The first draft of anything is sh**

The problem is "The first draft of anything is . . ." is to vague.

Is it the, grammar, dialogue, plot, characters, world building. . .?

If I look at something that I write and think it is a pile of doo, then I delete it. Why would I keep it and work on it? Doesn't matter what you do with crap, it is still crap.

To me the statement is to catch attention, or create conflict, or feed someones narcissism.

 

Considering that I ended up deleting about a third of 'Labyrinth', rewriting the remainder, and doubling that remainder in size...I probably would have been justified in just calling it quits with that tale.

In the end, I decided that the concept, the 'world', and the character interaction made the tale worth salvaging. Those elements were unique enough, and powerful enough to overide all the plot meandering.

 

Perhaps there are writers out there that can bang out an awesome first draft. Not me. I have found it to be rather freeing to just let the juices and words flow, with the ideas driving the story taking priority on paper. I can clean it up later and make it sound pretty then.

 

Scalzi talked about his writing process for a book a while back. He wrote his draft in something like nine or ten weeks. He then spent a morning scanning it for typos, to help his editor. Then he mailed it out. He stated that he expected perhaps a few dozen words to have changed before it went to print.

Dean Wesley Smith is rather famous for his methods of writing; with over a hundred trad pub novels to his credit, he doesn't do drafts. He writes, and sends the work out. Or, now that he is self publishing, he writes, then has someone proof it, then publishes.


My own method is to write the darned book, then have an editor go over it. I make revisions based on the edit, have it checked for typos and errors, and publish. If I was sending a work to a traditional publisher, I would write a draft, go over it once myself for problems, and send it out.

SOME writers produce first drafts which are "rough" and need multiple revisions. Nothing wrong with that if you prefer the method.
I prefer producing first drafts which are about 95-98% ready to go to print.

 

Mark Lawrence has said that he only does one draft. To be precise::

Full blogpost here: Mark Lawrence: Rules to Write by

Personally, I can't imagine revising and revising, and having umpteen draft versions. Don't you guys get bored reworking the same piece over and over? Doesn't it lose a bit of the just-written sparkle?

 

There's a certain joy in taking something that you consider to be an ugly lump of coal and turning it into something much closer to a diamond.

The people who can send off barely polished rough draft or "tell if version 2 or 3 is better than version 1" are the ones who don't appreciate the differences small changes can make. I don't think there's anything wrong with that for them; it's just not my POV.

Each time through, I take the worst parts of my draft and make them better. Maybe I tighten a sentence or heighten tension or get more inside the character's head or express emotion better or smooth out a rough patch. To me, the summation of these small changes greatly enhance the finished product.

 

I must admit I've stopped reading other authors' self-rules and experiences. I've got my own and they do for me.

For example, I revise constantly. It helps me stay in the flow, it helps me develop the story, so for me it works. I like revising. I like seeing the story develop and get better.
Some of my books have twelve or more major versions. That's the way I work. Someone else will do it different. It's the result that counts.

And no, constant revising doesn't slow me down. I did 13k. in 6 days, not a bad result to my mind.

 

I love Hemingway; he probably has had the most profound influence on writing style. I take the quote as more of bit of inspiration, although perhaps it reflects method. It seems to say to me that one can write a first draft without fear of it being awful, because it is inevitably going to need improvement. This creates an atmosphere of honesty without censors. To me it says: "Write uninhibitedly."

Hemingway's stories, for me, are at the heights of the exploration of human emotions in literature. He also helped shape modern literature. I take it that he didn't always achieve the effect he was going for in his first draft, so editing was necessary to cull up the poignant emotions he is famous for. As for his intensive editing process, I think he achieved some wonderful works by it. I can't assume the quality of them before editing, but it would seem they benefited from the process.

I can imagine that one could master grammar and storytelling to the point that they would not need to edit. I'm sure it takes a certain mind or intelligence to do that, but I think that there's also a reason that Hemingway sticks out from the crowd as i doubt most people who publish first drafts do (not that there aren't exceptions). I think that reason is that he strove for perfection and wasn't merely satisfied with something "as is." Editing, if preformed correctly, ultimately improves the quality of a work of writing. It is also a skill as much as writing is a skill and must be painstakingly developed.

Personally, I like to edit my writing. I find that there is always room for improvement in my own work, but I'm no professional writer either. I think that if I were to write something perfect the first time around, I would find that out in an attempt to edit. Until I do that, I'd have to agree with the quote. The "s" word may be a little harsh though, but it makes for a better quote hehe

 

This may have already come up in this thread...

I think the value/quality of a 'first draft' very much depends on when you write it. Do you sit down at the keyboard the moment you have a fresh idea? Or do you mull it over in your head for days before you even begin to commit it to paper/electrons?

I used to have a very 'bad' reputation in school regarding essays and similar homework. I would start writing it at the last possible moment... and yet achieve good grades. How? Simple: just because I wasn't actively writing and revising... didn't mean I wasn't actively *thinking* about the topic and laying it out in my head. I was one of those kids who always had a narration / commentary going on in their heads (and often mumbled them too). So when I then did sit down to write the essay, I only had to physically write it, it was all ready to go anyway.

Sometimes, first drafts can be like that. And sometimes, first drafts are more like rough sketches, tryouts.

 

^^ Oh for sure, I have scenes marinating in my head for days before I write them. I write daily, so I have the scenes noted down before I get to them. I like writing the first draft through without stopping for revision...although every now and then something will catch me that says "Stop for a minute, this needs to change now because it doesn't make sense with the rest of the flow."

I fix it and move on. Who knows what my method will be like later on in life, but for now its one draft, one revision, I'm done, move on to the next project. Otherwise, I'll get anal retentive and drive myself crazy. Different strokes is all. I'm with Pauline in that revising over and over gets rather boring after a while. I lose the mojo for the story and the essence of what it was to begin with. Revising over and over isn't for me, that's all I know.