The Competitive Writer
February 11, 2000
5:43 a.m.
Competition. Hummmm... Somewhere else, Amy Casil, began a discussion in regard to writing comeptitively. She got me to thinking, and I responded. In the end, I thought this was an interesting topic so I went back and added a few bits and whatnot and figured I would post it here. Let me know what you think.   I don't like the idea of the writing world being a competition. But, of course, it is--at least it is on some very basic level. But writers are a very community oriented group--much more, say, than engineers and managers in a corporate environment. You wanna talk about competition ... writers are much more likely to help each other than compete directly. But I don't this this was the connotation of "competitive" Amy was using. Lately, new writers have gotten "competitive" with this Dare thing. I think it's too easy to say that writing competitively means trying to write quickly. Just as I think it's also wrong to say that fast writing is necessarily bad writing. (a portion of Amy's original post focused on writing fast as being what some people were using as their competition). The speed you write at has nothing to do with being a competitive writer. I think competitive writers are competitive because they keep their eye on the target, and do what they need to to get their writing to that level. This, of course, is different for every writer--and I for most of us it's different for every story. Do I write fast? Sure, I do. But I also write slow. "The Disappearance of Josie Andrew" took me six hours to write its first draft and probably about as long in the modifications I made. "Stealing the Sun" took me five in first draft, and maybe ten more in modifications. I'm proud of both of those. "Out of the Blue" took 3 months of very intensive writing, though. "The Taranth Stone" (a sequel to "Stealing the Sun") took four months or more--as well as something like 17 drafts. I'm awfully proud of both of those, too. So, if writing speed doesn't make a writer "competitive," what does? The difference in the stories I discussed before was the level of understanding I had of what I was trying to do when I first sat down. I received the whole of the first two stories within a half hour of starting. The other two I had to dig out: those were like being on an archaeological dig, the story being slowly uncovered with each subsequent draft. I think competitive writers understand Story deep into their bones. I think they understand the "formula" so well that it comes to their subconscious rescue when they need it to. And I think competitive writers know what they're trying to say with a story. No ... not every story needs to be really deep or anything (he said, feeling pressure building -- inside joke there, folks). But in the end, there should be a payoff for the reader. I think competitive writers know that. To argue otherwise is really ... well ... okay, it's juvenile. When you're new, you write fast if it helps you learn something. Like I said in the Dare article, I wrote a novel in five years and learned nothing about being a writer. I wrote another in a month and learned a lot about Story. don't write fast to be competitive. Don't write fast to just "Get it Done." Write fast to learn. Or better, write fast because you have such an incredibly vivid picture of what you're trying to create, that you can't possibly write more slowly. That, I think, is what makes a writer competitive--the ability to envision what it is that he or she is trying to create. If you can envision it, then it's a matter of talent and craft. The craft you learn. The talent is already there. The ability to envision, though, is the magic. There's more, of course. I think competitive writers have an inate talent. Don't worry, though. I think we all have this talent--competitive writers find ways to access this without being either afraid or embarrassed of it. I think competitive writers are eventually grammatically fair or better. Note the word "eventually" in there. I think competitive writers enjoy most of the elements of the craft and the art. Competitive writers know how to rewrite. Competitive writers learn. Competitive writers pay attention to detail--detail is where the magic of the craft comes out ... which details are important and which are just there to make the author feel writerly? Competitive writers learn this. Competitive writers have music in their prose--even if that music is at a pitch inaudible to the human ear. But mostly, I think, competitive writers know what they're trying to say with a story by the time they're done with it--and they can judge competently whether they've done that. And in the end, competitive writers know they're competitive because they begin to sell work consistently. It's really that simple, you know? Note, most, if not all, of this stuff is stuff you can learn. Yes, some is mindset--but you can change your mindset. A writer is in control of his or her mindset. Reaction is a learned response. So, later today when you sit down at your terminal, ask yourself what you're trying to achieve today. Envision it. Make it something you can do, of course--inprovement comes a step at a time. Take a deep breath ... ... and wade in.  So, how do I format a manuscript, huh? Daily Persistence is © Ron Collins |
|
BACK TO 
|