Hello all. I realize I haven't done a lecture in . . . many moons to put it mildly. However, today I wanted to impart some bitter-sweet wisdom upon you all. It's something I as an aspiring professional author have discovered for myself and I thought it might benefit you to hear it.

So, we at School For New Writers are all about improvement. Improving out writing, our characters, or out plots to make the best stories we can. However, as we improve there's something absolutely critical to understand. It doesn't get easier with time. Not in the sense that you'll be able to sit down and pound out a masterpiece in the same amount of time it took you to write your first novels. Improvement is easy when you first start out. You see all these suggestions, and, in next to no time, you're applying them into your own stories. Much like piano, the more you practice and learn the harder it becomes to get to the "next level" so to speak.

I started out writing a lot of fanfiction here. I mean a LOT. I'd pound out story after story, chapter after chapter like it was nothing. But, as time went on and my focus turned to the professional, I noticed myself slowing down. Why? Because I started to see the need for improvement and I started to make improvements. As I went on, my writing process was no longer think of an idea and pound it out. Rather, it became a tapestry of weaving together characters, background, plot, pacing, writing techniques, sentence structure variation, wording variation, and the like until I got a product I was satisfied to have. I can no longer "just write." Instead, I've had to adapt by thinking about every single word and sentence I use. In the beginning, I could write say, eight sentences in a row no problem. Now I'm not kidding you, Sometimes I'll spend almost ten minutes thinking of the best way to word a single sentence. In the end, my stories are of an incredible, professional-grade quality, but they take a LOT more effort.

So, my advice to you is this. If you want to keep improving your writing quality, be prepared to invest a LOT more time into each story you put out. The inevitable reality is that you won't be able to write as fast as you used to. And that's okay! However, if you're under the impression that we more experienced authors are capable of writing just as fast without any extra effort, you're wrong. I write slow, but I write professionally. In time, I imagine I'll increase my speed again. However, I'll never be as fast as when I first started. Just realize that before you start really applying those techniques.

And that's my pro-tip. Not the happiest, but I thought it was something worth sharing. I'm sure other authors have different opinions on the matter of course, but this is mine.

5018171

Wow. This whole post is my life in a nutshell for the past 17 months!

I began writing in September 2014. And I was fast. I thought it was amazing that I, a brand new writer never having written a word of fiction in my (then 44) years could churn out this epic story seemingly orders of magnitude faster than what "good" authors on this site could do. I saw posts in the Writer's Group saying "writing is hard" and thought "meh. not really." Four months in, I had written 70,000 words! Then I met a guy who taught me to write. We spent three months in intensive training and he was brutal. We polished up the first three chapters and published them. It was a mistake. I thought that somehow I could maintain my previous rate of drafting. Oh, and also I was under the delusion that my original work was not merely a "draft" but actually somwhow publishable.

After publishing three chapters, I built up a fan base. The story itself was epic, but my prose needed a lot of work. So I spent the next eight or so months developing the intricacies of the story, weaving together the outline, developing an enormous backstory, and planning everything to the nth degree. My drafting had completely stalled. I felt horrible, but what I was truly surprised at is that when I looked back at my original drafts - those 70k words of rapidly produced text - it was garbage. I might have come close to breaking my nose with my own hand multiple times, it was so laughably bad. Talking about the prose now, not the story. It's amazing how any novice can come up with "a great story idea" but that doesn't mean it can be expressed and coaxed out without a lot of training and experience.

The good news is that from my new standards, I seem to have grown quite a bit, since the only way to recognize the growth was to compare it to where I began. I ended up rewriting the entire text again and updating the published chapters in a total overhaul, improving the story tenfold despite not publishing anything new. I also decided to not publish anything further until the story was completely drafted. Now, I've got 93,000 words of refined text and I'm not even quite up to the point in the story I had left off in December 2014. I'm anxious, but nervous as hell to begin drafting beyond those original words further into the story. I've noticed it takes me lots more time to do rough drafts than before. Instead of banging out 1000 words in a half-hour, it takes all evening sometimes. Other days, I can sit on one paragraph and just mull over it for hours. It's frustrating and feels like I've gone backward somehow. But the end result is sometimes so good I can barely believe it was me who wrote it.

I never thought I'd be a writer. But I have to agree with the principles of the above post. They are true. With time and persistence, a new writer will improve greatly, but they will also slow way down and it becomes harder to come up with new words. Content itself isn't all that hard, but expressing it with professional quality certainly is. I find the drafting process is iterative as well. I go through lots more passes than before. I'll write a very rough set of paragraphs. Then I'll read it and refine it. Then I'll do it again, and again. Maybe ten times before I even give the chapter to my editors! And then they'll rip it up even though I thought it was fine. I'll fix the issues and we'll sit on it a while. Might move on to the next chapter and then go back to the last one and spot a few more things to fix. Might restructure things, move chapter endings, shuffle events around to thematically fit together better, etc. By the time it's "done" it has gone through a ridiculous number of iterative editing passes.

What's difficult is the emotional effect of all this. I feel like being slower disappoints fans. Like they don't know about this phenomenon, and all they can see is x number of words in y weeks. My editors have gotten more skilled with time as well. It was they who actually approved my original 70,000 words of garbage and felt it was pretty good. We all did. But now, I know my current fresh drafting isn't to the current standard of quality. So it's almost embarrassing to even draft at all and show my editors something which is significantly poorer quality than my finished work. I don't want them to think "I've lost the touch" or anything. And it's nerve-wracking to think that I might somehow not be able to continue the story with the same degree of quality that I've got so far. Thankfully, this appears to be merely an illusion.

5018171
Its not bittersweet to me.
That is what must be done to make high quality work.

Writing is not flat. You can't learn all of it at one time.
There are some subjects that require time and writing experience to understand enough to use successfully.
More advanced techniques get more abstract and have more qualifiers and probably need some background in other areas too.
I bet this learning process is also part of the slowing down of the improvement cycle.
Higher level ideas take longer to understand and implement.

Unfortunately, this could mean that books, videos or info from other writers may not be totally understandable
unless you are somewhat ready to understand.

This also means that writers need to be more patient with themselves and keep their old stuff around.
Why?

By understanding that it takes time to learn things, it reduces stress.
"OMFG! WHY AM I TAKING SO LONG TO DO THIS RIGHT! I MUST BE THE STUPIDEST WRITER EVER!"

Keeping old work around somewhere helps to reduce that, 'I am writing but I don't feel like I am improving' feeling.

I wonder as one gets better writing, is it possible to develop a feel for what readers want?

I agree with this, but it's not the whole story.

I would liken writing to painting. As I improve, I spend more time correcting the details of my paintings, making everything balance; colors, composition, lighting, textures... But I do not do this all of the time.

I only dedicate that much work to the larger, more detailed pieces. What of the smaller pieces?

Using the skills I developed over time, I developed a technique for creating quick pieces that look really good. Yes, they are missing detail. Yes, they have sloppy bits and frayed edges. But in the end, they look good in color, composition, and style. Much better than before I learned the advanced detailing techniques.

I apply the same to my writing. Ingraining good habits can create fantastic writing quite swiftly. Not the best writing, not the biggest or most epic writing, but still great.

As you get better, you can indeed make better pieces at the same speed as you used to. However, if you ever want to make something big, with intricate beautiful characters and complex, intriguing plot lines, and if you want to make it the best you can, you absolutely MUST spend more time with it... With every sentence and paragraph. There are some detail writing techniques that you cannot use without spending a great deal of time hammering them out.

When I want a huge wonderfully flush story, I'll take my time. When I want to get something simple done, not worrying too much about the detail, I can hash it out and use my good habits to make it much better than what I used to write.

TLDR- Improvement will always make your stories better, regardless of speed, however, your stories can only be and usually will be much better if you spend more time making sure every detail works together.

5018431

Unfortunately, this could mean that books, videos or info from other writers may not be totally understandable
unless you are somewhat ready to understand.

That's very true. Being 'ready' is a big part of whether or not you can absorb certain facts and principles. Also, there's style of learning that has a big impact. When I tried to read Stephen King's On Writing, I couldn't get anything from it. I kept wondering why the hell am I reading this boring memoir? It didn't seem to have anything to do with actually learning how to write well. But when I started reading Lisa Cron's Wired for Story, the information went into my brain effortlessly. It was like a massive infusion of writing wisdom with every paragraph as the book gave clear and detailed explanations of writing principles. Some people learn better from King's book. I just can't.

5018688

Using the skills I developed over time, I developed a technique for creating quick pieces that look really good.

I found the same. Something else that should be mentioned regarding speed and technique is that you can save your editors heaps of time by learning how to proofread as you type. Having the technical rules of grammar and punctuation down cold will save your team a lot of time because your prose comes out clean rather than having half a dozen technical errors per paragraph. Doesn't mean the prose itself will be any good, of course. It also seems to help to have a very clear picture of what is supposed to be going on in your story before you sit down and write it. I suppose this varies from person to person, as some prefer "discovery writing" while other prefer outlining and planning. Of course, it's a combination of both, and sitting down to actually draft can be both daunting and exciting as you discover what your characters are about to do next and how they will all interact with one another. The speed at which this flows will help prose come out quickly if you've already learned good principles and have a decent vocabulary.

5018171 This post pretty much describes me in a nutshell. What's funny is the fact that I was self-taught in writing my stories... so of course I had some major developments coming to me. I believe around my third story or so, I've gotten very good in my writing skills to the point that like you, I've probably take awhile trying to word out just one sentence and make it sound right for me and for my readers. No repeating words, no grammar issues (although I would miss some from time to time), and definitely no spelling errors.

I kept around my old books as a way to see how far I vastly improved from the first time I've written a story. At times, I would wish to edit my first story to remove some of the clichés built in there, but as I did originally wanted to, I just realized that I put all of my passion into that one single story. In the end, I kept it as it is just to see the difference between how I write and how I wrote when I was still a rookie author.

I still far behind from other fics I've read but that doesn't slow me down in the slightest. It just makes me more determined to improve myself and sooner or later, get a story that may end up achieving one thousand likes. Yeah I know that is a majorly farfetched dream, but it is a goal I would strive to accomplish. I am still learning and striving to write thanks to so many books I've read. I'm hoping someday, I might get noticed and get the chance to shine just once

I more or less agree. Eh, to try to resume myself on topic;

I'd say writing 'good', in terms of global stuff takes coherence; appeal, freshness and originality all tend to remain generally better or the same with better coherence, as long as momentum of involvement.

Being generally relatable and interesting conflicts with being original and new, so there is a point where improvements tend to make things more niche. So i'm very so-so on stating general things as 'better'.

However, because story writing concerns mental logistics, like fluent speech, and readers have divergent interests, I would say that one shouldn't try to improve both quality and quantity at the same time when revising themselves. Atleast in the very same action. It would often be incoherent in practice. Often choosing something that sacrifices one is quite good for learning, atleast.

To wrap it up on improvement; because good story writing is generally writing down new vectors coherent with those already written, when needed, I'd think "improvement" can be genuinely complex. I consider vectors to be the axioms of action btw.

Like for speech, suffisant specialisation can make things more fluent, in time and quality. But like for speech, it's rather impossible to rush via 'effort' alone. 'High level Writing' is generally pretty hard to get when aiming for non-trivial involvement levels.

I consider it a form of language logistics problem. Like maths, I don't think most people truly want to improve themselves to attain the most sophisticated results they personally could. And trying for better too 'hard' may tend to introduce motivation as the strain limit.

TLDR: Attempts at improvement can be very difficult depending on personal expectations. And may also prove unrewarding. I'd be wary of thinking writing improvement would be easy, as spoken language is one of the most complex logistical things average people do. And improving something intuitively done beyond how good it already is harder the more perfected it be. So know yourself, your interests, your limits, and your situation.

If you want to keep improving your writing quality, be prepared to invest a LOT more time into each story you put out.

P.S: I so-so agree with this; while I believe it is mostly true. It is situational to people. Still, I believe planning your improvement is ideal, if worthwhile in interest and feasible.

5018171

I'm glad I saw this... I thought I was going crazy.

I started writing a first draft of my story back in May 2015. At first, I was worried that I wouldn't be able to write anything well and that it was a lost cause before I started.

However, as I started writing, I was happy since I was getting a chapter out every few days. I was pounding out chapter after chapter and got like 7 chapters done in a month.

Then I went back and read what I wrote. To be frank about it, it sucked. Part of it had to do with that I had never written anything other than college essays and had never tried fiction. But on another level, I knew it was because I was not thinking about the story, just the next sentence.

Then I started over and thought about where I wanted my story to go, the arcs for the characters, plot twists and all of that stuff. I thought that was the hard part. Then I started writing the second version. It was a struggle. I almost gave up. No matter what I did, I never thought it was good enough.

Fortunately, I was stubborn. I got an editor and had him look over my first few chapters. I was pleasantly surprised that my writing was not as bad as I judged it to be. Did I make mistakes? Sure.... Could I improve things? Absolutely. But my story was, and this may be understated, acceptable.

It was at that moment, I knew that writing good fiction is HARD. But it isn't impossible. And also that nothing will ever be perfect. But you can always get better and should always try.

5018171

Sometimes I'll spend almost ten minutes thinking of the best way to word a single sentence.

What if that's more or less the way one starts out? I can't really get myself to "just write."

5018171 If you want to keep improving your writing quality, be prepared to invest a LOT more time into each story you put out.

Time spent wisely, I hope. Done correctly a person can learn all they need to to become a fairly competent writer in just one story. But, that requires a very conscious effort from the writer in question.
[youtube=5MgBikgcWnY]

I MUST BE THE STUPIDEST WRITER EVER!

Me, looking at anything I wrote fast.

5018431 You can't learn all of it at one time.

Depends on how much you want to learn about the craft, and how well refined your ability to find the relevant information is.

5019027 [Mathematics Intensifies]

Alright, so I'm a mathematician (with a college degree and everything), and even in the literary context of writing you didn't use any of those terms right. A vector is a line that requires only direction and magnitude, but does not require position. That's how, in a litterary sense, we get ideas of value and weight that can be used "anywhere". Typically they're used to calculate trajectory (or force) but a vector by itself does not a trajectory make. Vectors are in the object classification. Objects are described. Axioms are descriptors—tautological, self-evident descriptions but descriptions all the same. /rant

As for the actual content of your post I do take issue with this:

I would say that one shouldn't try to improve both quality and quantity at the same time when revising themselves.

At the same time implies "in the same story" rather than at any given moment (that's right, another math reference) in a story. There is not a finite number of things that can be improved in a given story, and one can improve both without exception to either one.

5019264 Simply consider the same 10 minutes can be used to edit that sentence until you like it. Then, at least, you'll have written something even if it takes you the same amount of time. That's what I need to remind myself (constantly) anyway.

5019902

A vector is a line

Line? I thought a vector was more akin to a segment with an orientation, to speak vaguely. But I don't think "A vector is a line" is technically correct. Pardon. Even if you don't restrict to math definitions.

Edit: wait a moment, people sometimes call segments lines, I suppose. My bad.

Also, that wasn't meant to be interpreted in maths jargon. Just to define things conceptually in general.

At the same time implies "in the same story" rather than at any given moment

This is your subjective. I don't know what cultural context you use, but I avoid using definitions in a context more contained than the multiple definitions of a dictionary. Atleast when speaking in general for unprofessional purposes.

Also, that was about a mental perspective. To not worry about both in the same action.

Vectors are in the object classification.

Not the point. I wasn't referring to a vector in the context of applied physics and related matters. It was a theological analogy of sorts.

There is not a finite number of things that can be improved in a given story, and one can improve both without exception to either one.

Um yes. I didn't say otherwise. (Not going about the finiteness of existenceand perspective here) For me, it's important to orient a task and redo the calibrations of your own efforts and actions. Heuristics. That sorta part of why I feel like correcting people on abstract use of language is like grammar nazism.

TLDR: Still, a vector is a line? I didn't know that. Sorry. But that's just so serious, it's sorta funny.
No offense; people have a most divergent taste in communication protocols and priorities. Your reply was interesting. You seem to contain your use of language more than me.

5018171 Thank you. After just barely churning out two hundred words in half an hour today, this was something I needed to hear.

5019946 It was a theological analogy of sorts.

You mean philosophical because theology is religion. Note that, the same people responsible for Philosophy are responsible for Mathematics. For example the Cartesian Plane (the "normal" xy plane you presumably associate with vectors) is called that because René Descartes--the "I think therefore I am" guy--came up with it and is Cartesian. And, an analogy (philosophical or not), relies on the definitions of the analogous words to make it's point, and requires the correct definitions to make sense. Otherwise you're, at best, spouting "countryisims" and at worst "gibberish".

The point is not that you were misusing math words to sound smarter than you have any reason to represent yourself, it's that you were trying to use math words to represent some really, quite frankly, offensively false notions as factual truth. Especially since:

t I avoid using definitions in a context more contained than the multiple definitions of a dictionary.

You define something to be impossible, or at the very least a terrible idea, without fully specifying why you think it is (because it's obvious the "smart words" you used meant nothing) or under what conditions you're actually talking about. Without defining conditions we must surmise you mean that there are no conditions wherein this thing you firmly believe is not true.

The problem with trying to use math "smart words" to do that is math is only true because we define it to be. Nearly every theorem, anything we can prove, is bi-conditional based on the assumption that something more fundamental is true. Your fundamental belief that what you're saying is true is only backed by your assertion that it's your fundamental belief that it's true, which you represent yourself as believing makes that thing true.

5020991

You mean philosophical because theology is religion.

I used the word theology as an allegory. Because such philosophical approaches are quasi-religious. There are actually multiple spiritual religions, as some people call them, that aren't about gods, but about base philosophical approaches at how to think or consider the world.

You may disagree with my use of words, but it does not mean you understand the purpose of my intent nor what I meant.

You define something to be impossible, or at the very least a terrible idea, without fully specifying why you think it is (because it's obvious the "smart words" you used meant nothing)

If I meant nothing, why tell me so? What are you trying to do? Why don't you clearly point out that which is impossible?

Your fundamental belief that what you're saying is true is only backed by your assertion that it's your fundamental belief that it's true, which you represent yourself as believing makes that thing true.

Okay. I never said I believed my sayings "true". I don't believe words are objective to such a degree.

Words are wrought by the perspective of those who write them. Readers have their own subjective comprehension when reading. This is important. Being 'right' or 'wrong' is a thing I depreciate as good to focus on without clear context or purpose: people that don't speak on the same terms saying each other 'right' or 'wrong' is a cause of annoying strifes and conflicts, and is generally inconvenient when it happens at bad moments. I like to identify the potential of people to generate indirect banter, but don't appreciate encouraging it.

Also, very complex(ly worded) demonstration of a tautological statement. You could've simply said I had no proof I was right, instead of using tautology. Why not just state where I wrongly stated?

If you assume I did wrong or undesirable. Do mention it directly. I do not wish to discuss the right or wrong usage of words upon such abstract and unfocused banter.

Without defining conditions we must surmise you mean that there are no conditions wherein this thing you firmly believe is not true.

we must surmise you mean that

"we must surmise"? What makes you obliged to interpret what I say in any specific manner? I did not order or command you, did I? Who is "we"?

The point is not that you were misusing math words to sound smarter than you have any reason to represent yourself, it's that you were trying to use math words to represent some really, quite frankly, offensively false notions as factual truth.

The point is that you were trying to use math words to represent some false notions as factual truth.

Clearest point you advanced. Honestly, okay? ... I'm not sure what false notions I was 'trying to represent'. But okay. Also I do not care if people think I am smart or not: it is unimportant. I would well prefer people to understand something on their own than to merely believe my words.

TLDR: Again no offence, but this seems to me that we simply do not use language following the same protocols regarding communication. Nor do we have the same fundamental interests. I do not see this becoming clearer, either. Rather, it is becoming boring. Also, if you wish to teach people to speak in a manner, do be more concise in showing the actual worth of it. Math words are not sacred. People are not always right or wrong.

The problem with trying to use math "smart words" to do that is math is only true because we define it to be

Problem? People can fail to convince. Let them. Would that not be your solution? If you think people are misusing math words, what point in beating around the bush so much? And why did your final sentence have to be an apply-to-all tautology?

Is your problem that you don't want me to be wrong?? Or do you want me to not speak wrong? I have no idea what you really are after, if anything precise. The before last sentence expressed an idea of some worth. But the last was, for what purpose?

In any case. I disdain the overuse of polarised assertions. I can respect a solid logic, but care little for subjective assumptions that back themselves on speculation. People may often profit from understanding things in abstract notion. So why would I want to show them forceful conviction in any single point being right or wrong? Without purpose, there is no right or wrong. / rant.

Well, atleast it's still an example of banter when odd people meet: truly a story is easier to vary with varied input, I believe. Still.

Last up: Sorry if this bothers anyone. Between people who improvise campfire songs for small applause, and people who write for decades only to be sung for generations after they pass, yet hardly when they lived, there is alot. Truly writing can be quite the heavy haul. And a strange way of entertaining multiple people at once, too. Life is such a pot-pourri: doing a good isn't always easy.

5021412 You may disagree with my use of words, but it does not mean you understand the purpose of my intent nor what I meant.

This is literally the purpose for choosing words: to effectively communicate your intent and meaning. The fact that you can't choose words that mean what you want to say is a serious problem.

5021543 I would agree with that. Although it doesn't mean interpretation has a clear global reference either.

Also. Just because what I say is not understood by you does not mean others do not understand. That's actually a great hassle in some situations.

Honestly, I've always found communication easy. Especially in practical things. However, inference is more complex: People can arrive at the same conclusion for different reasons. And whether they be right or wrong can be random and messy to analyse.

Funny thing: I'd say we both present postulations in very different ways that do work, but in conflicting standards, I tend to be abstract. But man.

No offence, but I think "A vector is a line" was a casual faux pas you did. Thing is, I don't uphold the same vocabulary in general public as I do in work: I find trying to do so would be impractical to me. Also, abstract conversation has values that just don't marry well with formality at times. Sometimes that's even unfortunate.

So I guess you were really just cringing a bit maybe? Or just helping out? Sorry in anycase. To be fair though, you seem decent. I'll still throw in a thing:

This is literally the purpose for choosing words: to effectively communicate your intent and meaning

This is a noble idea, I like it. But in the world, propaganda, and many other things undermine that truth. I value acknowledgement of the ugly, in order to deal with it, moreso than I value attempts at its complete elimination.

5021596 both present postulations in

Now you're just fucking with me because that is very clearly not how that word is used. I'm done. I refuse to feed the troll. As of 2014 there were over a million words in the English language, surely there exist some with definitions that coincide with what you're trying to say, no matter how "abstract" you're trying to be.