Writing into the dark is sometimes inappropriate because in some forms of non fiction, there is a pattern that readers expect.
Some forms of writing are highly structured. Things like obituaries, scientific papers, college term papers, speeches, or instructions for almost any device you purchase today all have to be carefully thought out.
Those mellifluous words flowing from the mouths of politicians, talk show guests and tent revivalists almost always began life as crafted-by-the-critical-mind, writing.
In print journalism, specifically newspapers, the default pattern is the inverted pyramid. The most important facts come first followed by the rest of the facts in descending order of importance. If a reader doesn’t learn what the story is about in the first sentence or two, s/he might skip reading the story.
The simple way to describe the inverted pyramid is “getting to the point.” It is a very important writing technique that has been around forever, longer than journalism.
Getting to the point is something you can practice using your conscious critical mind until it becomes second nature. Then it will work whenever you write into the dark. You’ll be a second-level nonfiction writer.
Point taken, Bob. When you're right, you're right.
In most fiction, there are patterns readers expect as well. Most fiction writers do not trust that they know those patterns even though they have been absorbing them subconsciously for decades from novels, stories, television, and movies.
Writing anything that isn't dry as dead leaves comes down to a choice: force it, or Just Write. For example, I carefully think out my grocery list. If I had to do that with my fiction or nonfiction, I wouldn't. I'd find something enjoyable to do instead.
That said, I knew I should have left that paragraph in the post in which I wrote that technical writing (manuals, etc.) is an exception. Though I did kind of cover that when I wrote "It’s only when we attach a certain (and unnecessary) “importance” to a fictional story (or to anything else) that we begin to doubt ourselves and allow the critical mind in to intervene to “correct” anything."
I don't do "doubt driven" anything, much less writing, so naturally I recommend against it. That's why I'm always trying to get writers to believe in themselves.
Of course, I do not write for a newspaper, but I'm familiar with the inverted pyramid. I believe it was devised primarily so that when an editor cut part of an article owing to last second space constraints, he would cut from the end up so he wouldn't lose any of the more important information.
In my fiction, I simply report factually what I actually see happen in the characters' world and their reaction to that as the story unfolds.
In my nonfiction, I report factually what works, which is what the writer can continue doing day after day after day without becoming dissuaded and disheartened and quitting.
In fiction, conscious-mind outlining, revising, rewriting, etc. certainly work for some. But most would-be fiction writers, having written a thorough outline, are bored because they already know the whole story. They've already been entertained by it, so why bother writing it all down? Again, back to the dry-as-dead-leaves analogy.
It is an interesting approach. I think it depends on what kind of non-fiction one writes. Yes, if we know the inns and outs of the topic, it can be written WITD, but what if we don't? What if we want to write non-fiction to learn something? I think we shouldn't get discouraged: from school we already know ton of things, and for example we know where to start study a topic. But there is a little landmine. Non-fiction also can be a wide area...
I understand, and I never do 'in-depth' research. I'm talking about spot research, where I pop online for a few seconds or a few minutes to double-check the spelling of a word or term or specifications for a weapon or whatever. Then I go back to continue writing. I do that with both nonfiction and fiction.
Yes, you might have to do some spot research when writing nonfiction, but if your fiction is to be accurate, you have to do some spot research on that too. :-)
Writing into the dark is sometimes inappropriate because in some forms of non fiction, there is a pattern that readers expect.
Some forms of writing are highly structured. Things like obituaries, scientific papers, college term papers, speeches, or instructions for almost any device you purchase today all have to be carefully thought out.
Those mellifluous words flowing from the mouths of politicians, talk show guests and tent revivalists almost always began life as crafted-by-the-critical-mind, writing.
In print journalism, specifically newspapers, the default pattern is the inverted pyramid. The most important facts come first followed by the rest of the facts in descending order of importance. If a reader doesn’t learn what the story is about in the first sentence or two, s/he might skip reading the story.
The simple way to describe the inverted pyramid is “getting to the point.” It is a very important writing technique that has been around forever, longer than journalism.
Getting to the point is something you can practice using your conscious critical mind until it becomes second nature. Then it will work whenever you write into the dark. You’ll be a second-level nonfiction writer.
Point taken, Bob. When you're right, you're right.
In most fiction, there are patterns readers expect as well. Most fiction writers do not trust that they know those patterns even though they have been absorbing them subconsciously for decades from novels, stories, television, and movies.
Writing anything that isn't dry as dead leaves comes down to a choice: force it, or Just Write. For example, I carefully think out my grocery list. If I had to do that with my fiction or nonfiction, I wouldn't. I'd find something enjoyable to do instead.
That said, I knew I should have left that paragraph in the post in which I wrote that technical writing (manuals, etc.) is an exception. Though I did kind of cover that when I wrote "It’s only when we attach a certain (and unnecessary) “importance” to a fictional story (or to anything else) that we begin to doubt ourselves and allow the critical mind in to intervene to “correct” anything."
I don't do "doubt driven" anything, much less writing, so naturally I recommend against it. That's why I'm always trying to get writers to believe in themselves.
Of course, I do not write for a newspaper, but I'm familiar with the inverted pyramid. I believe it was devised primarily so that when an editor cut part of an article owing to last second space constraints, he would cut from the end up so he wouldn't lose any of the more important information.
In my fiction, I simply report factually what I actually see happen in the characters' world and their reaction to that as the story unfolds.
In my nonfiction, I report factually what works, which is what the writer can continue doing day after day after day without becoming dissuaded and disheartened and quitting.
In fiction, conscious-mind outlining, revising, rewriting, etc. certainly work for some. But most would-be fiction writers, having written a thorough outline, are bored because they already know the whole story. They've already been entertained by it, so why bother writing it all down? Again, back to the dry-as-dead-leaves analogy.
Thanks for leaving a comment.
It is an interesting approach. I think it depends on what kind of non-fiction one writes. Yes, if we know the inns and outs of the topic, it can be written WITD, but what if we don't? What if we want to write non-fiction to learn something? I think we shouldn't get discouraged: from school we already know ton of things, and for example we know where to start study a topic. But there is a little landmine. Non-fiction also can be a wide area...
I understand, and I never do 'in-depth' research. I'm talking about spot research, where I pop online for a few seconds or a few minutes to double-check the spelling of a word or term or specifications for a weapon or whatever. Then I go back to continue writing. I do that with both nonfiction and fiction.
Yes, you might have to do some spot research when writing nonfiction, but if your fiction is to be accurate, you have to do some spot research on that too. :-)
True. Research is difficult for me, but sometimes I just can't avoid it.