Controversial opinions about writing

Why is a work being unpredictable a bad thing? Isn't the fact that it's unpredictable an indication of it having not just one plot twist, but many?

Keep in mind that I'm talking about completed works that have gone through the revision process. I am not talking about first drafts that have errors in them that render them nonsensical (as most people seem to be assuming).

Planning does not have to be done before you begin a project. It can be done after the first draft is written, when you have a clear idea of how the story on a whole is and can see how the story on a whole can be improved and tightened, when you can see how the various subplots and story elements work together to enhance or distract from the main plot. You can then plan better ways to foreshadow future twists, or better ways to tie in the subplots, or even plan to take a particularly strong subplot and make it into the main plot.

Where in the writing process you figure these things out is the only difference between planners and spontaneous writers. Planners figure out the major parts of the story before writing it, and then refine that plan during revision. Spontaneous writers figure things out during the revision process, and refine the story that results.

If we use the analogy of carving a gemstone, planners set out to carve the stone in a specific shape they decided beforehand; spontaneous writers take a look at the stone for what it is and then, based on the stone's characteristics, carve it into a shape that enhances the already-present features of the stone.

Both methods result in a carved and polished gemstone.

Kyllorac wrote:Keep in mind that I'm talking about completed works that have gone through the revision process. I am not talking about first drafts that have errors in them that render them nonsensical (as most people seem to be assuming).

I am going to agree with @Kyllorac on this point, and everything else they said. I've written the same novel over with enough partial drafts to send someone crazy, and two complete drafts (all in all, about 500,000 words have been written on this novel).

And I never planned a word.

I am now going into the final revisions where I will need to plan, but I had not even considered it beforehand. Just never came to mind because I hadn't needed it. For some writers, perhaps it is a necessity so they can see a clear road ahead. But to me, that's a good part of the fun! You write as you go, and basically create your world as you go along - not knowing what's ahead just as much as your characters. If I knew what was going to happen in a hundred words, I don't think writing would be as enticing.

On the NaNoWriMo website (National Novel Writing Month), they had two categories of writers. Those who planned everything ahead of them so they had a clear path and knowledge of what they were writing, and those who flew by the seat of their pants (AHEM - me xd). The writers in the first category were called planners, and the second called pantsers. And both of the kinds of writers came out with amazing books at the end of the month.

Both ways work very well, and one particular method does work better for a particular writer. But in the end, both ways will bring their writers to the end of their journey at the same place.

Some great talking points in this thread so far.

AttackOfTheFlash wrote:
@AttackOfTheFlash While storytelling is important, I believe it's as equally important to know how to write properly. Some people (like myself) have problems transitioning an idea from brain to paper (err, computer). Some people don't know how to properly punctuate, etc. I believe one must know both to create a good story.

The difference is you can easily edit to get your writing in order, and sort out your punctuation, and so on. Creating a good story isn't something you can just look up. Storytelling is definitely underrated on this site.

Now onto NaNo... I gave it a try last year after hearing about it forever.

AttackOfTheFlash wrote:The bottom line for me is yeah, NaNo does help some. But would I ever submit a raw, unedited NaNo manuscript to a publisher on, say, December 1st? NEVER. It helps to get a draft out.

I can understand that opinion. But personally I think it encourages writers to take cheap shortcuts to pad their word count (for example, adding more description than will be needed) which creates bad habits, which inhibits their ability to write well later. It is not writing practice but rather practice in writing quickly. I understand the concept of getting a first draft finished, but I'm pretty confident that some of the drafts created by NaNo are so bad they are not salvageable.

@Demeter @Hannah @Snoink I've always found the whole "characters talk to me in my head" thing to be pretty crazy. But then, I guess, people's imagination works in different ways. Certainly, when I'm writing a story, my characters become very real to me, but they have never spoken to me. So I did find it really insane to imagine writers experiencing voices in their heads. I've definitely argued about this with @Snoink in the past, I'm sure ... probably like 8 years ago!

@Kyllorac I have never planned and completely agree with you. I think the 2nd draft is where you know where you are going and you can rewrite the story with the conflict, character development, and denouement you have created in the first draft, and make alterations. The 1st draft is for just punching it out. I am way better at improvising a story from characters and settings. It's also how I run my D&D campaigns. I have a friend who DMs by writing EVERYTHING down that could possibly happen depending on what the players choose, but I find it way easier to adapt as I go, and let the players (or characters when I'm writing) change the story as we go forward.

Snoink wrote:As far as controversial beliefs? I believe that poetry should always have a plot, or at least central conflict which the imagery pivots around. I think that the abstract poetry that deals purely with feelings is incredibly boring. I also think that the poetry that deals strictly with images with no emotion is also boring. There needs to be a balance between them. And a story needs to somehow come out in the poetry.

100% agree. Abstract poetry is never really published, and if you read published poetry it almost always has a strong context and strong conflict. That's something poets on this site could do really well learning as they progress in their poetry.

@StellaThomas @TimmyJake The talent debate is an extraordinarily interesting one, especially in a world where Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hours theory is taken as fact by a large number of people. I just don't agree that 10,000 hours is the main reason why some people become successful in their fields and some do not. If I played football for 10,000 hours, I would only be middling, because my genes have not given me the physical talents to succeed, and I think I lack the psychological edge that others have. The 10,000 hours I spent playing/training would certainly make me a good amateur player, but I would never have made it professionally.

Same with writing. Some of us have the base talent in our brains that give an edge. The difficult thing is it's really tough in art to know whether you have it or not, and just need to put in the practice and motivate yourself, or whether you will never really craft great stories simply because you never make that leap to the next level. I don't know how to differentiate, and I have no idea whether I have the talent or not!

For stories, imagery is overrated.
Yes, I'd like to know the basic details of the setting, but do I really need you to go in depth with "the soft grass was luscious green and beautifully planted. The stalks tenderly pushed through the dirt like a baby's fingers", etc. etc. etc, six lines later, we go to what's actually happening in the story. I admit, I have a bit of a problem with over describing things myself, but that's part of the reason I think imagery is overrated. When I go back and read my own works, I get bored with all the imagery and waiting for the action in the story. I appreciate descriptive words just like everyone else, but make sure to remember, unless the imagery is essential to setting up or moving along your story, does it really need to go on, and on, and on? Or is it really needed at all?

Am I the only person who agrees with @carbonCore? Storytelling is the fun part, for me, with the act of getting the story on paper being a teeth pulling exercise most days. Don't get me started on editing.

Storytelling and writing are two totally different beasts, and for me I keep writing because I love storytelling. I'm not particularly fond of writing. It's just the most efficient means of storytelling I can see.

My most controversial advice to writers is probably "Don't listen to writing advice."

Before you all flay me, here's the thing:

Other people giving advice are not you. They are not going to know your processes, your methods, your style, your characters. They know nothing. Even the single most involved beta reader does not know everything about the story. Heck, even you might not know anything about the story, but it's your story. You're the one writing it.

When somebody tells you how to write and how to fix something about your writing, they are going to be wrong almost all the time. When you go to apply the advice, it'll morph and change and end up being almost nothing like the suggestion. And the end result is exactly how the story should be.

This isn't to say you should ignore people's impressions of your writing. Impressions are good. Impressions are how you come across and indicate what you need to fix. This also isn't to say you should ignore rules of writing (like grammar or publisher's guidelines), because those are make or break.

But actual writing advice?

Don't.

@Rosendorn Are you giving me writing advice? Actually, though, I totally agree with you.

No, no one wants to read your novel.

They want you to read their novel.

AstralHunter wrote:Everybody experiences writing differently, but in my opinion, the most satisfactory works have layer upon layer of planning in them.

If you think of planned novels as quality ones, then the most satisfactory (for you as the reader) works have a writer behind them who can make you believe there are layers upon layers of planning even if they never planned a word of it. =P

Here's a thing, while at planning. When talking about spontaneous writers, there are layers to that - not all spontaneous writers go into it without planning anything at all. Starting without a plan (about which I agree with Kyll - having everything planned just makes me lose interest in actually writing it 'cause it's all already said as far as I'm concerned) doesn't mean that there will never be any planning involved. It doesn't mean that the writer won't ever plan a single scene or decide on how a certain choice will connect to a scene later on, without even thinking of where that might lead at the end. That's how subplots happen, that's how ideas happen, that's how many stories actually get their depth, and sometimes end up going in a completely different and much better direction than original vague idea suggested.

My controversial thought about writing? There is such a thing as a good first draft that doesn't need extensive editing.
It's certainly not easy to achieve, but it's possible to write a story or novel and only have minor grammar/spelling mistakes to correct. Truth is, there could *always* be something to make "better", people will always suggest this or that change, even to the tenth draft, it's inevitable. Knowing when it's necessary and when it isn't is the important part - and I believe it's possible for it to not be necessary even at the beginning.

Related to that, I am strongly against the policy of "let your first draft suck and make it good later". Maybe it works for some, but it just feels completely unjust to my characters and like a waste of time to me. Rather take time to do it the best you can, edit as you go, be at it for a long time and reread and think over every scene. You might need to throw stuff out at the end anyway, but don't go into it justifying laziness (or whatever it is) by "everyone's first draft sucks anyway." What kind of thing to aspire to is that?

As far as imagining characters go, I can more or less relate to what Snoink said (except I get no anxiety attacks, those are reserved for the rest of this life thing), and I agree so much with Firestarter about NaNoWriMo.

Oh, and on the note of writing being fun... I'm somewhere in between of agreeing and disagreeing with cC and Rosey. I don't think of writing as "fun", in fact I feel like thinking of it as fun makes it feel less important, less irreplacable, than it actually is for me. Still, I don't hate the process itself either. It makes me feel more alive than any "fun" thing I can imagine doing.

AriaAdams wrote:. Related to that, I am strongly against the policy of "let your first draft suck and make it good later". Maybe it works for some, but it just feels completely unjust to my characters and like a waste of time to me. Rather take time to do it the best you can, edit as you go, be at it for a long time and reread and think over every scene. You might need to throw stuff out at the end anyway, but don't go into it justifying laziness (or whatever it is) by "everyone's first draft sucks anyway." What kind of thing to aspire to is that?

@AriaAdams- I totally agree with your stand above, I am one of those types of writers who gets bored very early so I barely ever finish novel ideas, but I jump around writing short stories.I also do this a lot, but I edit after writing one chapter, I just edit and sweat until it's just where I want it to be. Which leads me to another controversial topic:

For me this works, but I think it's totally okay to edit during writing your first draft. After you write a fresh chapter, if I am in the mood, I will go ahead and edit it because I feel like it. I am very opposed to the idea: "Lock your inner editor away until you are all done with the first draft"
That is requesting the impossible from me, because I feel a sense of accomplishment when I am fully edited the chapter and I have it just where I want it to beDon't bite my arm of for this opinion please!

I personally don't believe in 'writers block'. I believe in writer burn out, but not block. Nothing blocks you from writing, except yourself. Or maybe I do believe in it, but I believe it's caused by the writer themselves! Really, you either write, or you don't write. It's as simple as that.

I also believe in procrastination- writer's block is another form of that.

Holysocks wrote:I personally don't believe in 'writers block'. I believe in writer burn out, but not block. Nothing blocks you from writing, except yourself. Or maybe I do believe in it, but I believe it's caused by the writer themselves! Really, you either write, or you don't write. It's as simple as that.

I also believe in procrastination- writer's block is another form of that.

I actually noticed this and observed this and concluded that what you said it's true and perfectly valid in my mind @Holysocks.I stopped writing because I was too lazy and I had hit a hard spot in my novel. But now I kind of got back into it, but I am still procrastinating. I hope NaPo helps me motivate and discipline myself! Writers block doesn't exist!

I'm pretty on the fence about NaNoWriMo. I've tried it a couple of times, but November's generally a pretty crazy month for me, I don't deal well with ridiculously large goals in short spaces of time and I can procrastinate like nobody's business. I've come to the conclusion that it's not for me, and even if my year twelve exams weren't in November this year, I don't think I'd give it another shot. The one thing that I have found is that (aside from some horrendous writing) NaNoWriMo tends to result in some pretty serious writing burn-out, and what I, personally, need is to be more consistent, rather than writing 50 000 words one month then nothing in the next two.

The 'let your first draft suck' is certainly one I don't agree with entirely. I think there's a good middle ground between having a horrific first draft and being a perfectionist. Your first draft (according to me, at least!) will almost certainly be flawed, and have all sorts of issues, but that's not to say it should suck. It should be decent, because I have written things of a very high level of suckage, and the last thing I wanted to do was pretend they existed, much less actually spend extensive time working on them. I think excessive editing and perfectionism in the first draft isn't a good thing, but I'm with Aria that you do need to put effort into your first drafts, not just chuck whatever on the paper.

100% with Kyll re: planning. If it works for you, great, but it certainly isn't the be all and end all of quality writing. Maybe I'm biased because I am so unable to plan, but I think as long as you have a vague idea about where you want the story to go, you can get pretty far, and then smooth things out a little, if necessary, in a second draft when you've got all the details.

As for my own controversial opinion... I'm not much of a fan of the expression 'write what you know'. I know that you aren't meant to take it completely literally, but if all my stories were based entirely on 'what I know', ie what I've experienced in my own life, they'd be so horrendously boring. Use what you know to shape and add substance to what you write, and certainly don't write about something you're ENTIRELY ignorant on, but I don't agree that writing 'what you know' lends itself to all that much creativity. Writing should explore other perspectives, different possibilities to what is everyday to most of us, and I feel like the expression 'write what you know' is very limiting, and a bit patronising.

@TriSARAHtops This is why my favourite piece of advice is "write what you can find out". Research is your friend, and if you can physically discover the details required to accurately and properly represent something, then write about it.

This isn't to say you can write about anything. Certain topics do need personal experience, because they are so nuanced you can't research every single little thing about it (usually on poorly represented groups who experience certain specific types of discrimination), but you can find out one heck of a lot.

@Rosendorn, I totally ruined my first novel after reading one of those novel self-help books. >.> So glad that you mentioned that.

I also think that the person who follows all the advice, however well the advice is given, is going to sink. When one receives a criticism, the most helpful thing to do is analyze why this person is giving the advice and then see if it fits in the larger framework. So, if someone says, "Oh, you should do this!" then try to get into that person's mind and figure out why this person is saying that. Take what is good from the review and don't be afraid to stand up for your story. (Unless, the advice given is grammar and spelling advice... then you definitely need to edit that, if they're correct!)

I think that when you're just beginning, you should try to write well because you need to put in the effort to write well. But, after you get to a certain point and start getting really self critical and realizing that you aren't the best writer ever, it's important to let yourself suck when you write a first draft and realize that the first draft is never going to be perfect. Otherwise, you can give up prematurely before the idea even has a chance to grow and become something.

I do believe in writer's block. I never used to, but since then I've realized that some events in life can be so traumatizing that it stunts your voice to the point of affecting even your writing and it can be physically debilitating to write.

I think that the "don't take advice" mantra is why I absolutely despise getting nothing BUT grammar feedback on my works -- yes, there's the chance I missed something in my proofreading, but it's hardly as important as me seeing what other people see as "wrong" with the work, what other people think needs to be fixed (sometimes radically different), and how I can interpret what they say and find a happy middle ground between the readers and myself with editing.

I also believe in writer's block. I think it can last a long time, or a short time, or anything in-between. Saying that it's just "laziness" is a discredit to those people who legitimately cannot find anything to say, or write, or anything. Just because some writers don't experience it, I think, doesn't mean it doesn't exist—that's like saying because you've never been to Florida, it doesn't exist.

My controversial opinion? Writing is notoriously unstable as a career path. I don't think it's worth "going into writing" for your future. If you're going into the publishing field, it's hellish to get a job, and if you're trying to get published -- well, your debut novel is not going to pay the bills. You might be able to get a job as a copywriter or even with an e-zine or something, but in a lot of cases, writing can't hold down an internet connection, if it can hold down an apartment.