I Get Comments
In Today's Journal
* I Get Comments
* Of Interest
* The Numbers
I Get Comments
I felt a need to address this topic again. I’m doing so only because it might get through to one more writer. This will be the last time for a good long while.
Big Philly wrote in a comment:
"Dean [Wesley Smith] helped me become a better writer. So did the other guy. You take some from here, you take some from there. It's our work, so we get to choose how we crank it out" (emphasis added).
Here's my response, expanded for a broader audience:
Why are we still arguing about this? Of course you get to choose how you "crank it out." As I've said numerous times, I couldn't agree more.
That said, my "job" as a writing instructor and the purpose of TNDJ is to show writers a non-process (writing into the dark, or WITD) that enables them to spend a lot more time actually writing vs. outlining, revising, seeking critical input, and rewriting.
Here's the whole non-process:
Believe in yourself and trust your characters.
Sit down and write the story.
Publish.
Start the next story.
I teach writers to believe in themselves and that it doesn't take a committee to write a story or novel. Shrug. That's what I do.
But let's do a comparison:
1. If a writer writes into the dark (i.e., trust yourself, trust your characters, and convey the story that they, not the writer, are actually living) how much writing time does the writer lose?
None. Because it's all writing.
2. If a writer outlines, then writes, then revises, then seeks critical input from critique groups, then rewrites however many times for the critiquers, not to mention the agents, beta readers, the tradpub acquisition editor et al, how much writing time does the writer lose?
You do the math. But remember, of the stuff in the paragraph above, only "then writes" is actual writing.
If that doesn't make sense to you, that's fine. How other writers choose to write is strictly up to them, not to me or anyone else. And that's me, not some myth-peddler, telling you that.
Most of the myth peddlers will tell you that you "have" to outline, revise, seek critical input, rewrite, etc. ad nauseam. And most of them tell you that so they can sell you more nonfiction books.
As Mark Twain once said, It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they've been fooled.
All I can do is tell others about this wonderful, freeing, non-process. But most writers won't ever even TRY writing into the dark even though if they do they can always go back to the other, much more labor-intensive way.
Still, it's strictly up to them, and their choice doesn't affect my bottom line in the slightest.
I even offered Quiet the Critical Voice and Write Fiction FREE and thus far have had only FIVE takers out of around 200 free and paid subscribers. A few already had it, but still. The offer will end this coming Sunday at midnight. To see the offer, click here and scroll down to "Re Yesterday's Post."
The simple fact is, going with the flow feels safer and easier. I can't fault them for that, and I don't.
But for some reason, the folks who default to going with the flow seem to never tire of firing warning shots over my bow. Especially those who have nonfiction books to sell.
So I understand how those folks can perceive a threat from such a radical, freeing concept as believing in yourself and writing into the dark. But I'll never understand how I or Heinlein's Rules or WITD is a threat to individual fiction writers.
After all, if they vehemently disagree with what I teach, shrug, they should ignore me. And if they disagree with what I write in TNDJ, they should hit the Delete button when TNDJ pops up in their email. Or better yet, they can just click the Unsubscribe button. Substack doesn't even tell me when someone unsubscribes. (I intentionally set it that way.)
Of course, I could also choose to lie and say "Oh, yeah, it takes me six months to outline a novel, then a couple of years to write it, then another year to revise and seek critical input and rewrite it."
If I wasn't publishing my numbers in TNDJ every day, who would know?
For that matter, how does ANYONE else "know" how ANY writer writes? We don't.
And with my nonfiction, I could just as easily mimic all the other books out there and sell sh*tloads of them, but I just wouldn't feel right about writing into the dark myself while "teaching" everybody else the "standard" way of writing just to turn a buck.
But I won’t do that. That's just not how I roll.
And for the record, as I also said in the issue of TNDJ to which Big Philly took such offense, I've learned from SEVERAL writers, not just DWS, how to improve my craft. So there's that.
And I'm learning more all the time, some from classes or blogs and some from reading other fiction, but most often by putting new words on the page.
Back in the day, I followed the crowd and outlined. In fact, I once spent three YEARS off and on outlining my very own 'great American novel." I've still never written it.
Why? Because by the time I finally "finished" the outline (there was always something else to tweak) I knew the whole story ad nauseam, so even trying to write it would have bored me to tears.
So I'll keep teaching Heinlein's Rules and WITD because I know they CAN work for any writer. And in every case, whether it works is up to the individual writers. Whether it will work boils down to how much they believe in themselves.
On the other hand, I'm not making demands on anyone—how you write is strictly up to you—and I'm not fleecing anyone by selling them a pack of myths and lies that, more often than not, will slow or stop them from writing.
I've never said WITD is the "only" way to write, and I never will.
I only offer a massively simple alternative, and then I celebrate those who try it and end up actually writing and publishing consistently. You know, rather than spending the majority of their time defaulting to what the myth peddlers tell them they "have" to do.
So again, to everyone out there, please adhere to "whatever works" for you. But if you're a fiction writer, I strongly recommend you at least define "works" in a way that enables you to actually put new words on the page.
Okay, enough of this nonsense. Back tomorrow with the Heinlein's Rules series, part 3.
Of Interest
Thanks to Emilia P. for the first two links:
Business Musings: Serious Writer Voice
Business Musings: Punctuation, Voice, and Control
The Numbers
The Journal…………………………… 1180
Writing of Blackwell Ops 46: Sam Granger | Still on the Ghost Trail
Day 1…… 1814 words. To date…… 1814
Day 2…… 2645 words. To date…… 4459
Day 3…… 1507 words. To date…… 5966
Day 4…… 1664 words. To date…… 7630
Day 5…… 1283 words. To date…… 8913
Day 6…… 3126 words. To date…… 12039
Day 7…… 3454 words. To date…… 15493
Day 8…… 3973 words. To date…… 19466
Day 9…… 2837 words. To date…… 22303
Fiction for June………………………. 46339
Fiction for 2025………………………. 509791
Nonfiction for June………………....... 21480
Nonfiction for 2025…………………… 147630
2025 consumable words…………….. 650911
2025 Novels to Date…………………….. 12
2025 Novellas to Date…………………… 0
2025 Short Stories to Date……………… 30
Novels (since Oct 19, 2014)…………..... 116
Novellas (since Nov 1, 2015)…………… 10
Short stories (since Apr 15, 2014)……… 300
Short story collections……………………. 29
If you are able, please support TNDJ with a paid subscription. Thank you!
If you’re new to TNDJ, you might want to check out these links:
Oh, and here’s My Bio. It’s always a good idea to vet the expertise of people who are giving you advice.
Questions are always welcome at harveystanbrough@gmail.com. But please limit yourself to the topics of writing and publishing.
I'm famous! Lol I love your passion, Harvey.
>>> Oh, yeah, it takes me six months to outline a novel, then a couple of years to write it, then another year to revise and seek critical input and rewrite it.
Cripes, Harvey, with your output, you didn't let on to any of us you were Methuselah, too. (grin)