Insinuations and Truth
September 24, 2024 by Harvey
In today’s Journal
* Insinuations and Truth
* Of Interest
* The Numbers
Insinuations and Truth
Editor’s Note: I had a hyper-busy day yesterday, and not all of it was writing. And then I got up late this morning. So I brought back a topic I might have posted before, but if I did, I have no idea when.
If you’ve read it before, forgive me. It will probably serve as a good reminder anyway.
Occasionally, I read or hear an insinuation from other writers that writing into the dark (WITD) is equivalent to writing sloppily (for example, “letting characters roam and ramble”).
That is misleading at best, and harmful at worst.
For one thing, those who have no knowledge of a particular technique should not be holding forth on what it actually is, because obviously they don’t have a clue.
Assumptions are as harmful as insinuations, and as much a slap in the face.
Writing into the dark (a term coined by Dean Wesley Smith) does not mean “letting characters roam and ramble” (per one detractor). It simply means writing from the creative subconscious, not from the conscious, critical mind.
The writer who employs writing into the dark trusts his or her subconscious mind and the what s/he’s learned over the years, or rather THAT s/he’s learned those things. S/he trusts that those techniques will be available to her storytelling subconscious as s/he writes “into the dark,” without a pre-determined outline.
It is correct, as many other writers will tell you, that many famous authors outline their work, or at least say that they do. (Many say they do in public because that their writing is “worK” adds perceived value to what they do.)
Many other famous authors write into the dark, though only a select few will admit it (Lee Child, Stephen King, Dean Wesley Smith, and Kristine Kathryn Rusch to name only a few).
None of that matters. And as everyone says, what matters is how YOU write and what works for YOU.
My only advice is to be sure it actually works.
The test? If you’re constantly putting new words on the page, finishing stories or novellas or novels (or all three) and building your IP inventory, it works. If you aren’t, it doesn’t.
What works for me is writing into the dark. Here, I’ll explain what that means to dispell silly explanations by those who don’t know.
As I wrote above, writing into the dark simply means writing from the creative subconscious, not from the conscious, critical mind. That’s Dean Wesley Smith’s definition.
To me personally, WITD means letting characters tell the story that they, not the writer, are living.
Shrug. For me, that’s a no-brainer. I would no more try to mandate what my characters do than try to force my neighbors or my friends or children to live their lives in a manner than I pre-determine.
According to both Dean and me, WITD also means writing one clean draft and being done at that point. I can see how that might lead some writers to believe WITD is the same as writing sloppy.
But that isn’t the whole story.
Everyone I know who writes into the dark does so a few hundred to a thousand words or so at a time. Then we go back, read what we’ve written as a reader (in other words, while remaining in the suspension-of-disbelief creative mind) and allow ourselves to touch the story as we read. Most of us call that cycling. Some of us call it revision.
What you choose to call it is a simple matter of semantics. When practicing WITD, “cycling” and “revising” are the same thing. There’s one important distinction: We who WITD revise (or cycle) while remaining in the creative voice.
In other words, we strive not to allow our own critical mind (or anyone else’s) to enter into our work at all. Ever. Period.
The cycling “stage” (though it isn’t really separate at all) is what enables those of us who practice WITD to write one clean draft. One and done.
In my own case, when that “draft” is finished, I send my own longer works (novellas, novels) to one or more first readers. (When I am able, I use two first readers, one male and one female. As politically incorrect as it is to say aloud, men and women see things differently.)
My first readers are tasked with reading (no critique) and pointing out any misspellings, wrong words, or inconsistencies that pop out at them as they read. Their only other job is to point out anyplace where they become confused or are tossed, pulled, or jerked out of the story, and why if they know. That’s it.
When I get that input back, I make the changes that I agree with, ignore the ones I don’t, then publish and move on to the next novel.
Note: With my short stories, I don’t emply first readers. I read them over (aloud) myself, then publish them.
I realize this will seem like a lackadaisical attitude to some, but it has the added benefit of helping me bear in mind that my novels and stories are not important. They’re only a few hours’ entertainment and every reader will see them differently.
As you’ve heard from me before, THAT I write is important because it’s fun; WHAT I write doesn’t matter in the slightest.
Talk with you again soon.
Of Interest
The Numbers
The Journal……………………………… 900
Writing of Stern Talbot: The Origin Story
Day 1…… 4327 words. To date…… 4327
Day 2…… 3822 words. To date…… 8149
Day 3…… 3250 words. To date…… 11399
Day 4…… 3531 words. To date…… 14930
Fiction for September…………………….. 69841
Fiction for 2024………………………….… 711558
Fiction since October 1…………………… 850379
Nonfiction for September………………… 22760
Nonfiction for 2024……………………….. 297600
2024 consumable words…………………. 848172
Average Fiction WPD (September)……… 3036
2024 Novels to Date……………………… 13
2024 Novellas to Date……………………. 0
2024 Short Stories to Date………………. 14
Novels (since Oct 19, 2014)…………….. 95
Novellas (since Nov 1, 2015)……………. 9
Short stories (since Apr 15, 2014)………. 251
Short story collections……………………. 29
Disclaimer: I am a prolific professional fiction writer, but please try this at home. You can do it. On this blog I teach Writing Into the Dark and adherence to Heinlein’s Rules. Unreasoning fear and the myths of writing are lies. They will slow your progress as a writer or stop you cold. I will never teach the myths on this blog.
Please support TNDJ with a paid subscription. You may click the Subscribe or Update button below, or you may click Donate Here and set up a recurring donation of $5 per month OR make a one-time (annual) donation of $60 via PayPal. Thank you!
I realized something about many who criticize WITD/pantsing/intuitive/organic writing, whatever someone chooses to call it. They're deeply insecure about their own process and feel the need to attack and tear down others in an attempt to feel better. Usually, they're criticizing a process they've never tried and refuse to even read books by authors they know don't follow their chosen process. I think they're afraid to find out that folks who WITD actually DO write good stories. Otherwise, they wouldn't be so resistant to even checking out those stories.
I don't honestly care how someone else writes. If they want to plot/outline for weeks, months, or years before they write their book, that's their thing. I don't care. I do what works for me, and they're more than welcome to do whatever they want. Whether it works for them or not is their issue, not mine. But they're not willing to extend that same attitude to any author who works differently from them.
It suddenly struck me one day watching a bunch of plotters talk online that they even do that to EACH OTHER. They're apparently so insecure about their own processes that they can't even allow each other to be different in how they plot/outline. Different methods. Different levels of detail. Different types of character sketches. They all have varying processes, but they were shredding each other over those differences. Not only do you HAVE to plot/outline, you have to do it "MY" way. At least, that's what I kept seeing pop up in that conversation. Some of them were outright brutal in their criticism of the plotting methods of others. It was rather enlightening. I finally shook my head, laughed at their nonsense, and closed the conversation.
And quite right about some authors WITD but not admitting to it. I've been delightfully surprised at how many of my favorite authors actually are "pantsers". I only discovered this in private conversations with them. Publicly, most of them don't admit to it, though, and let readers believe they painstakingly plot everything out before writing. It's sad that they feel the need to hide their real process for fear of being judged for it.