Thoughts on the various 'breeds' of writer...

[Crusader]

Type A - Does everything themselves, from brainstorming the idea to hammering out the prose to revising the work to selling and fighting for the material. These writers have the creativity to make ideas, the dedication to fleshing out those ideas, the vision and knowledge to hone the work... and then the drive and connections to shove the work out into the world to sink or swim.
(Estimated percentage of all writers: 5%)

Type B - Is most comfortable either brainstorming ideas, writing prose, or both. Doesn't really have the breadth of literary awareness, critiquing skill, or inclination to revise, and lacks the force of personality or social skills necessary to promote. These writers are most comfortable as "idea mills"--tucked away in their niches, they churn out tons of useful raw material, it just all needs to be refined and distributed by someone else.
(EP: 40%)

Type C - Struggles to generate original ideas for themselves, tends to be rather slow-moving and unproductive as far as cranking out the prose... but can edit and revise like a maniac on drugs, thanks to a very critical and alert mind, plus a good knowledge and intuition of what works and what doesn't in the mechanics of a tale. These writers fit well in critique groups; since they don't spend nearly enough time dreaming up their own stuff or writing anything, they have more than ample time to focus on buffing up someone else's creation.
(EP: 35%)

Type D - A few ideas here and there; hardly any writing; either a sparing or well-developed ability to edit; then a good eye for a sellable finished product, coupled with a ravenous motivation to meet, greet, wine, and dine. These writers are go-getters; inherently social, they form extensive networks of readers, fellow writers, editors, and agents. They read a lot, perhaps edit a bit as well, and have a "sixth sense" about what is golden or what is bronze: as such, they can spend all day talking about writing, with a sure confidence about their opinion on what stories will surge, tank, or not even be worth a yawn. The ironic part is, of course, that these 'writers' rarely ever create anything beyond their "thumbs up or thumbs down" appraisals of other people's work.
(EP: 15%)

Other - All writers who don't fit squarely in one category because they're an uncommon mix of traits, or else they just don't consistently do any trait well at all (though the latter begs the question, "are they really writers?").
(EP: 5%)

* * *

i do hope it is understood that this is all phrased in terms of intuition and casual observation, so the concepts and numbers are open for debate. i'm just curious about whether this rings a bell for anyone, or if it's all way off base.

And, for the record: i would define myself as "other". i do well in generating new concepts and characters, and i feel very secure in my ability to critique and improve my ideas and other people's ideas, but i am not a prolific prosesmith, nor do i have the drive or skills to promote my creations.

[maestrowork]

I guess I'm mostly type A (I even design my own frigging covers), with a slight type C tendency. I do enjoy brainstorming and crit sessions with others. I like to chat with others about my ideas and get their feedback. I enjoy working with someone on revision/editing if one is available... however, mostly I just like to develop ideas, write the prose, revise the work, dream up marketing/selling strategies/promotion strategies, etc. etc. on my own.

[SRHowen]

I'd go with A except I have an agent to promote my work for me.

Shawn

[vstrauss]

All the writers I know would fit into the "other" category.

I'm kind of curious as to why you link the inability or disinclination to promote with lesser literary achievement?

- Victoria

[luckky one]

I'm Type A, but sometimes, during blocks, I feel like a Type D.

[Karen Ranney]

Just a few quick thoughts. Even though it's Christmas, I am working.

The published authors I know are A types. Types B, C, D - not published.

The degree of marketing may vary within the A type. Some of us love the limelight. Some of us slither away from it. Either trait does not affect the quality of the work.

[Thekherham]

I think I would fall under the 'Other' category.

[Crusader]

I guess I'm mostly type A (I even design my own frigging covers), with a slight type C tendency.

I'm Type A, but sometimes, during blocks, I -feel- like a Type D.

Interesting angle; the state of mind or situation can influence how much someone may resemble one type or another.

So, the types might best be seen as an average, or overall picture, of what a writer's behaviour mostly resembles? E.G. most of the time someone is firmly a do-it-all Type A, but when they're blocked or stressed, they may switch gears for awhile to mainly socialize/promote someone else's work?


@Karen Ranney:

i'm grinning, because your comment entirely fits with what i'd imagine a professional would say.

Let me ask a hypothetical: could a published Type B with a good agent, be able to get away with just brainstomring and pounding out copy, thereafter letting the agent/editor take the rough MS and turn it into gold? Does that sort of arrangement exist with any frequency, if at all?


@vstrauss:
I'm kind of curious as to why you link the inability or disinclination to promote with lesser literary achievement?

i did? [puzzled] Your question seems better posed to Karen Ranney, since her comment actually makes the link between promotion and success. Help me out: where does my text say what you're talking about?


@maestrowork:

i'm not surprised, good sir. From the way you conduct yourself here, you seem to be a very hands-on sort of fellow. i echo your drive as far as when i actually write anything, i like to have total control over it. But, i just don't write enough, and i'm not assertive enough in putting my work 'out there', to be a Type A writer.

These writing types almost might reflect personality types, now that i think about it. Maybe people who are "Type A" personalities yield Type A writers, and so on and so forth? Could a person who was definitely a Type B, swing around and be a cutthroat do-it-all in the rest of their life?


@SRHowen:

Would it be fair to guess that when you did your first novel, you were a self-motivating promoter, as far as getting it out on the market?

And... while your agent is taking care of the legwork for you right now, are you nevertheless very "in the loop" as far as all the details? Or are you more like, "hey, call me when you have my royalty check"? Or other?

[Oklahoma Wolf]

After giving this a lot of thought, I'm going to have to call myself a type A, though I'm far from prolific. At least, I'm not prolific yet. I do like the idea of having total control of the whole process. I don't design my own covers (can't draw well), but everything else I do myself. I do tend to switch types once in a while though depending how things are going in my life.

Still have a lot of trouble getting my saboteur self under control so I can feel free enough to just go to town on a project. Maybe this next project will do it for me once it gets rolling - only in the character sketch phase yet, but I can't remember being this excited about one of my ideas in quite some time.

[SRHowen]

I'd say in the loop and I'm sure at times Andy would like me to shut the heck up--LOL


Shawn

[Karen Ranney]

Let me ask a hypothetical: could a published Type B with a good agent, be able to get away with just brainstomring and pounding out copy, thereafter letting the agent/editor take the rough MS and turn it into gold? Does that sort of arrangement exist with any frequency, if at all?

******

Editing IS writing. Pounding it into shape IS writing. Formatting, grammar, et al IS the writing part of it. Ideas aren't that hard. The writing part, taking out the crap, adding in the gold IS what writing is all about. A writer balances the technical with the magic of prose that sings.

The arrangement you listed - hypothetically - is that of a ghost writer, or co-writers.

Think of writing as sculpture. I think this idea/quote/etc is attributed to Michelangelo: All you need to do is see the object and take away the stone that doesn't belong.

A writer does it all. We see a block of stone, see the angel hidden deep inside, take away everything that isn't a wing, a drape of gown, a hand. We chisel, grind, and chip until it's done. Then we polish and rub with a cloth until the sculpture gleams. Only then do we release it, crate it up, and send it on to our editor. S/he goes up to it, brushes off a speck of dust from the face and then stands back and names it.

[reph]

I'm a solid C. I have no trouble with grammar and all that. I know what's wrong with a piece of writing–someone else's. Unfortunately, I rarely get an idea that I feel like turning into a work of fiction. ("Ideas aren't that hard"? That statement only shows how different we are.) I seem to need a certain kind of social situation, one that isn't often there: creativity doesn't go into gear unless I believe somebody wants the product. Does it fill a need? Am I doing something useful or just playing with my toes?

I also have a very hard time with self-promotion.

[EGGammon]

I think I am sort of a mix between Type A and B. I am dedicated to my work, spend long hours on it at a time, polish it and make sure there is nothing that doesn't make sense. I think out the story completely, map it out, and am a strict perfectionist. But I think I lack the social skills to actually promote it (by myself atleast). I was a loner in high school (with my hard work on my writing and well my "uncoolness") so to have the courage to go up to people and just start a conversation about my book, for me, is pretty tough. So, I guess I am a mix of A and B.

[mr mistook]

I'd like to imagine myelf as a type A, but then again, who wouldn't? :)


As far as connections go, I'm a hermit living in the deep woods. 0]

[maestrowork]

I'm a ham if I need to be (a singer/actor in my past life) and also years in the consulting business has taught me how to self-promote. I'm very comfortable in front of a camera or a radio mike. But I'd say most of that was learned. Generally, I'm very laid back and, some may even say, lazy. I'm only "driven" when I want something. When I do, I'm kind of impatient and I want a lot of control.

Like I said, I feel like I'm a type A writer according to the description. I'm definitely hands-on, but I'm not sure if I qualify as a Type A personality. I'm way too laid back and easy going...

[aka eraser]

I'm an A but my drive on getting it "out there" pretty much ends with dropping the envelope into the mail box or hitting "send." I suck at promotion except, of course, for my sly, near-subliminal sig. ;)

[Stephenie Hovland]

I think some of it depends on experience, too. I'd like to be a Type A, but I feel more like a wandering Type B right now.

[Crusader]

It makes me cheerful, to see people pick up on an idea that more or less tumbled haphazardly out of my head. So, a big "thanks" to everyone who has responded.

It's funny, so far my estimates aren't matching the growing sample at all: we have six A's, five Other, one B and one C. And most of the Other are primarily Type A's with a lack of one trait.

Also, to everyone who said or says "Other", could you be sure elaborate on what kind of Other? Like, i'm curious to know what vstrauss and Thekherham have to say on the subject.


@ECGammon:
I think I am sort of a mix between Type A and B. I am dedicated to my work, spend long hours on it at a time, polish it and make sure there is nothing that doesn't make sense...

Wow, i relate strongly enough to most of your comment, that it feels like i wrote it. Like, when i do something, i invest a lot of time and effort into all phases of it, as you do. And i'm not a social person either, so the fact that i enjoy editing and reviewing other people's work sometimes puts me in self-conflict.

i'm wondering now if the types need even more revision than first seemed necessary...


@Karen Ranney:
A writer does it all. We see a block of stone, see the angel hidden deep inside...

Very poetic, and the entirety of your comment not only mirrors what i was getting at with the Type A description, but also mirrors a lot of the writing philosophy i read in "Uncle Jim's" thread, and elsewhere on the Web.

It's all hammering home the concept to me that a writer who wants to be published would suit themselves best by being well-rounded in all the traits. Obviously, if someone doesn't write anything, or only likes to edit, etc. then they're sort of sabotaging themselves before they even get going.

Thus, it might be kind of ridiculous to go to a room of published authors and ask the questions i've been posing, since all might identify themselves as some shade of Type A, just as you've described.

Let me ask of you and any other published authors reading this: do you ever find yourself impatient with unpublished writers who write, but sit on projects... or who say they write, but actually don't produce much... or who say they write, yet spend most of their time talking about the craft or about books they've read... or who say they'd like to write, but who seem more comfortable editing things? Ever want to give a B, C or D a smack upside the head, to shake them out of their rut?

For that matter, do you ever have to smack yourselves out of a rut? If an A falls into B-hood or D-hood, how can they get out of it?


@reph:
I'm a solid C. I have no trouble with grammar and all that. I know what's wrong with a piece of writing–someone else's.

Believe it or not, i used you (and a few others forum members) as a model for the description, so it's very fitting that you agree with it.

i sincerely wonder how many C's there are in the world... the unsung editors, teachers, and knowledgeable readers who help the Type B's to revise and polish up a WIP, who help the Type A's with a second opinion, etc. The people who maybe don't feel motivated, maybe don't feel confident, or maybe don't feel creative enough to jump on the front lines.

i wonder how many great novels owe credit to Type C's for getting the block to ease, for getting the kinds out of the prose, for coming up with the brilliant idea that sends a plot in a bold direction... or for just holding the line on issues of usage, grammar, and spelling, in ensuring that literary standards don't go flying by the wayside.


@maestrowork:

i don't have your social or self-promotional skills, but i relate to how you're laid-back to the point of elciting accusations of laziness. And i definitely relate to how you have that distinction between how you act as a writer versus how you act in general. As a creative entity, i'm a perfectionistic, obsessive beast when i get going. It's just often a problem of "getting going". [sheepish grin]


@Oklahoma Wolf:
Still have a lot of trouble getting my saboteur self under control so I can feel free enough to just go to town on a project. Maybe this next project will do it for me once it gets rolling - only in the character sketch phase yet, but I can't remember being this excited about one of my ideas in quite some time.

i relate. Being excited about an idea is the only time i can get myself to write, as of late. i read about people such as Mr. Macdonald, who devote themselves to pounding out pages on a daily basis, and i just cringe... when i do that, the enjoyment is missing, the writing feels flat, and i get a migraine. He isn't kidding when he implies that being a productive writer is generally hard work, and i wouldn't mind so much if the hard work was just more rewarding in and of itself for me, instead of feeling like a drudgery or a self-torture.

Like, writing in a forum... that's hard work, yet fun, insofar as how i approach it. i put thought into what i say, and i enjoy crafting my posts. Why it doesn't work that way when i'm trying to write a novel, i have no idea... but anyway, i basically get you, as far as the excitement being a big part of the equation.


@mr mistook:

Actually, i'm curious as to how many people would or would not want to be Type A. As i mentioned to reph, there's a place for Type C's and such; they're our teachers, our critique partners, our mentors. Type D's strike me as agents or professional critics; Type B's might be like that weird old uncle you have in the family, who has a study piled high with notes and ideas and things that if anybody ever saw, they'd be shocked at how fertile his mind is.

i do sometimes sense that certain people want success as much or more than they want to write; they want to be an Author(tm) and so their writing is both a means to an end as well as a heartfelt desire, which could make them very Type A in their behaviour. ("Strength fading... must... reach... publication!")

By contrast, perhaps many B's, C's, and D's are those who see writing as the end unto itself, not the means to any goal, so they're actually quite content to be what they are?

[mr mistook]

Actually, i'm curious as to how many people would or would not want to be Type A. As i mentioned to reph, there's a place for Type C's and such; they're our teachers, our critique partners, our mentors.

Let's put it this way, few people read a book and think "Wow! Brilliant editing!" In fact, the mark of a good editor is probably his total invisibility. It takes a lot of self-confidence to see that as your mission in life, I would think.

Not to say we all strive for glory as an end in itself, or that glory is even the point of any endeavor, but human nature being what it is... most of us like to think we can write great stuff. The proof is in the pudding of course.

This is why I say I'd like to think myself a type A - capable of spinning a flawless, timeless tale, and getting it published. But we'll just have to see about that one.

In the mean time... I'll take all the mentors and critics I can get! And when the manuscript is finished, I hope to God I find a great editor.

[reph]

@reph:
I'm a solid C. I have no trouble with grammar and all that. I know what's wrong with a piece of writing–someone else's.

Believe it or not, i used you (and a few others forum members) as a model for the description, so it's very fitting that you agree with it.

Does it show that blatantly? I guess it must. That's discouraging. It seems that Cs' mission in the world of words is to help others succeed. Will I always have to be the kid on the ground, pushing the other kid in the swing?

Instructions for breaking into the other letters of the alphabet will be gratefully accepted.

I exaggerate for effect. Actually, I do have some published works, only they're just odd things in fringe categories, and all very short.

[maestrowork]

Wait a minute! Does it mean these types are not based on a real study, but something you (Crusader) dreamed up?

[Crusader]

@maestrowork:

Well, yes. i thought that was clear in the style of the descriptions, the disclaimer under them, and then in the way i kept replying throughout this thread. [grinning] i was just staring at Wordpad this morning with vague ideas about different types of writer, and decided to write the ideas down before they ran away.


@reph:
Does it show that blatantly? I guess it must.

Well, between your user profile and your posting style, 'tis kind of hard to think otherwise. To me, it seems most of your comments are devoted to clarifying, explaining, or critiquing. Like, "yep, he goofed on his grammer; reph is gonna tear him a new one in a second, just watch."


That's discouraging. It seems that Cs' mission in the world of words is to help others succeed. Will I always have to be the kid on the ground, pushing the other kid in the swing?

On a humourous bent, lately? i like your metaphor, it's vivid.

As far as your question... well, i doubt anyone is obligated or restricted to be any type, even if the type is part of your nature or habits. So a simple answer might be, "if you're happy doing the pushing, do that. If you're not, don't."

i could understand your discouragment if you feel trapped, so to speak, but if you're really comfortable where you are, then why feel bad?


Instructions for breaking into the other letters of the alphabet will be gratefully accepted.

[grin] Very ironic, considering that you've been following along in "Uncle Jim's" thread long enough to see suggestions for exactly what you're (facetiously) asking.

Sincerely, i venture the guess that you--like me, and maybe others as well--are just not truly inclined right now to be a prolific, published fiction writer. The sidelines just feel more comfortable, for whatever reason. Am i close?


I exaggerate for effect. Actually, I do have some published works, only they're just odd things in fringe categories, and all very short.

Good to hear; mind posting details?


@ mr mistook:
Let's put it this way, few people read a book and think "Wow! Brilliant editing!" In fact, the mark of a good editor is probably his total invisibility. It takes a lot of self-confidence to see that as your mission in life, I would think.

Unsupported generalisations are tricky. It might very well take a census to determine how many people are keen on brilliant editing. i do get your point, though... the odds might be that only a minority could or would even notice.

And i agree that a good editor could be defined as 'unobtrusive'. Not sure if self-confidence is entirely the issue there, though it definitely would help. For example, self-satisfaction would be the key for me if i took such a job; i'd want to feel like my edits did justice to the author's work, regardless of if my name was noted or not for the world to see. Because -I- would know, and that would be satisfying enough.

Regardless, i can definitely imagine a general, human desire to be the person with their name on the marquee. i just would hope that such a desire wouldn't cause anyone to look down on being part of the crew behind the scenes, if they were honestly talented in that and found enjoyment in it.


@Stephenie Hovland:
I think some of it depends on experience, too. I'd like to be a Type A, but I feel more like a wandering Type B right now.

It's good to see self-honesty (both in your reply and in other replies). As someone else said, it's possible to be in a "mood" of one Type, even though we're usually closer to another. Knowing where you are can only help you to figure out where you want to go, right? Maybe? [grin]

Like, i was thinking awhile ago that a person's type would have ripple effects. If someone is a Type A, they're by definition a multitasker. So they may be very practiced at devoting intense bursts of concentration to brainstorming, editing, etc, but not so practiced in focusing on one trait or another.

By contrast, a Type B would spend all their time focused on only one or two things. Maybe they don't think of ideas readily, but if they get one, they are just off and running for weeks, pouring out pages per day. Or maybe they need to catch fire in order to write, but they can think of ideas a mile a minute, so they toss around thoughts till something sparks. Either way, they're really practiced at doing one task at a time.

So if an A fell into a mood of being a B, it could be beneficial, since the shift from multitasking would let them practice one or two things. Maybe they might be able to hone their general writing ability during the mood. Or learn something about themselves.

[reph]

i could understand your discouragment if you feel trapped, so to speak, but if you're really comfortable where you are, then why feel bad?

I'm not comfortable where I am. I've come to realize that the pay rates and other business arrangements for what I do mostly (puzzles for magazines) are exploitive and won't get better. They don't reflect the skill required for the work or the time it takes.

Instructions for breaking into the other letters of the alphabet will be gratefully accepted.

[grin] Very ironic, considering that you've been following along in "Uncle Jim's" thread long enough to see suggestions for exactly what you're (facetiously) asking.

It isn't facetious. You described the four categories as if they were personality types. Perhaps, then, one can do some attitude change to broaden one's skills. I'm asking how a C can get more of a B's endowment and maybe a bit of D's.

Sincerely, i venture the guess that you . . . are just not truly inclined right now to be a prolific, published fiction writer. The sidelines just feel more comfortable . . . . Am i close?

Not very. If I could become a prolific, published fiction writer, that would be great. It's just that I don't tend to think of any fiction.


I do have some published works, only they're just odd things in fringe categories, and all very short.

Good to hear; mind posting details?

I've done years of editing and rewriting, but not in situations where I was considered an author. My old in-house job also included writing ads and catalogue copy. So, aside from that, the tally for paid freelance writing is about ten lapel buttons, one greeting card, two pieces of flash fiction (really tiny: under 50 words), and umpteen zillion puzzles. Some types of puzzles require little stories. I also won a humor-writing contest once.

[maestrowork]

Reph, have you considered being a full-time/part-time editor? I mean you're really good at it (just ease up on the grammar, okay? ;) ). Pay is not bad, I suppose.

[reph]

Maestro, I've been a full-time/part-time copy editor. I lost my last major editing gig (academic journals, freelance) when Sage Publications adopted a computer system that excluded me.

But we were discussing writing, not editing, and what sorts of personal factors hold people back.

[Jamesaritchie]

These types don't strike me as the way writers, at least the successful ones I've known, are in any way.

There's way too much talk of promotion and connections and distributing, for one thing.

"force of personality or social skills necessary to promote"
just doesn't matter, and such tools are used more by writers who lack success than by writers who attain success. They're a poor substitute for good writing.

Most successful writers are, in fact, high introverts who have a distinct lack of force of personality and social skills.

"distributed by someone else." I'm not even sure what this one means? The last thing a successful writer has to worry about is distributing his own work.

Type C sounds contradictory to me. Two distinct groups rolled into one.

Like Victoria, if I had to put the writers I've known into one of these groups, almost all would fall into the "other" group.

[Jamesaritchie]

<<Let me ask a hypothetical: could a published Type B with a good agent, be able to get away with just brainstomring and pounding out copy, thereafter letting the agent/editor take the rough MS and turn it into gold? Does that sort of arrangement exist with any frequency, if at all?>>

No.

[katdad]

I suppose I'm Type A, other than letting my agent find a market for my novels.

And of course, when the novel sells, the publisher's editor will work on the revisions with me.

As for things like a cover? I have ideas and those I'll give to the publisher as suggestions. Not being an artist, I can only come up with a concept.

For my short stories, articles, reviews, etc. then I do everything myself.

[katdad]

...editor take the rough MS and turn it into gold?
Nope.

Ghost writers are of course used for celebs. But the book itself must be publishable. The publisher's editor only cleans up the stuff, and only suggests changes.

[maestrowork]

I agree. The ms. you submit should be as best as you can make it. It should be publishable already. The editor definitely will help you polish it or fix any problems that you're not aware of (but not so bad that they render the ms unpublishable), and the copy editor would help you correct any errors (no writer is THAT perfect). But you shouldn't depend on "them" instead of yourself.

[Crusader]

@Jamesaritchie:
These types don't strike me as the way writers, at least the successful ones I've known, are in any way.

i appreciate your comment, since i'm interested in making these hypothetical types accurate to reality.

i note that your comment is in a context of 'successful writers'. Also, you mentioned vstrauss, who posed a similar comment that suggested i 'linked' self-promotion to success.

In reply: As the post heading goes, this was all about thoughts on the breeds of writer. Not thoughts on the breeds of publishable or successful authors. The types explore the habits of writers in general.

So i didn't say or imply anything like "Type A can be the most successful because they do this-this-and-this, with a cherry on top, so try to be Type A". Wasn't thinking in those terms.

More like, "i've noticed that some writers seem to be do-it-alls. They're good at ideas, good at writing pages and pages per day, good at editing (their work and other people's work) and critiquing literature, good at finishing things and pushing them into the market. Maybe call them Type A, since like the alpha or "type A" personality, they are very driven and hands-on in all aspects."

Now, i've just restated Type A (and it looks better the second time around, heh.). But, notice how neither version speaks about success.

Sure, you could move forward and conclude (as Karen Ranney did) that a Type A--dedicated to all facets of the writing process--has better odds of being published when compared to a Type B, who "dreams a lot, writes a lot, but isn't good at editing themselves and isn't willing to market anything."

Still, the type descriptions didn't draw that conclusion; the reader did.

So i ask, rethink your comment a bit. Recall the writers you know--unsuccessful, successful, published and unpublished, all alike. In that batch, are there trends in their habits that mirror my hypothetical types?

[Fresie]

Let's put it this way, few people read a book and think "Wow! Brilliant editing!"<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif" />

I did, the other day. I was reading this book thinking "@#$%! Wish I could edit like this guy! Every word knows its place!" <img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/nerd.gif" />

I think, most people tend to be lazy--naturally. Working hard is something most people need to learn and practice daily. I only know a few exceptions to this rule--my husband is one, he's a natural workaholic and nobody I know, me included, can keep up with his lifestyle. When I'm lazy, I'm type C -- for me, being a C comes easy. But I normally whip myself into the A-state.

[Crusader]

@reph:
I'm not comfortable where I am. I've come to realize that the pay rates and other business arrangements ...

First, i wonder how many people here might echo your thoughts in some way. It can be very distressing to realize that where one has ended up, isn't where one would have necessarily wanted to be.

Second... i guess i had a bit of trouble following your reply. When you said "That's discouraging", then later disclaimered by saying "I exaggerate...", i was kind of unsure about exactly where you stood. So, thanks for clarifying.


It isn't facetious. You described the four categories as if they were personality types....

[nodding] As noted, the disclaimer threw me off a tad. Plus you seemed to be waxing humourously just in the way you said it. So i put 'facetious' in parenthesis to indicate that i was trying to cover all the bases of taking you seriously and taking you un-seriously.

You've thrown a good skew on things... i did indeed make the types reflect personality to some degree, as much as they reflect habit. Truly, though, i don't think discussing personality would help your query, since people can generally strive to improve their habits despite and regardless of their personality.

(This seems to be backed by what Karen Ranney and Jamesaritchie said, as far as they both claim to know successful writers whose personalities are not limelight seekings/are introverted.)

Instead, i'd focus on habits. And as mentioned, you've seen Mr. Macdonald's suggestions on habits. So my point stands; i think you have been given at least one set of 'instructions on how to change letter". The question might be, did his methods just not seem appealing? Maybe you would prefer some other kind of jumpstart?

i mean, you did say...

Unfortunately, I rarely get an idea that I feel like turning into a work of fiction. ("Ideas aren't that hard"? That statement only shows how different we are.) I seem to need a certain kind of social situation, one that isn't often there: creativity doesn't go into gear unless I believe somebody wants the product. Does it fill a need? Am I doing something useful or just playing with my toes?

... so maybe your answer is in there. You seem to want a pre-determined focus; sitting down and writing freeform until you stumble onto an idea, doesn't seem to be your inclination. Maybe if someone handed you a fiction project or idea, you'd feel the 'juice' to work with it (similar to how you're able to be handed someone else's copy and feel the 'juice' to edit it)?

Or maybe collaboration might suit you? Someone else with an idea-in-progress or WIP that appeals to you, and you co-write with them?

Not that you have to resolve this right now or anything, i'm just jumping to the challenge of offering ideas...


So, aside from that, the tally for paid freelance writing is about ten lapel buttons, one greeting card, two pieces of flash fiction (really tiny: under 50 words), and umpteen zillion puzzles. Some types of puzzles require little stories. I also won a humor-writing contest once.

[nods] Considering the effect that something as small as a bumper sticker can have (those "Got X" ones, where X is "Jesus" or "Milk" or whatever...), i could imagine that someone might find happiness in writing such things. But obviously, you want to do something different.

As far as humour goes, i could see you doing that; there's an amusing element of sarcasm in what you say sometimes here. Ever considered grabbing a topic (say, politics, or else whatever holds your interest) and running with it for a few paragraphs?

i mean, when i read authors that i respect in the humour field, like Terry Pratchett or Douglas Adams, i get the sense that they "winged it" in places, by just thinking of a scene or a character or a concept and then running with it 'til it led to something useful. At least, i know that in writing my (non-humour) novel, that tactic was all that got me through some of the tough parts, and it in fact led me to new plot developments i wouldn't have thought of otherwise.

[Crusader]

@Fresie:
I think, most people tend to be lazy--naturally. Working hard is something most people need to learn and practice daily. I only know a few exceptions to this rule--my husband is one, he's a natural workaholic and nobody I know, me included, can keep up with his lifestyle. When I'm lazy, I'm type C -- for me, being a C comes easy. But I normally whip myself into the A-state.

It's good to read the above from you, cos now i feel i understand better how you were able to do the NaNoWriMo. Or at least, i hope that was you, anyway (fuzzy memory).

Anyway, i envy your ability to 'whip' into gear... i know that you and others have told me that if it is just done, it works. i just have a hard time tolerating the doggerel that i produce until something clicks. Thus it's easier for me to have a mentality as a dreamer/critic hybrid of B and C... along with a bit of laziness, a bit of lacking motivation, and a bit of impatience with the writing process.

i imagine that the "practice daily" thing, is how you personally whip yourself into Type A mode when necessary?

[vstrauss]

>>Recall the writers you know--unsuccessful, successful, published and unpublished, all alike. In that batch, are there trends in their habits that mirror my hypothetical types?<<

I think you've come up with a lot of traits that writers possess. It's just the way you've gathered them into distinct types or breeds that doesn't ring a bell for me. Most of the writers I know do have at least some of the characteristics you've identified--just as writers have brown hair or green eyes or fat or skinny physiques--but it doesn't seem to me that these add up to generalizable patterns that most or even many writers fall into. The writers I know all have their own way of doing it, and don't seem to me to demonstrate any broad trends.

Nor--I have to say--do I really see the value of grouping people in this way. I have a friend who's obsessed with Enneagrams, and is always explaining people's behavior in terms of these personality types. But it seems to me that such categorization systems are totally self-referential. People seem to have a need to categorize themselves, and will try to fit themselves into any system you offer them even if the categories really don't work very well. The systems also cheat by coming up with a large number of variations and permutations of the basic categories, which allows them to shoehorn everybody in, no matter how unlike the basic categories they may be. It's neat to see how many Virgo characteristics I have, or to find out (from my friend) that my Enneagram type is The Investigator, but it doesn't tell me a thing about myself I don't know or give me any insight that helps my life or work. (It also helps my friend dismiss me, to some extent, because she has a tendency to see my behavior in terms of my Enneagram type, rather than as my own individual response. Very nice and neat for her; often rather annoying for me.)

- Victoria

[Writing Again]

Let me ask a hypothetical: could a published Type B with a good agent, be able to get away with just brainstomring and pounding out copy, thereafter letting the agent/editor take the rough MS and turn it into gold? Does that sort of arrangement exist with any frequency, if at all?

There have been "publishers" or "novel mills" where someone basically outlined stories and hired writers to do the actual writing. Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew are of this mold. A couple of western series were or are done this way.

To a lesser extend Earle Stanley Gardner did this. He had six novels going at any one time. He dictated into Dictaphones and had six secretaries in six trailers working away. He could not have been so productive had he not had dedicated people working to help him succeed. His own statement was along the lines of, "You find a good secretary, make her a valued member of the team who knows she has a stake in the future of the operation."

[reph]

Crusader said, addressing me: ... so maybe your answer is in there. You seem to want a pre-determined focus; sitting down and writing freeform until you stumble onto an idea, doesn't seem to be your inclination. Maybe if someone handed you a fiction project or idea, you'd feel the 'juice' to work with it (similar to how you're able to be handed someone else's copy and feel the 'juice' to edit it)?

That works when I believe that doing what the particular "someone" wants is a worthy goal or when the exercise is fun in itself.

I sometimes do riffs on ideas and turn out a humorous product that doesn't fit any market.

[Fresie]

i just have a hard time tolerating the doggerel that i produce until something clicks.

I like to look at it this way: think of yourself as a sculptor. A sculptor takes a formless lump of clay and shapes it into a work of art. But he has a lump of clay to begin with! A writer has to make it out of thin air first. That's what my first drafts are, making this lump of clay out of nothing. I throw everything in it. I know that later I can give it shape. But first I must have something to work with.

Then my editing C-skills come in handy! <img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif" />

[Crusader]

@vstrauss:
I think you've come up with a lot of traits that writers possess. It's just the way you've gathered them into distinct types or breeds that doesn't ring a bell for me.

Perfectly reasonable. i just submit that it would be hard to know all that if i didn't ask. ;)


The writers I know all have their own way of doing it, and don't seem to me to demonstrate any broad trends.

Again, perfectly reasonable. i'm comparing my intuition and observations to reality; it's cool to see where they do or do not match, and i appreciate everyone taking the time to help me out.


Nor--I have to say--do I really see the value of grouping people in this way.

i can understand that. i thought about your post for awhile and came up with a few reasons that strike me as valuable. i could elaborate, if you like.


The systems also cheat by coming up with a large number of variations and permutations of the basic categories, which allows them to shoehorn everybody in, no matter how unlike the basic categories they may be.

You're echoing my own thoughts towards astrology and personality typing and such things, so i think we actually agree.

i just reiterate that these types are the product of one person's intuition and observation. This isn't an institution of thought like the Enneagram, or astrology.


It's neat to see how many Virgo characteristics I have, or to find out (from my friend) that my Enneagram type is The Investigator, but it doesn't tell me a thing about myself I don't know or give me any insight that helps my life or work.

Works for me; i don't dispute that for many people, a category of habit/personality/behavioural description is about as useful as obsessing over the colour of a hammer.

[grin] On the other hand... which would you prefer in a dark work area: a dark hammer, or a bright one?

Like i said, i do find some valuables in this exercise. Try this: Say a person has a couple of dominant habits or traits, isn't very self-reflective, but they feel a vague uncertainty about themselves as a writer.

Well, if they have a look at a range of traits, plus categories of what traits tend to run together, they could identify a group to seek support from ("Hey, fellow people who like to crit, but who don't write much. Wow, i'm not alone, or weird.") or even evolve away from ("Heh, i've been acting like a C for too long, i'm in a rut.") or to form symbiotic partnerships with. ("Hey, you're like a B, i'm like a C; let's pool our resources.")

Now, individualistic people likely won't care about a trend they fit, or about how many other humans share that trend. And maybe even some of the people who are more communal wouldn't care, either. But it would be a mistake to assume that absolutely nobody would find worth in the concepts, yes?

Lastly... yes, i could imagine some people will try to conform just for the sake of it, or blindly. i'd still like to hear their perspective, though. The more, the merrier.