• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Is the 'just write' advice ALWAYS correct?

I haven't done the research, so this is conjecture: "unnatural" is rooted in more of a moral observation or declaration, than a literal* or observable one. The concept of Sin disrupting the purity of the physical world (the whole of nature) and spiritual world leads to assessments of "unnatural behavior". The most obvious references comes from moral codes in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. Lots of important moral observations and rulings on what should and should not be acceptable "natural" behaviors. Which informed a lot of cultures for a very long time. I won't go down that rabbithole per forum guidelines.

Now, fastforward. If I saw an object be let go of by a person, and it FELL UPWARDS at high speeds instead of down, without the ability to run tons of scientific equipment I would probably think "that was an unnatural phenomena", or 'this was not by way of natural forces', like gravity or magnetism.

When you get into advanced chemistry and other sciences, there are some compounds that, very likely, meet the requirements of "unnatural". Substances, chemicals, organisms, energy experiments, can be created in laboratories that, very likely, would never exist in nature without human invention or recombination. Call me skeptical, but I do not believe that future evolution of life on earth would explain how the bioluminous genes of deep sea jellyfish would EVER make their way into the genome of trees on any scale of time. And yet, it exists. In a laboratory.

That is unnatural, but humans invented it, and we are derived from the natural world.

So, I think the older roots in morality better explain such a... logically conflicting word.

Hmmm...I'm not entirely sure what your point is. I might have you completely wrong (and if so I apologise) but you seem to be conflating natural/unnatural human choices on the one hand with the properties of the chemical / physical world on the other.

I would suggest to you that nothing of which humans can conceive or do is unnatural. It might be immoral according to certain codes, but it is not unnatural. It couldn't exist if unnatural.

As for your example of the object falling upwards. That exact thing happens in my sci-fi novel coming out next year. There is a rational explanation for it.
 
Hmmm...I'm not entirely sure what your point is. I might have you completely wrong (and if so I apologise) but you seem to be conflating natural/unnatural human choices on the one hand with the properties of the chemical / physical world on the other.

I would suggest to you that nothing of which humans can conceive or do is unnatural. It might be immoral according to certain codes, but it is not unnatural. It couldn't exist if unnatural.

As for your example of the object falling upwards. That exact thing happens in my sci-fi novel coming out next year. There is a rational explanation for it.

I'm suggesting the application/ invention of the word "unnatural" has origins or roots in moral or religious code, and hung around in the early sciences. But, more (contemporary) or relatively recent scientific understanding renders the word as... odd. Contradictory.

And for the record, I share your misgivings about the overall logic-trap of the word "unnatural".

If I were observing an object falling upwards, I would at the very least have my scientific curiousity peaked. But, I live in the age of science. Rewind even 250 years ago, and the word 'unnatural' would probably be the go-to phrase.
 

Danskin

Scribe
Re-reading the original post, the topic is mainly about how people improve.

There is the famous 10.000 hour rule (actually more a universal observation). Which is that pretty much all experts the world over need around 10.000 hours of deliberate practice to become an expert.

The key-concept is deliberate practice. If just doing something was good enough then almost everyone would be a world expert. Everyone would run like Usain Bolt, could become a world renown musical instrument player and master story teller. But not every time you run or write counts towards those 10.000 hours. You need to consider what you're doing right and wrong, you need to focus on improving your craft, you need feedback. So in effect, you should not "just write", to improve you need to write deliberately.

The other side is the learning curve of it all. When you're just starting out pretty much any practice you get will help you improve. When I picked up the guitar last summer, just playing some chords and simple tunes was enough to improve. But at some point you reach a plateau, where you know everything there is to know if you're just doing it on your own. And at that point you need to change your approach to continue improving. This can be following a course, getting active feedback, changing your way of working, that sort of thing.

This is why professional sports players, even the best of the best, still have a coach. Roger Federer needs that feedback just as much as someone starting out to keep improving (or keep up his level).

Great point about deliberate practice. It is not just the time, but the way it's structured. Deliberate practice is intentional, and it involves getting rapid feedback and pushing yourself out of your comfort zone. Not all writing will fit that, but it times (especially when it feels hard) it will.

I do of course think it's important to push on and gain high word counts rather than spending time procrastinating. But there are occasions that you really would be better to stop and think rather than push on if you would end up just deleting it all.

I also think there is an ongoing "write-reflect-read other things-write some more" process. We get so much from reading, but it's only by writing and trying to achieve the same effects that we realise what other writers were doing so successfully (or unsuccessfully in some cases).
 
Top