Old school writing... good idea?

[Maxinquaye]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2009/dec/01/typewriters-fine-writing

When I started writing back in the early 1980s this was what i wrote on:

http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/andee/web/facit_t2_standard.jpg

I can both miss it, and thank the deities that the era of it is over. Try to discover that the third of chapter two is totally screwed when writing on that thing. :)

But the article is right also, you weren't so quick to slap down "new ideas" then, and maybe that meant better writing discipline.

Or maybe I'm just a luddite. :)

What do you think? Still got the typewriter on your desk, or do you knock out your novels on only the latest macbook?

[ChaosTitan]

I think it's an interesting article with some good points made by established authors.

However, we're in a digital age, and many agents and publishers are moving toward doing everything electronically (submissions, copy edits, galleys, all of it). I don't care if you write the first draft in crayon on purple construction paper, but eventually you're going to have to transcribe it to a computer.

[DamaNegra]

The arguments made about the quality of a piece based on speed are really interesting. Here's a cool experiment: write a scene on your computer. Now try and write the same scene on a piece of paper.You'll notice a big difference in quality.

It's true that nowadays, any person with a computer can sit down and bang out a whole novel (NaNo, anyone?) because the effort is a fraction of what it used to take to write a novel. It's no longer a long, tiring endeavor, but something you do on your spare time between checking emails. So yeah, I guess quality has taken a toll. I don't really know.

On the other hand, writing on the computer offers a new set of possibilities for the serious writer. Now you can play around with scenes and experiment with your novel in ways that didn't use to be possible (or at least not practical). Also, sharing of the written word has become much easier, making proofreading and beta-ing much easier than it used to be.

As with everything, I think we're going to lose some things, but gain others, so it's not a total lose-lose or win-win situation. We'll have to see.

[Sarah W]

I'm with ChaosTitan--

I created my first stories on an ancient manual typewriter my dad let me use--the keys were so stiff I had to type with my thumbs. It smelled like inked ribbon and machine oil, and my memory still sends me an acrid whiff now and then when I start a new project.

Then I graduated to dad's old Daisy-ball electric model with white keys . . . the sound of it was exciting--it declared to everyone in the house that I was writing. And it had a built in correction tape . . .

I think on both fondly, and wonder if Dad still has them around somewhere . . . I think about trying a first draft on one or the other, just for the smell or the sound. I might also have been a little more careful with my words back then, planned a little more, been a little more decisive--if only to spare my thumbs . . .

But would I exchange either for my Eee Netbook and MS Office?

Not a chance.

[Bubastes]

Here's a cool experiment: write a scene on your computer. Now try and write the same scene on a piece of paper.You'll notice a big difference in quality.

In my experience, writing on paper tends to make my story worse, not better. I think it's because slowing down gives me time to be more self-conscious of what I'm writing. As a result, the stuff I handwrite sounds like it's trying too hard to sound "writerly." When I type, I'm more likely to get out of the story's way. YMMV, of course.

[cwfgal]

I remember when cut and paste was quite literally cutting chunks of text out of pages with scissors and taping them where I wanted to move them to. Can't say I miss that. Or having to retype an entire page because I made one too many typing/spelling/grammar errors.

I think I'm less rigidly committed to an original idea and more willing to explore different avenues in my stories with word processing because it's so much easier to edit now. And I believe that has strenghtened my work. It has definitely made writing a piece quicker.

But I also think it has made it too easy for some to vomit out a bunch of words and call it writing. The proliferation of vanity pubs along with PCs and word processing isn't a coincidence.

Beth

[Libbie]

I agree with Bubastes. I notice a big difference in quality between computer and paper, but not the kind of difference I like! I get too intellectual when I have the time to scrawl it out, and I think my particular style of writing works better when I'm emotional rather than all Spock-like.

[NeuroFizz]

[The following is not directed at the OP, but at the generic "you"]

The answer to problems with self-discipline is not to be found in any kind of technology. The answer is to know when to grab hold of your ears and pull your head out of your a$$. We all have to do it from time to time. In other words, stop making excuses. Stop looking for a magic pill, a magic elixir, a magic time of day, or a magic machine to make it easier to just sit down and work through the tough spots of writing. Stop treating your "muse" as a real person who hates you--that's the worst kind of excuse-making, and it's not the least bit cute. Stop tidying up your writing space. Just grab your ears...the fresh air alone should help.

[DamaNegra]

In my experience, writing on paper tends to make my story worse, not better. I think it's because slowing down gives me time to be more self-conscious of what I'm writing. As a result, the stuff I handwrite sounds like it's trying too hard to sound "writerly." When I type, I'm more likely to get out of the story's way. YMMV, of course.

Huh, that's strange. I always find my writing to be much better when I handwrite (when I use a typewriter, however....). But I guess your mileage my vary. I tend to be extremely self-conscious even when writing on the computer, but I definitely see an improvement in my writing when I do it by hand. Not that I ever do, because it's just too tiring and I still feel the urge to do tiny edits as I go.

The answer to problems with self-discipline is not to be found in any kind of technology. The answer is to know when to grab hold of your ears and pull your head out of your a$$. We all have to do it from time to time. In other words, stop making excuses. Stop looking for a magic pill, a magic elixir, a magic time of day, or a magic machine to make it easier to just sit down and work through the tough spots of writing. Stop treating your "muse" as a real person who hates you--that's the worst kind of excuse-making, and it's not the least bit cute. Stop tidying up your writing space. Just grab your ears...the fresh air alone should help.

Couldn't have said it better. Especially the "muse" part. I'm a NaNo participant every year, and every year I'm driven mad about "muse" and "inner editor" discussions, in which people give them names, personalities, apperances... come on, people, how far are you willing to go to procrastinate? Just get it done! Yes it's that hard, but that's the point. I finally learned the lesson this year and realized that oh my god I can finish a novel in a month! All it took was for me to sit down and actually write. Who would've known?

[Ryan David Jahn]

I'm not sure I buy the idea that the machine one uses has -- or has to have, anyway -- much effect on the quality of the final work.

You know, many pulp writers put out three or four books a year to keep the money coming in. On a typewriter, that would mean having to forgo rewrites. Now, even writers who bang out several books a year can give a book a pass or two.

For myself, I started writing longhand, graduated to a typewriter when my parents decided to buy me one for my twelfth birthday (a used Remington Letter-Riter De Luxe), and moved on to a computer when I got a job and could afford one four years after that. And how I write hasn't much changed. I still retype the entire manuscript twice. The only thing now is, I also continue making changes for six or seven passes -- reading through, finding the right words and the right rhythm for the words (or trying), making sure there aren't any inconsistencies, and so on.

So I do more work on a manuscript than I did when I wrote on a typewriter, when it was just too much effort to do anything beyond three solid drafts. I still do them, plus six or seven more.

I know a lot of folks in the same boat.

In the end, I think quality always comes down to the writer. A machine is just a tool. And I think fetishizing tools is probably a mistake.

[Mara]

A writer website crticized an article about techniques used by "popular" authors, some of which nobody had actually heard of. The article implied that these techniques would help other writers.

One writer dressed up as his characters and rehearsed their dialogue in front of a mirror.

Another dictated everything into a tape recorder and sent it off to be typed up by someone else.

I think this "typewriters will help your writing" implication here is equally silly. Anyone who uses typewriters is probably doing it because they were already comfortable with them, and some of them are probably just not very good with computers.

The "accidentally deleting seven chapters by pushing a button" comment is a good example. Anyone who writes on a computer should know to back up their work constantly. That would be like me claiming that you can "accidentally destroy seven chapters of typewritten stuff by spilling some gasoline and deciding to light a match for some reason."

EDIT: Also, rereading it, his comments about accidentally sending something into cyberspace sound even more n00bish, so he's probably just saying he's afraid of computers. How do you accidentally upload something to the internet? It takes some work. And you'd still have a copy on your computer, so it's not "never to be seen again." Or maybe he thinks cyberspace is where deleted documents go. And the odds of someone hacking his computer are probably less than the odds of someone breaking into his house and stealing his purely-paper manuscript. Nitpicking, I know, but even a casual computer user would automatically know better than to talk like this, even if they weren't being careful to be completely accurate. This guy sounds like a total novice.

Some people might benefit from typing slower, but that's entirely possible on a computer as well. And I think most people benefit from going ahead and getting everything written down, not trying to get it "perfect" the first time. (And I speak as someone who probably writes as sluggishly as any typewriter user, most of the time, and tries too hard to get it right the first time.)

[Lady Ice]

I'm not sure which is better; I like starting with pen and notebook because it feels more personal- it's your thoughts in your handwriting. You wouldn't type your diary, would you? And you don't have to call up any document; you can just throw your book and a pen/pencil into your bag and scribble all over the notebook.

But at some point you actually have to be practical and it is easier to keep track of a novel on a computer.

[Lyra Jean]

I'm currently writing my novel out by hand. It works for me because I get distracted easily by things on the internet and writing it by hand makes it feel like it's more of a fun project rather than work.

I'm not published yet. So I don't have a deadline. This method is working for me so far I have 6250 words. I'm writing about 1000 word an evening before I go to bed.

So I still think it comes down to stop making excuses to get out of writing, find what works for you, and do it. If a person spends all their time making excuses to not write then perhaps they should find something else to do. There was a whole year where I didn't write because I was basically too busy doing other things and what little time I had for myself I was to exhausted to think. So I just stopped writing for a spell. It's okay to not write.

[Shadow_Ferret]

You don't revise as much, you just think more, because you know you're going to have to retype the entire fucking thing.
Horse shit. I was weaned on a typewriter. Spent half my writer's life on one. Maybe this shit is just lazy, but I revised ALL the time. I'd type it. Proof it. Red mark it. Retype it. Proof it. Red mark it. Retype it. Often REWRITING whole new passages as I was retyping.

No. I typed and typed and typed until the story was perfect. Having to type didn't stop me from revising. It was just something you did.

ETA: Now that I think about it, I wrote MORE new ideas on a typewriter, ideas just seemed to flow during the retyping process. Something that DOESN'T happen on a computer because I DON'T retype. So I think I the computer actually STIFLES creativity because once a scene is written and saved, it almost becomes permanent.

[Maxinquaye]

So I still think it comes down to stop making excuses to get out of writing, find what works for you, and do it. If a person spends all their time making excuses to not write then perhaps they should find something else to do.

Que?

*confused*

*reads my post*

Que?

I write 4-6 hours a day, five days a week, 46-48 weeks of the year. Then I go to the cooler and gossip a bit. That's all.

:)

[DeadlyAccurate]

I write better first drafts on paper than on the computer. I wrote 1500 words of a short story just today. (Music on, too). Forces me to muffle my inner editor (and keeps me from surfing the Internet). But I'd never want to write without a computer either.

[Bubastes]

A machine is just a tool. And I think fetishizing tools is probably a mistake.

Agreed. Still, I love my Alphasmart Neo so much that I want to marry it. Ever since I got it last year, I've been much more productive. So if I fetishize it, it's for a good reason. ;)

[Phaeal]

I bow down to worship the mighty word processer. I've written with pencil, with pen, on manual typewriters, on electric typewriters, but the computer frees me -- I can make changes so easily, so seamlessly, that I don't mind taking chances and making messes. Plus instant access to a world of knowledge? Hell yeah!

[PeterL]

In a class on writing that I took a few years ago, we did an experiment to determine which technology produced better writing. Computer was best. Typewriter and pen scored worse and were about equal. The apparent reason is that one can change things more readily on a computer, so it was easy to add or change a phrase. I think it was also a matter of who was accustomed to what. If no one had used a computer before, then I expect that the writing on a computer would have been worse. Just as Phael wrote.

[Lady Ice]

In a class on writing that I took a few years ago, we did an experiment to determine which technology produced better writing. Computer was best. Typewriter and pen scored worse and were about equal. The apparent reason is that one can change things more readily on a computer, so it was easy to add or change a phrase. I think it was also a matter of who was accustomed to what. If no one had used a computer before, then I expect that the writing on a computer would have been worse. Just as Phael wrote.

Well if you don't bother to change anything you've written by hand, then of course it'll be worse.

[Clair Dickson]

In the end, I think quality always comes down to the writer. A machine is just a tool. And I think fetishizing tools is probably a mistake.

This. It amuses me how writers, being such creative people already, find so many creative excuses for why they write more/less, better/worse, etc.

Even when I hand-wrote everything before putting into the computer, I made many changes to words, phrases and sentences. The difference now is that I can actually read it when I do these changes on a computer-- as opposed to the scribbles and squeezed-in and arrowed writing by hand.

I think the fact that people are oblivious to any downfalls as a writer is similar to whatever it is that makes people try out for American Idol when they are not good singers... it's not the medium so much as it's something else. I'm not sure what. (well, I have some rants on the matter ;-)

[PeterL]

Well if you don't bother to change anything you've written by hand, then of course it'll be worse.


Exactly, aand by hand changes are slower and messier.

[Shadow_Ferret]

In a class on writing that I took a few years ago, we did an experiment to determine which technology produced better writing. Computer was best. Typewriter and pen scored worse and were about equal. The apparent reason is that one can change things more readily on a computer, so it was easy to add or change a phrase. I think it was also a matter of who was accustomed to what. If no one had used a computer before, then I expect that the writing on a computer would have been worse. Just as Phael wrote.

I remember when I went to college and they FORCED us to write on these word processor things. I rebelled, angrily, loudly, complaining that it wasn't writing and made some comparison to food processors grinding up whatever you threw in (can't remember my exact argument now). Since it was mandatory, I did it on their computers, but never printed it, or even cared if the document was saved on the disk. As soon as I got home I'd type it all out on my typewriter.

[Lyra Jean]

Que?

*confused*

*reads my post*

Que?

I write 4-6 hours a day, five days a week, 46-48 weeks of the year. Then I go to the cooler and gossip a bit. That's all.

:)

Oh um sorry that was a generic you. It wasn't really directed at anyone. I have people come to me and whine, "writing's hard" and all. Sorry if you thought it was against you it was just a general you.

[MGraybosch]

What do you think? Still got the typewriter on your desk, or do you knock out your novels on only the latest macbook?

I don't use a typewriter for the same reason I don't do my programming on punch cards -- there are better tools available.

[Maxinquaye]

I don't use a typewriter for the same reason I don't do my programming on punch cards -- there are better tools available.

But you're willing to use a broadsword instead of an M-1 Garand? :)

[Shadow_Ferret]

And I think he'd be hard pressed to find a punch card reader anyway.

[Maxinquaye]

I have a friend that swears by PDP-10s

[MGraybosch]

But you're willing to use a broadsword instead of an M-1 Garand? :)

If there are too many zombies and not enough ammo, the sword would be handy.

[Izz]

This. It amuses me how writers, being such creative people already, find so many creative excuses for why they write more/less, better/worse, etc.I reckon it's superstition. You get sporstpeople who superstitiously go through exactly the same routine before an event (i know of one cricket player whose team played a practical joke on him and taped his bat to the ceiling before he went out. He scored a century and then decided to tape his bat to the ceiling before every innings--extreme example, yes) because that routine gives them confidence.

I think it's the same with writers (and with anybody, really). Always looking for that elixir and lucky charm.

[dempsey]

I'll bet when the typewriter became popular, someone wrote the exact same article about fountain pens. And when fountain pens came about, the same article about the quill.

I'll give that there's a degree to which the medium aids the process. For instance, I focus better when I write by hand, and best when I get to use one of these (http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/827659/BIC-Mechanical-Pencils-0-5-mm/). But you could give me a Chinese calligraphy brush and thermal paper and I'd still get the damn job done.

[Linda Adams]

In my experience, writing on paper tends to make my story worse, not better. I think it's because slowing down gives me time to be more self-conscious of what I'm writing. As a result, the stuff I handwrite sounds like it's trying too hard to sound "writerly." When I type, I'm more likely to get out of the story's way. YMMV, of course.

Me, too, though it's not too writerly for me--just isn't as good.

[K.L. Townsend]

I guess it's a matter of finding what tool suits you best?

A typewriter would frustrate me and has done so in the past, but I jump between handwritten and computer depending on my frame of mind and my mood. Whatever tool I can use for the day, I will :)

[kuwisdelu]

But the article is right also, you weren't so quick to slap down "new ideas" then, and maybe that meant better writing discipline.

Hmm. I'm sometimes tempted to get a typewriter for just the opposite reason.

Knowing that I'll pretty much absolutely have to edit it anyway, a typewriter would encourage me to just type my ideas and move on.

When I can go back and edit everything, I fiddle forever. Not having that ability might spur me to be more spontaneous.

[DustyBooks]

I like longhand most of the time--with fountain pens or multicolored gel pens depending on my mood--because it's hard to beat a small notebook for portability and ruggedness. I like to write on the bus and train (ten-minute snatches), in the back of the van on road trips, and in the kitchen while I bake, where a laptop is definitely a bad idea. Camping trips are also some of my most productive writing times and with no electricity for a week, it'll be longhand!

When I'm really stuck, I'll use a typewriter or dip pen just for the novelty of it. Or that nifty write-on-the-screen feature that came with Word 2003. Sometimes writing backwards can have the same effect. What I CANNOT use to write fiction, is a pencil. When I'm studying or in class, if I'm not taking notes on my laptop I'm taking them with a pencil, but it doesn't flow like ink!

I stop every few pages (or days, or weeks, depending on busyness) to type everything up, and do a fair bit of editing in the process. When I'm writing longhand, I'll write myself notes in the margin on what I need to fix later, which I can never discipline myself to do on those rare occasions when I actually write on my laptop.

[Jamesaritchie]

but eventually you're going to have to transcribe it to a computer.

Not really. Anything written on a typewriter can be quickly and easily scanned directly into MS Word as a Word DOC. I scan my own short stories and articles, but a local print shop does anyting too long for me to handle, and they don't charge much at all.

[Jamesaritchie]

I like longhand most of the time--with fountain pens or multicolored gel pens depending on my mood--because it's hard to beat a small notebook for portability and ruggedness. I like to write on the bus and train (ten-minute snatches), in the back of the van on road trips, and in the kitchen while I bake, where a laptop is definitely a bad idea. Camping trips are also some of my most productive writing times and with no electricity for a week, it'll be longhand!

When I'm really stuck, I'll use a typewriter or dip pen just for the novelty of it. Or that nifty write-on-the-screen feature that came with Word 2003. Sometimes writing backwards can have the same effect. What I CANNOT use to write fiction, is a pencil. When I'm studying or in class, if I'm not taking notes on my laptop I'm taking them with a pencil, but it doesn't flow like ink!

I stop every few pages (or days, or weeks, depending on busyness) to type everything up, and do a fair bit of editing in the process. When I'm writing longhand, I'll write myself notes in the margin on what I need to fix later, which I can never discipline myself to do on those rare occasions when I actually write on my laptop.


I'm the same way. Just about all my first drafts are in longhand, and I love using a dip pen. Now and then, I also break out my 1949 Royal and use a typewriter.

There is some pretty convincing evidence that writing in longhand automatically accesses the creative center of the brain, and that same evidence shows that a manual typewriter does a pretty fair job, as well.

But for whatever reason, maybe because of the automatic access to teh cretaive center of the brain, or maybe just becaus eit's slower, I know I write better in longhand fiction and essays in longhand than I do on a computer.

[John61480]

When I write longhand with a pencil, it looks amazingly different than when I type something up. It's almost as if someone else was writing my story for me. Weird. I might still try it for fun, but I do know, from when I last tried it, that 1st person POV writing fared much better than 3rd. But in the end, I don't like any of my writing. Yet. Anyway, I was going to commit to paper and pencil this year, but the paper cost and the cumbersome paper piling up deterred me from doing it. I like cheap, most of the time anyway (I hope that's true). But the good thing about writing on paper was the way it felt compared to when I'd write on my laptop. I'd have the paper on the clipboard and sit in my chair with my legs propped on my bed and work away. Felt really great to not be so tied down.

It would take more experimentation, but for now I'm fine with a laptop computer in bed. Maybe one day I might try and get an alpha smart thingy, you know, those tiny little word processor things? I can just imagine how good and free I'd feel writing on that on my bed without having to have a 17 inch Macbook sit on my lap and getting blasted by all the light from the bright monitor. I feel like I'm watching TV for hours as I write. It's annoying. There are other reasons why I like the idea of the alpha smart thingy, like the batteries it takes makes me feel good about not being tied down to a wall outlet and the size makes it very portable enough for me to stick in my duffle bag. I'll feel like an adventurer when I get the alpha smart, or is it neo? I'll have to look into it again. Later when I have the extra cash, that'll be the day I'll begin making plans for a change. But printing from that little machine has me worried. I'm not sure how it'll work out. Until then, however . . .

[Shadow_Ferret]

For me, writing by hand is a last resort. That's because I simply can't keep up with the thoughts in my head and I'm forced to slow down, which causes the ideas to slam into each other like a traffic jam, forcing me to go in and start to separate them, bringing out the jaws of life, but invariably many are injured and several die.

So I have always prefered typing, either on a typewriter or a computer because I can usually keep up with my thoughts.Hmm. I'm sometimes tempted to get a typewriter for just the opposite reason.

Knowing that I'll pretty much absolutely have to edit it anyway, a typewriter would encourage me to just type my ideas and move on.

When I can go back and edit everything, I fiddle forever. Not having that ability might spur me to be more spontaneous.
Yes, I mentioned the same thing on the other page. I find that I don't just blindly retype my edited copy like a secretary, the act of retyping seems to spur my imagination even more and I was often surprised and pleased by the tangents my writing would take. I don't get that using a computer because I never retype anything any more.

So in a way, I've lost part of what used to be an important aspect of my writing process.

[Use Her Name]

My first writing machine was one of those 10 ton black Underwoods-- now in a scrap heap somewhere. I remember it fondly because my "childhood" stories were written on it, my letters, my school work. It was the family typewriter. I bougt a sleek fast electric typewrite with a little suit-case and wrote on that -- yes, in college. Next was the battle between which was better, the daisy wheel or the ball. To be able to change fonts was amazing. My first somewhat computerized typewriter had a small black screen with something of a spell checher in it. My first novel was written on a brother word processor. I went all the way up to my second year in college retyping the entire manuscript over again.

The idea that the first draft is not the final product is something that seems to startle young(er) people who have never written with a typewriter. I used to write my paper out and then actually take a pair of sizzors (cut) and scotch tape them together, tacking all sections of the story on the wall, like large scrolls. I actually still do this sometimes.

As a former typewiter user, that is the type of composition I really miss, and am trying to get back to .

I hate re-typing though, it is time consuming, but it really does keep you fom going astray.

[willietheshakes]

I don't use a typewriter for the same reason I don't do my programming on punch cards -- there are better tools available.

(nods in agreement)

Yup.

Fountain pens -- Sailors and Pelikans especially.

[Bubastes]

But printing from that little machine has me worried. I'm not sure how it'll work out. Until then, however . . .

Printing is not a problem because you can upload files from the Alphasmart device to your computer, then print from your computer. Super easy.

[Namatu]

If there are too many zombies and not enough ammo, the sword would be handy.Swords are infinitely useful.

I love the ease and flexibility of writing on computer, and it is my tool of first resort. When my momentum slows or my creative impetus grows stale, however, I switch to paper. Conversely from what some others have said, paper seems to free me, giving me permission to not be so concerned with every single aspect of a scene - because I know I'll be transferring it to computer and expanding on it then. So when I'm stuck, I go to paper. Now if I can only train myself to go to the same notebook each time.

[DamaNegra]

So I have always prefered typing, either on a typewriter or a computer because I can usually keep up with my thoughts.
Yes, I mentioned the same thing on the other page. I find that I don't just blindly retype my edited copy like a secretary, the act of retyping seems to spur my imagination even more and I was often surprised and pleased by the tangents my writing would take. I don't get that using a computer because I never retype anything any more.

Well, you still should. I write everything on the computer (or the Alphasmart, but the point is moot). For my second draft, I just look for typos, fix grammar, work around plotholes and maybe rewrite stuff that's just bad. For the third draft, I print everything out and retype it, word by word. This leads to a huge rewrite of entire parts of the story, and it is always better for it. Working on a computer is no excuse for not retyping a story, which IMHO, is one of the most helpful things you can do while editing and polishing a MS.

[xcomplex]

I was born in the digital age so I never used a type writer, but I have to say that I think writing by hand slows me down, and turns me off. I know the down of computer, is that you get distracted but, at the same time it's so much better!

[Lady Ice]

Swords are infinitely useful.

I love the ease and flexibility of writing on computer, and it is my tool of first resort. When my momentum slows or my creative impetus grows stale, however, I switch to paper. Conversely from what some others have said, paper seems to free me, giving me permission to not be so concerned with every single aspect of a scene - because I know I'll be transferring it to computer and expanding on it then. So when I'm stuck, I go to paper. Now if I can only train myself to go to the same notebook each time.

My stuff's always spread over about 10 different notebooks. I think writing on paper is less formal than doing it on a computer and so you are more creative. Also, when it's in type, you start to see it as a novel- something people are going to read, something which is going to be criticised, a product. At the latter stages that's vital but not at the beginning.

[Izz]

I prefer computer. Still can't keep up with the speed of the story in my head, but 80 words per minutes is better than the 20-30 i can write scribbling on a notepad. I also find paper too limiting. Have ever since i was a kid. That was one of my main writing laments before i got a PC.

That being said, i do write occasionally with pen and paper, if a PC isn't around. My writing is no tighter and often threads are missing that i only add in once i transfer to a computer, as well as a heap of stuff needing cut--that process makes the story a second draft, but no more so than an editing run through a story solely written on computer.

Different things for different people.

Hell, if the best way for someone to write a story is on autumn leaves, then go for it.

[DWSTXS]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2009/dec/01/typewriters-fine-writing

When I started writing back in the early 1980s this was what i wrote on:

http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/andee/web/facit_t2_standard.jpg

I can both miss it, and thank the deities that the era of it is over. Try to discover that the third of chapter two is totally screwed when writing on that thing. :)

But the article is right also, you weren't so quick to slap down "new ideas" then, and maybe that meant better writing discipline.

Or maybe I'm just a luddite. :)

What do you think? Still got the typewriter on your desk, or do you knock out your novels on only the latest macbook?

Where's the internet button on that thing? Does it have wi-fi?

[AnonymousWriter]

[The following is not directed at the OP, but at the generic "you"]

The answer to problems with self-discipline is not to be found in any kind of technology. The answer is to know when to grab hold of your ears and pull your head out of your a$$. We all have to do it from time to time. In other words, stop making excuses. Stop looking for a magic pill, a magic elixir, a magic time of day, or a magic machine to make it easier to just sit down and work through the tough spots of writing. Stop treating your "muse" as a real person who hates you--that's the worst kind of excuse-making, and it's not the least bit cute. Stop tidying up your writing space. Just grab your ears...the fresh air alone should help.

Amen. Just get it written.

[lucidzfl]

Que?

*confused*

*reads my post*

Que?

I write 4-6 hours a day, five days a week, 46-48 weeks of the year. Then I go to the cooler and gossip a bit. That's all.

:)

Holy crap, do you have a job?

[Maxinquaye]

I know. It's horrible. Someone actually HIRED me.

[lucidzfl]

I know. It's horrible. Someone actually HIRED me.

lol no I'm just amazed you can get 4-6 hours to yourself every day!

[Maxinquaye]

I was unclear. I don't write for myself at work. I write articles, edit stuff. Fiction is a quiet sin I engage in at home, away from public view.

[BeluvdLily]

Agreed. Still, I love my Alphasmart Neo so much that I want to marry it. Ever since I got it last year, I've been much more productive. So if I fetishize it, it's for a good reason. ;)

I totally agree about the Alphasmart. I only have a 3000 but there is just something about it I love. Plus the there is the portability, the never having to save and the fact that it's cute, fun and portable and the batteries last forever.

And while I think it's different for everyone, I do believe that the medium one uses to write does make a difference in the writing. I definitely do better writing by hand or even Alphasmart because it slows me down and I believe that it does help me connect better in some way.

I don't think any of it has to do with making excuses. It's all preference.

[kuwisdelu]

The idea that the first draft is not the final product is something that seems to startle young(er) people who have never written with a typewriter. I used to write my paper out and then actually take a pair of sizzors (cut) and scotch tape them together, tacking all sections of the story on the wall, like large scrolls. I actually still do this sometimes.

The digital age's effect on the idea of "drafts" is interesting.

I don't have any drafts. What draft is Wikipedia on?

With a typewriter, you type it, and what comes out can't be changed without actually, physically changing something.

On a computer, by the time I get to "the end," everything before that has probably been edited a hundred times already.

For longer documents, when I don't want to waste paper, I even "print" to pdf and mark that up instead of a physical copy.

[djf881]

Writing longhand or on a typewriter is a terrible idea.

First of all, your physical manuscript can be damaged or destroyed. By contrast, I can e-mail my manuscript to myself and create a remote copy of every single version of it stored in my gmail. If my computer and all my papers are destroyed, my book is preserved.

Revisions to a typewritten manuscript require retyping the entire book several times over. While some authors may find that doing this forces them to scrutinize every word, it's generally an inefficient use of your time.

Creating a manuscript exclusively in hard copy also makes it impossible to submit electronically to agents or editors, unless you retype it into a computer.

[Slushie]

http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/andee/web/facit_t2_standard.jpg



Is that what these "typewriters" looked like? sheesh. And I thought my 2005 version of OfficeXP was outdated.

I'll write on whatever works for my needs. Technological advancement is all good, just keep the books in paper.

[MGraybosch]

The digital age's effect on the idea of "drafts" is interesting.

I don't have any drafts. What draft is Wikipedia on?

Before I started using Scrivener on a Mac -- back when I was writing on a Linux box -- I used to put each scene in a separate text file, and then use Subversion (http://subversion.tigris.org/) to track revisions. I'd check my stuff in at the end of each session. :)

One scene had 666 revisions. I shit thee not.

Also, I just set up Subversion on my Mac, configured Scrivener so that its data is stored in a svn-compatible format, and committed revision 1.