![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
megwritesIt's been a whirlwind November, and it's gone by fast. I haven't updated my wordcount at the NaNoWriMo site and haven't even counted words for what I've written because I'm at my wonderful soon-to-be in-laws place, enjoying some time with them, since the Boy has the entire week of Thanksgiving off as a vacation week.
I've seen a lot of discussion lately across my f-list about individual methods of writing and how their own techniques differ from standard advice given or from other people's ways of getting it done. It seems like there's a bit of defensiveness when people reveal their own quirky habits, as though people feel as though they're going to catch flack from the Writing Police for Not Doing It Right.
And I think that's sort of an appropriate thing to ruminate on when I'm seven days away from the end of NaNoWriMo.
I think as writers, we want to know that we're doing a good job, and it's sometimes very hard to do that, because it's hard even to define what a good job is. Is it sales? Reader satisfaction? Critical acclaim? How do you judge your own works even remotely objectively? Some works we fall in love with are complete twaddle. Some works we feel like we half-assed are heralded (sometimes to our dismay) as great works by friends and readers.
Given this, I think writers tend to want know that they're at least following protocol, that they at least tried to do it right.
As for myself, I don't know that I have a definite routine or style. Sometimes I do what writer Monica Wood called "hummingbird writing", which means that I write, I get up and walk somewhere, sit back down, do some more writing, and continue to lather, rinse and repeat until I'm done with that session. I think part of it is that when I get on a really good writing jag, I have excess energy to burn off and my body wants to channel that energy physically rather than mentally.
But there are also times when I start writing and for no good reason, slip into a mental white space where I feel like I'm a car that's in neutral and I can just let the story tow me along. And in those sittings, sometimes upwards of a thousand words just pours out in a matter of an hour or two.
I try to keep to a routine, not because it helps creatively, but because it helps me manage time better. If I don't discipline myself somewhat, I'll spend all my free time off-task and it would take me five years to write a novel.
Still, I don't follow any rules.
Which is why I like NaNoWriMo. Because the only goal is to get a novel done in a set time length. Some people cross the finish line early, just a week or two in. Some have an even pace and then rush to the finish line. Some people cram everything into the last few days.
But it's all legal, and it's all the right way.
I mean, let's face it - if we put Beethoven and Mozart and Bach next to each other and compared the ways in which they composed, we'd see three very different styles. But nobody can deny that they were all geniuses. That whether they did it standing on their heads or in short bursts or long deathmarches, they made beautiful music.
The only right way is the way that gets you to the end of the story.
I've seen a lot of discussion lately across my f-list about individual methods of writing and how their own techniques differ from standard advice given or from other people's ways of getting it done. It seems like there's a bit of defensiveness when people reveal their own quirky habits, as though people feel as though they're going to catch flack from the Writing Police for Not Doing It Right.
And I think that's sort of an appropriate thing to ruminate on when I'm seven days away from the end of NaNoWriMo.
I think as writers, we want to know that we're doing a good job, and it's sometimes very hard to do that, because it's hard even to define what a good job is. Is it sales? Reader satisfaction? Critical acclaim? How do you judge your own works even remotely objectively? Some works we fall in love with are complete twaddle. Some works we feel like we half-assed are heralded (sometimes to our dismay) as great works by friends and readers.
Given this, I think writers tend to want know that they're at least following protocol, that they at least tried to do it right.
As for myself, I don't know that I have a definite routine or style. Sometimes I do what writer Monica Wood called "hummingbird writing", which means that I write, I get up and walk somewhere, sit back down, do some more writing, and continue to lather, rinse and repeat until I'm done with that session. I think part of it is that when I get on a really good writing jag, I have excess energy to burn off and my body wants to channel that energy physically rather than mentally.
But there are also times when I start writing and for no good reason, slip into a mental white space where I feel like I'm a car that's in neutral and I can just let the story tow me along. And in those sittings, sometimes upwards of a thousand words just pours out in a matter of an hour or two.
I try to keep to a routine, not because it helps creatively, but because it helps me manage time better. If I don't discipline myself somewhat, I'll spend all my free time off-task and it would take me five years to write a novel.
Still, I don't follow any rules.
Which is why I like NaNoWriMo. Because the only goal is to get a novel done in a set time length. Some people cross the finish line early, just a week or two in. Some have an even pace and then rush to the finish line. Some people cram everything into the last few days.
But it's all legal, and it's all the right way.
I mean, let's face it - if we put Beethoven and Mozart and Bach next to each other and compared the ways in which they composed, we'd see three very different styles. But nobody can deny that they were all geniuses. That whether they did it standing on their heads or in short bursts or long deathmarches, they made beautiful music.
The only right way is the way that gets you to the end of the story.
