Question about Writing · 5:11am Sep 30th, 2020
It's a purpose in life to process things. Ideas and stories and problems and situations. The feeling or notion of something within needing to be worked out. The greatest joy comes in the processing of a premise into a plot or a subject into a blog. We process and, once done, leave the finish state behind.
It's in the development of a story idea, seeing how it expands in our heads, snapping our fingers at a great scene or reveal, that we feel supreme joy. It's the same in talking our way through a problem or something close around others, unsure of what we will say next, yet, certain on being on the right path. Once more. It's the initial discovery and processing of something that we enjoy most.
But here comes my problem.
In thinking through a story or a blog, it feels really good, living through the scenes or, in terms of a blog, blowing across the logical process in joy of coming to an answer that's compounded of everything built before it. However. Since that is the joy itself. In coming to re-visit those envisioned to write them, however, that initial spark is no longer there.
So here is my question.
How much does thinking and working through a story or a blog then improve that story or blog?
And second.
How much does that take away from the enjoyment of then writing them?
The writer becomes like the reader in taking to the page right away. The events of a story and the logical process of a blog is happening to them as they write it. But perhaps your content will not be as good due to this. Perhaps the writing will be more genuine and better in the sense of the pure enjoyment that you wouldn't get the other way around.
But in thinking about a story or a blog beforehand, you can find out the big chunks, the important stuff, and process it all to the best degree. When you come to write, since you've had an aerial view, you'll compose what you have a bit more. However, the big surprises are now gone. You have little things that will pop. Yet the main stuff tends to become bland.
What do y'all think?
~ Yr. Pal, B
I am a bit skeptical of the notion that thinking through and working through a story makes it more bland. (Although my writing domain lies in the technical, where it's absolutely necessary to think through every sentence, and everthing is bland anyway.) I would say that it comes to personal writing styles whether having an aerial helps improve the final work.
When I write for enjoyment, I like taking the time to revise because I don't want to get hung up on unpolished bits when I go back and read. In these cases, something external might have pushed me to start writing, but by the end, I'm just writing what I want to read. I end up reading these a hundred times, so if I get even a hint that something can be improved, it bugs incessantly me until I figure out how.
When I write for utilitarian purposes, I'd rather hit publish on the first draft because my motivation to re-read, judge, and revise the work is small compared to the motivation to get it out there. It's good enough for these things to be understood well enough. If I revise these, it's to make my writing tighter and clearer so people can read it with less effort. I write these as if other people will want to read it and move on with their lives, just like me.
On whether revising improves writing... It depends on how good a judge you are of your own writing. I think it's generally good to learn how to judge your own writing better, so even if revising doesn't improve writing, it's good to try.
It's incredible how often your thoughts seem to mirror mine. I've been thinking about this a lot for the last few days.