What we commonly hear is that if you're working quickly, you're rushing. You're slapping words on paper with no regard for quality, producing something that's full of adverbs, plotholes, fluff, and filler.
To that I say: Bullshit.
"Quality over quantity" is a common mantra among writers, but neither Scarlett nor I believe the two are mutually exclusive. Just because quantity is a goal doesn't mean that quality goes by the wayside. Here's the thing: You either know how to write or you don't. You don't forget all the rules and stylistic conventions after you've written 1K, 2K, or 10K words.
That's not to say that fatigue doesn't happen. When you reach a point where the quality is suffering, by all means, stop. Rest. Refresh. If this happens at 500 words, fine. That's your "wall". If it happens at 5,000 words, then that's your "wall". And that wall may move from day to day...for me, there are days when 10,000 is easy and other days when 1,000 is like pulling teeth. For me, some scenes do require a slower hand, but I generally write pretty fast.
There are those who ask "Why rush?" Who's rushing? When the words are coming fast and furious, when the characters are cooperating and the story is flying, why slow down?
Scarlett and I have argued time and time again that just because something is written fast does not mean it's written badly. It is entirely possible to write a book quickly and still produce something worth reading. It doesn't have to take months or years of writing followed by months or years of editing. If it does, fine...everyone works at different speeds. But just because something is written quickly does not mean it's written poorly.
To put my money where my mouth is, here are my stats for my last several books: (Note that these are for the first draft only unless otherwise noted; if you want to include editing time, tack on 2-3 days...a week at the very most)
- Nine Tenths of the Law - 37 days
- Between Brothers - 35 days
- Camera Shy (1st and 2nd drafts combined) - 31 days
- With The Band (1st and 2nd drafts combined) - 25 days
- Behind Closed Doors - 22 days
- Rules of Engagement - 20 days
- Luke Boydston's Baby (1st and 2nd drafts combined) - 18 days
- Playing With Fire (1st and 2nd drafts combined) - 17 days
- The Best Man - 14 days
- Breaking the Rules - 14 days
- The Distance Between Us - 11 days
On the other hand, the most recent draft of Sins of the Father took about a year and a half to complete. (If I included the previous two drafts, we're talking upwards of ten or eleven years) And the result? It's crap. Steaming, fly-swarming, disease-spreading crap. Complete and utter FAIL on so many levels it isn't even funny. But that was the book I used to learn to write. Sins of the Father was my apprenticeship. Naturally, it took a bit longer (hey, storyfail of that magnitude doesn't happen overnight, people). Once I found my groove, though, starting with Camera Shy, the speed came with it.
Now, are the books listed above any good? Well, 1 is published, 3 are contracted, 3 full manuscripts are on editors' desks, 1 is being edited, and 3 are being queried to agents. Do with those numbers what you will, but I'm fairly confident that they're better than the drivel that took me 10 years to produce.
The bottom line here is that "writing fast" and "writing crap" are not synonymous and I'm tired of the assumption that they are. Taking forever on a book does not guarantee a quality finished product. Similarly, if something is produced quickly, it doesn't mean it's produced badly.
Go forth, write at the speed that best suits your writing, and produce the best work you possibly can.
Posts
Word.
ReplyDeleteIf you're a good writer and if the words are up their in your brain, it matters not whether they come out at 1k a day or 10k. If you have the ability, you have the ability, end of story.
And slowing yourself down can be just as detrimental to getting in 'flow' as trying to write faster, if that goes against your natural inclination.
NaNoWriMo or simply writing fast any other month of the year doesn't water down quality with speed. I've always said speed doesn't change the quality of your writing - it merely highlights it.
There's no way I'm going to slow down just to stop other writers feeling bad. And if they whine, let them. You won't hear above the sound of your FOUR CONTRACTS IN SIX MONTHS.
I've seen writers angst for years over one book and it's crap. And they get used to writing slowly. And that one crap book is all they ever write.
Keep the momentum going, I say. Because the fastest writer I know is also one of the best. :D
I think I've read most of the books you've written (including Sins of the Father! Its earliest form! Woot!!) and I can personally vouch for the fact that the books that took you the shortest time to write are your best. Not that any of them suck (except SotF, but I love its suckiness), but obviously the ones you were the most fiery and excited about were the ones you wrote the fastest, and inspired you to new and interesting risks (which worked.)
ReplyDeleteSo if anybody gives you shit about writing supposed crap because of your lighting turnaround, tell them to suck it, because Libbie said so. And then tell them that Philip K. Dick, who's so widely admired, *published* sixteen novels in four years at the peak of his output (that doesn't count the many mainstream fiction novels he wrote during that time, but were never published). You outpace him, but if Dick didn't have to take several years per novel and he still made brilliant art, why can't other people do the same?
SUCK IT, WORLD! JUST SUCK IT!
P.s. I can't believe I just wrote "fiction novel." I've been editing since 6:00 a.m., so I claim brain fatigue.
ReplyDeleteForty lashes with a wet fiction-novel noodle
I think what those people are trying to do is help writers who are feeling discouraged because they can't write as fast as you can or can't complete a 50k novel in a month. I wouldn't take it personally.
ReplyDeleteYou're productivity IS intimidating to many writers. There are many who will compare themselves to you and feel bad about how little they have been able to write. That is their problem, not yours.
Go, you!
I realize that people are trying to encourage slower writers, but the unintentional (I hope...) effect is a slap in the face to the faster writers. Nothing in the world pisses me off more than backhanded encouragement...telling someone that what they're doing is okay because everyone else is probably screwing up anyway. "Hey, don't worry about writing slow. The people who do it fast are just writing crap anyway." It's unnecessary and completely unfounded. My concern is for some of the newer writers who may write fast, but then keep hearing that over and over and think they're doing something wrong.
ReplyDeleteWe're all writers, we should all encourage each other. It just bothers me when people feel the need to take a swipe, however thinly-veiled, at someone else as a means to make them feel better about themselves.
I'm going to write fast whether people like it or not...I just hate to see other writers get discouraged because they hear over and over "if you're doing it fast, you're doing it wrong".
Of course. I did say "try." Tearing someone else down to make yourself or someone else feel better is counterproductive.
ReplyDeletePeople who say "If you're doing it fast, you're doing it wrong." are wrong. There is no one way to write. What works for you, doesn't work for me. What works for me, won't work for you. (Actually, I'm not sure my way would work for anyone else. LOL) That doesn't make either one of us better writers, just different.
So, yea, write as fast you want and ignore those who are trying to tear you down.
BTW you're word count ticker is a red x.
I don't write anywhere near as fast as you, but that doesn't mean you're writing isn't good. It obviously is. It shocks me that some people seriously think their way is the only way.
ReplyDelete*Your.
ReplyDeleteI'm deeply ashamed.