of a conservative economist, that the balance of power in the 21st century is shifting over to capital (mainly from labor).

In part you have to chalk up his empiricism and bending-over-backwards to the shame which all leftish thinkers feel over the failure of socialism/communism in the 20th Century.  The transformation of Communism-as-liberation to Communism-as-despotism undid leftish thinkers, and rightfully so.  It makes you think.

Book #2 is David Graeber‘s Debt: The First 5000 Years.

Graeber is also leftish, but he is after something bigger than Piketty: he wants to reimagine economic history as a cycle deeply formed by attitudes toward debt.  I am not at all doing justice to the book with a blurb like that, since Graeber, who is by training an anthropologist, delves into a welter of topics which are fascinating, brilliant, and annoying all at the same time.  I read the book once a couple of years ago and am now returning to read it more carefully for 7Hard.

Hack of the Week: SawStop saw

I saw this one in a Family Handyman email blast and it was a no-brainer for Hack of the Week.

Nice saw, and all that.  Kind of pricey.

But it’ll stop within five milliseconds of contacting human skin.  That’s fast enough to save your fingers.

When I was in college I worked one summer in a machine shop and came within an ace of losing a couple of fingers in a table saw.  The alert guy in charge of lab batted my hand away.  This saw embodies that alert guy.

As Family Handyman says, “how much are your fingers worth”?

Here it is on Amazon

 

“Black Reconstruction” is a Great Book

I’ve been taking pretty careful notes for the first few chapters, but today I was reading “The General Strike” and “The Coming of the Lord” (Chapters 4 and 5) and I got caught up in the narrative.

“The General Strike” substantiates DuBois’ thesis that the decisive thing in the Civil War was the defection of the 3.5 million slaves from the Confederate side to the Union side.  This was an unorchestrated spontaneous defection, a true “general strike”.  At first the Union troops returned the slaves who crossed over to the Union lines to their owners, but it was senseless: why return labor to the enemy in order to allow more white Confederate soldiers to go to the front lines?

“The Coming of the Lord” discusses the transition from mere defection of slaves to active military service by freedmen on the Union side.  There are some horrific and inspiring stories of Black units in combat.  Unbelievable stuff.

DuBois wrote this book in the 1930’s.  It’s worth reading today for the same reason it was worth reading then: it addresses a very relevant and very deep historical wrong: Reconstruction was a noble experiment in real democracy that failed because the majority in America lost its nerve.  Very relevant today.