I'm not a perfectionist

Putputt said:

There are also plenty of times when I have read someone's work and a single word jumps out at me because it's SO perfect for that scene, and yet it's a word I wouldn't have thought to put there myself because I don't put in the same amount of effort into my work that they do.

Click to expand...

Oh shut up Hippo your stupid writing makes me drool all over my dark parts with envy and jealousy you sexy galumphing ass-troll *humps your leg mercilessly*

As others have said, it's really, really important to make the distinction between having high standards, even unreasonably high, and being a perfectionist. At its root, perfectionism isn't about the urge to do something really, really well. It's this really unhealthy, black-and-white way of thinking that manipulates you into feeling that the mere existence of flaws in your work means it's irredeemably awful. That's obviously super irrational, and I'm sure most perfectionists realize that and can see from the outside how little sense it makes, but it settles in that gap between ration and emotion, just like depression or anxiety disorders. I think slhuang made a great analogy when mentioning body dysmorphic disorder. Bad perfectionism can render you completely unable to see anything in your work but the flaws, whatever anyone else sees, which is often crippling. We all have this gap between the end product that we see in our heads and what we can actually create, and of course working to bring the two as close together as possible is a lifelong effort. For anyone it can be depressing to look at that gap, or disappointing to realize it. For a perfectionist it's crippling. A lot of perfectionists never even start projects out of fear of it. In school I was always a horrible procrastinator because the only way I could overcome the agony of knowing I'd never achieve the 'perfect' essay (or whatever) was the pressure of it being due the next day (which, of course, is not at all conducive to actually writing the best essay possible).

I hope that is some insight for you. I think perfectionism is really a form of anxiety disorder. It isn't the same as high standards or the drive to create something excellent. Rather it's fear and pain when faced with something you've made or done that isn't flawless (ie, everything you make or do ever). It has no real relation to the actual quality of your work. It makes everything black and white-- something is "perfect" or it's "crap".... which, of course, makes everything you do look like crap, and makes it super difficult to get the proper perspective to actually work on your skills. It's super unhealthy and irrational and hard to deal with. If you're not a perfectionist, GOOD!

I think what everyone is saying is that having really high standards is a good thing, and working to write a swell as you possibly can is also a very Good Thing.

True perfectionism, however, is not a good thing because it stops writers from writing, or from completing what they write, maybe by eternally editing.rewriting/revising without end, or by not submitting, etc.

But I think there are also writers who believe everything they write is perfect, regardless of how little they edit/revise/rewrite. Every editor meets these writers.

There's also, I think, one more kind of writer who just doesn't do what it takes to make his writing better for any one of a number of reasons. This writer knows his writing isn't as good as he can make it. He knows more editing/rewriting/revising would improve it. But he doesn't do the extra editing/rewriting/revising.

This writer chooses not to do the extra editing/rewriting/revising because he thinks it's already "good enough", or doesn't want to put in the work, or hates editing/rewriting/revising, or thinks moving on to the next story is more important than trying to make this one better, or you name the reason.

I understand teh writer who thinks his work is already perfect far better than I understand the writer who knows he could make it better but chooses not to do so.
This concept is alien to my nature.

When I first started writing, I was so ignorant of teh entire process that I didn't even know writers were supposed to edit/rewrite/revise, or even do a second draft. Most of my stories still sold, but it didn't take long to learn that I wasn't writing nearly as well as I could have and should have been writing.

My nature is to do everything I attempt as well as I can possibly do it. This doesn't mean being perfect, and it doesn't mean doing something better than anyone else ever has. It just means doing whatever it is the best way I can. It means living up to my potential.

In team sports, not doing your best cheats not only you, but your teammates, and fans of the team. To me, not doing my absolute best at writing means I'm not only cheating myself, I'm also cheating my readers.

I don't mind not being very good at something. I don't mind failing completely, and I've done so. But I mind very much not trying as hard as I can, not doing the best I can. It just isn't in me to skimp on effort, to do less than my best, at anything I care about. Or even things I don't care about. I don't understand the philosophy that would allow this.

I guess it all boils down to "anything worth doing is worth doing right". There may be exceptions, but, for me, writing certainly isn't one of them.

buzhidao said:

Oh shut up Hippo your stupid writing makes me drool all over my dark parts with envy and jealousy you sexy galumphing ass-troll *humps your leg mercilessly*

Click to expand...

Waaaaaaaaaa *head explodes with the glory of your lurve*

flapperphilosopher said:

I hope that is some insight for you. I think perfectionism is really a form of anxiety disorder. It isn't the same as high standards or the drive to create something excellent. Rather it's fear and pain when faced with something you've made or done that isn't flawless (ie, everything you make or do ever). It has no real relation to the actual quality of your work. It makes everything black and white-- something is "perfect" or it's "crap".... which, of course, makes everything you do look like crap, and makes it super difficult to get the proper perspective to actually work on your skills. It's super unhealthy and irrational and hard to deal with. If you're not a perfectionist, GOOD!

Click to expand...

Hmm, that does clarify it for me. Perfectionism as a form of anxiety disorder does make a lot of sense.

gettingby said:

I'm not a perfectionist. I don't agonize over which words to use. I never feel like something has to be perfect in order to be good. I do hold myself to high standards. And I only send my work out to places that are also known for high standards. But, like I said, I'm not a perfectionist.

Click to expand...

If you only send your work out to places known for high standards (and I presume pay well for that work) then if your work isn't perfect, it had damn well be the next-best thing to it. "Pretty good" ain't gonna get it done.

gettingby said:

But do most writers see themselves as perfectionists? With all these threads about permission to write crap and being unable to write because writers don't think it will be good enough and even having a sort of writers block out of fear of not being able to well execute ideas, is everyone else aiming for an unobtainable level of perfect prose?

Click to expand...

Of course not. I've never wasted my time trying to climb mountains if I don't have the shoes for it. I do what I do as well as I can do it. If I half-ass it, the only person I'm cheating is myself. What I'm aiming for is for my stuff to be as good as it can be before I send it into the world.

Many writers are their worst critics because they are the best qualified to know when what they have written is sheer genius or utter crap. However, I'm also my biggest cheerleader because nobody can bang my drum louder than I can.

It is only through writing crap I can get good enough to write something that comes off as genius. Most of the time I'm just "pretty good" but every now and then, I don't need anyone's validation of whether or not something is really good. I know it is.

gettingby said:

I feel like I'm missing something here. The only way to get better is to read and write a lot. It seems like trying to be perfect is nothing but a distraction for some and an excuse for some others. Why are you guys trying to be perfect? Or maybe the question should be why am I not trying to be perfect?

Click to expand...

I agree you are missing something here. Speaking only for myself, I'm not shooting for perfection. I'm shooting for professionalism and professionals take pride in doing their best.

That means fact-checking, spell checking, rewrites, edits, revisions and all the dirty, dull, dreary, mundane details you gotta sweat to be professional.

Being perfect has nothing to do with taking the time to do the job right the first time. If anything, if you're not putting in the work, those are the writers who think they're already perfect.

Only lazy slobs skip doing the heavy lifting thinking their "good enough" is good enough.

nighttimer said:

It is only through writing crap I can get good enough to write something that comes off as genius. Most of the time I'm just "pretty good" but every now and then, I don't need anyone's validation of whether or not something is really good. I know it is.

Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever written crap, at least while sober, but I have no clue how good my writing, my stories, or my characters are on any sort of objective basis. I don't believe writers are ever good judges of their own writing. If we were, we wouldn't send out unpublishable stories, and we'd all either give up, or be rich, in short order.

I know only when I can make a sentence sound better to my ear, or when I can make a change I'm sure is better than what I already have. This doesn't always mean the change will please anyone else.

I firmly believe my writing is only as good as editors and general readers say it is. If I can't please them, what I think of it doesn't matter a hill of beans.

Jamesaritchie said:

I firmly believe my writing is only as good as editors and general readers say it is. If I can't please them, what I think of it doesn't matter a hill of beans.

Click to expand...

I don't know. If I wrote something that I thought was complete and utter crap, I'm pretty sure I'd feel like a fraud even if the rest of the world loved it. The instant one person called me on it and pointed out the flaws I knew were there, I'd be like, "Oh my glob, you're right. This is total shite. I hate it." Even if 99% of the people were saying it was great.

On the other hand, if I wrote something that I labored over and really, truly believed was good material, or at least had potential, I'd have the stamina to stand by it and continue doing the hard work of improving it and trying to sell it. And if I stuck with it long enough I'd eventually find the right audience for it.

Getting outside opinions is important, but I think for most writers, it's equally important for them to sincerely believe in their own work.

I wouldn't say I get held back by perfectionism. I think for me, the challenge is more feeling like my skill doesn't match my vision sometimes. I don't expect to ever be "perfect," but sometimes I simply struggle to accomplish what I want to. It's kind of like a physical activity in a way--I'm trying to learn how to hula hoop right now, and while I understand the basic physics of how it works, and how you're supposed to move, I can't quite get it yet. It's the same with writing sometimes, and that can be frustrating.

The Otter said:

I don't know. If I wrote something that I thought was complete and utter crap, I'm pretty sure I'd feel like a fraud even if the rest of the world loved it. The instant one person called me on it and pointed out the flaws I knew were there, I'd be like, "Oh my glob, you're right. This is total shite. I hate it." Even if 99% of the people were saying it was great.

On the other hand, if I wrote something that I labored over and really, truly believed was good material, or at least had potential, I'd have the stamina to stand by it and continue doing the hard work of improving it and trying to sell it. And if I stuck with it long enough I'd eventually find the right audience for it.

Getting outside opinions is important, but I think for most writers, it's equally important for them to sincerely believe in their own work.

Click to expand...

If the world loves it, no one is going to point out flaws. Besides, if you know the flaws are there, why wouldn't you fix them? The problem comes when the whole story just seems like crap, but you have no clue how to do anything about it.

I see this as no different than writers thinking what they write is really good, but that actually is crap. Crap that ends up in the slush piles, or self-published. Writers just don't know.

I've had stories I thought were pure crap sell first time out to top magazines, and then sell many times in the reprint market. I did not feel like a fraud, I felt like a writer who was wrong about a story.

I've also had stories I thought were wonderful, that were as good as I can possibly write, not sell anywhere, for any price, and draw mostly form rejections over and over and over.

I didn't feel like a fraud here, either, I just felt like a writer who was wrong in the opposite direction.

I believe in my talent, but there is nothing to gain by believing in any particular story. All teh belief in the world doesn't change quality, but it can destroy a writer when that story goes nowhere. There are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of manuscripts out there that the writer firmly believe in, but that are simply no good.

For many of these writers, belief in that particular story, especially if it's a novel, tears their heart out when no one wants it, when everyone criticizes it. They refuse to believe it, and they self-publish, or they keep rewriting over and over and over, and they stop writing new material in an effort to make the old story sell.

Belief in yourself, belief in your talent, is important. But your talent is not the story.

Sometimes I write really good stories that I believe are bad. Sometimes I write really bad stories that I believe are good. Neither matters in the least. No artist gets to judge his own creation.

This is why Heinlein's Rules are so important. They're not only excellent business rules, they're also excellent psychological rules. They stop you from getting emotionally wrapped up in any individual story.

As one SF editor said to writers, "Your job is to write teh story. My job is to judge the story. So do your job, send me teh story, and let me do mine."

Sincerely believing in your own talent and skill is a good thing, though it, too, is often a misplaced belief. Believing in your work, though, at least on an individual story basis, will get you nowhere. It is what it is, and your belief, pro or con, won't change this. I work hard to make my stories as good as I can possibly make them. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail, and I very seldom know which it is until after they've been accepted, or rejected by everyone out there.

There are always new stories to tell, if you don't let your belief in old ones stop you from telling them. http://www.sfwriter.com/ow05.htm

Jamesaritchie said:

I believe in my talent, but there is nothing to gain by believing in any particular story.

Click to expand...

I guess that's where we differ. I think there's a lot to gain by believing in a particular story.

I've read stories that have had a deep personal impact on me, stories that have stayed with me over the years. Some of the ones that have had the biggest impact on me have been relatively obscure books that never resonated with a larger audience. And having read about those authors' personal struggles, I know that some of them were rejected quite a bit, but they persisted. And I appreciate the courage and tenacity it took for them to bring those stories to the world, even if they never made a ton of money on them.

Though in some cases, something that's rejected over and over and then finally published turns out to be a surprise hit. A lot of editors will reject an idea that's new and risky, but sometimes those ideas are the ones that really gain a foothold in the public consciousness once they're out there.

I guess it ultimately comes down to your goals. If you just want to write a book that makes a decent amount of money, reaches a fairly wide audience, and is readable and entertaining, then no, there's no sense in getting attached to any particular story. And I don't mean that to sound dismissive--some people write to put food on the table, period, and that's a perfectly sound goal.

On the other hand, if you have a story, a message or character that you feel passionately about and have a strong emotional connection to, it can be worthwhile to stick with it even if there's no guarantee of success.

I think most writers, myself included, try to strike a balance between the story they want to tell and the story they know other people will want to read. I've made some pretty big compromises and changes in the past to make certain books of mine more marketable. But I always kept the aspects of the story I believed in most strongly.

If I wrote something I had no belief in at all, I think I'd feel hollow even if the whole world praised it.

I think that quality tends to come with revision and I do like some degree of fiddling with things. My first drafts are crap and I'm okay with that; I actually like doing a bit of editing. But there's a point when I need to move on to something else or I go mad, and sadly, so far that's usually before I've quite reached the level I was aiming for. I haven't sold anything yet, and it's no mystery to me, because I do consider everything I've written so far as practice and I definitely haven't put in the hours yet. Also, I might just be mediocre.

Thing is, I generally think I have a pretty good idea what kind of effect I'd want to accomplish and what kind of writing would be needed for the purpose. And so far I'm not quite getting there. It's entirely possible that I would never feel like having gotten there. But that's not what's stopping me; I don't have a problem with putting my work out there, even though I dearly hope I will eventually be able to do better.

But I do think that my standards for my writing are pretty internal. I completely agree with posters who said that market success doesn't always have to be the ultimate measure here. I mean, selling something would certainly give _me_ a probably sufficient degree of satisfaction (for the time being at least), but I also feel the reverse should not necessarily hold: If you can't sell, it doesn't have to mean that you need to drastically change something about your style. I do believe that luck's a big factor in these things. Sometimes the time's just not right.

The Otter said:

I guess that's where we differ. I think there's a lot to gain by believing in a particular story.

I've read stories that have had a deep personal impact on me, stories that have stayed with me over the years. Some of the ones that have had the biggest impact on me have been relatively obscure books that never resonated with a larger audience. And having read about those authors' personal struggles, I know that some of them were rejected quite a bit, but they persisted. And I appreciate the courage and tenacity it took for them to bring those stories to the world, even if they never made a ton of money on them.

Though in some cases, something that's rejected over and over and then finally published turns out to be a surprise hit. A lot of editors will reject an idea that's new and risky, but sometimes those ideas are the ones that really gain a foothold in the public consciousness once they're out there.

I guess it ultimately comes down to your goals. If you just want to write a book that makes a decent amount of money, reaches a fairly wide audience, and is readable and entertaining, then no, there's no sense in getting attached to any particular story. And I don't mean that to sound dismissive--some people write to put food on the table, period, and that's a perfectly sound goal.

On the other hand, if you have a story, a message or character that you feel passionately about and have a strong emotional connection to, it can be worthwhile to stick with it even if there's no guarantee of success.

I think most writers, myself included, try to strike a balance between the story they want to tell and the story they know other people will want to read. I've made some pretty big compromises and changes in the past to make certain books of mine more marketable. But I always kept the aspects of the story I believed in most strongly.

If I wrote something I had no belief in at all, I think I'd feel hollow even if the whole world praised it.

Click to expand...

I think you might change your mind if you knew what the writer was thinking while writing and trying to sell those wonderful stories. Many stories have impacted me, some have changed my life, but I know most of them were eitehr wirtten strictly in hope sof making money, or came from writers who did not buy the "believe in it" philosophy at all.

I study teh writers I like, all of them, and most writers I read that I don't like. I read any autobiographies or biographies about them. articles they've written, listen to speeches they made, learn their writing methods, etc.

Belief in yourself is common, belief in a given story is not, at least with nearly all the writers I enjoy reading. All the belief in the world changes nothing about the story, but it can stop a writer from succeeding because he refuses to believe that everything about the story sucks, and this is the case far more often than not. Probably ninety-nine percent of the time, if not more. As far as real, meaningful quality is concerned, it's a heck of a lot more.

Great, moving stories than change lives are seldom written and sold because writer believes in them, they sell, and change people's lives, because agents, editors, and general readers believe in them.

Nothing you believe about your story will make it any better. It simply won't. belief will stop you from writing better stories, and stop you from abandoing ones no one else likes. I've seen writer work for ten years to sell one novel because they really, truly believed in it, but the novel was simply bad. Nowhere near publishable quality, let alone something great.

I've also read where numerous writers wrote a story quickly, hoping to make a few dollars to tide them over, thought the story was not at all good, but learned later on, after the public read it, that it was considered a masterpiece.

All of us write bad stories, particularly early on. Usually lousy stories, but if we're smart, we send them out anyway because, at the moment, we believe they're pretty good. We soon learn they're pure crap, no matter how much we loved them.

If we don't learn this, we keep writing crap, keep believing in it, and end up an unpublished writer ten years down the line. You have to accept the fact that all the belief in the world won't stop you from writing pure crap, and that lack of belief won't stop you from writing a masterpiece.

I write the best stories I can possibly write, but some of them are pure crap, and they're often teh ones I love the most, believe in the strongest. That's just a fact of life.

And I've written a a few stories that I truly hated, that were as good as I could make them, but that I still thought were crap. Thank God I submitted them, anyway, because everyone who read them lived them to death. Sometimes so much so that they got passed around two floors at the publisher because everyone there wanted to read them. I thought these stories were crap. I didn't believe in them at all. Readers flat out loved them. This, too, is a fact of life.

Believe in yourself. This is good, even though this belief, too, is misplaced far, far more often than not, and can be the worst thing you can do. Too much belief in yourself is why people end up on a death bed, wishing to God they'd tried something they were better at while they still had time.

I've believed in myself before, in areas outside of writing, and failed miserably. I stopped believing in myself because I realized that belief wad misplaced. Had I refused to stop believing in myself, I never would have become a writer.

As a writer, I found I could believe in myself again, but I know better than to start believing in a particular story. That's not my job.

Besides, a writer writes. Sometimes I write a couple of hundred short pieces, and two novels, per year. Am I really supposed to believe in every one of them? Or go through and throw away any I don't believe in, but which may be the best pieces there?

I write them, and I submit them. That's all any of us can do. Everything else is a waste of time and talent.

flapperphilosopher said:

We all have this gap between the end product that we see in our heads and what we can actually create, and of course working to bring the two as close together as possible is a lifelong effort. For anyone it can be depressing to look at that gap, or disappointing to realize it. For a perfectionist it's crippling. A lot of perfectionists never even start projects out of fear of it.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I've dealt with this for years. I've tried to get over it by "enjoying the process" but that fear of not the product being not-just-right is overwhelming.

A few months ago I read something about learning to enjoy the process by thinking of all the people who play tennis on the weekend. They play because they enjoy it, not because they think they'll be the next top player in the circuit. Or golf - how many people play even though they know they won't be Tiger Woods?

I keep that in mind when that perfectionism wells up inside and blocks me from doing something ... I don't think it's related to anxiety, since an anxiety disorder has physiological consequences. It's strictly psychological for me.

Nothing wrong with trying to do the best you can, and with working on improving your skills. What's that phrase? "If you're not moving forward, you're falling behind." Something like that.

ETA: What's weird about perfectionism is that I don't expect others to be perfect - only myself.

Belief in a story might be the one thing that compels a writer to finish writing it.

guttersquid said:

Belief in a story might be the one thing that compels a writer to finish writing it.

Click to expand...

Dunno. I believe in my WIP novel - just not in my ability to write it well enough.

juniper said:

Dunno. I believe in my WIP novel - just not in my ability to write it well enough.

Click to expand...

I know that feeling. I think people misunderstand perfectionism. I really do think it's related to anxiety, not least because it's impervious to rational thought and reassurance in exactly the same way.

JAR, I seem to recall that you had a problem with the idea of "permission to write crap" in another thread. I'm going to explain why it's a useful tool for me, and maybe other people with perfectionism.

See, the perfectionist, at least vis-a-vis their own work, has a very black and white outlook: it's either perfect or it's crap. Now, obviously that's untrue, and if you asked the perfectionist to look at someone else's work, they would be able to look at it objectively, to see where it was flawed and how it could be fixed. But they find it infinitely harder to be that way about their own work.

Obviously, you aren't going to be perfect when you start writing. For the perfectionist, this is an impossible obstacle. If I can't be perfect, I'm just writing crap, says the perfectionist, and into the bin goes another story.

So permission to write crap is just a tool to get past that first block. It's less about permission to write crap, and more about permission not to be perfect.

For the OP, if you're not a perfectionist, you're lucky. It's a very real block to achieving your goals, as I can attest to. There's a huge difference between holding yourself to a high but achievable standard, and holding yourself to an impossible one.

nighttimer said:

It is only through writing crap I can get good enough to write something that comes off as genius. Most of the time I'm just "pretty good" but every now and then, I don't need anyone's validation of whether or not something is really good. I know it is.

Click to expand...

Jamesaritchie said:

I don't think I've ever written crap, at least while sober, but I have no clue how good my writing, my stories, or my characters are on any sort of objective basis. I don't believe writers are ever good judges of their own writing. If we were, we wouldn't send out unpublishable stories, and we'd all either give up, or be rich, in short order.

I know only when I can make a sentence sound better to my ear, or when I can make a change I'm sure is better than what I already have. This doesn't always mean the change will please anyone else.

I firmly believe my writing is only as good as editors and general readers say it is. If I can't please them, what I think of it doesn't matter a hill of beans.

Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more. I've written absolute shit that was published and I was paid for. I've written absolute gold that didn't so much as elicit a butterfly fart.

I have never believed my work is only as good as the response to it. It's like a musician who is ahead of their time and the fame and fortune comes when they're too dead to appreciate it. Counting on the public marketplace to be the final decider of what is good or not means a book by Snooki must be a literary masterpiece because someone published it and a lot of somebodies bought it.

Having been an editor, I have mad respect for the job they do, but even the best in the biz can't make chicken salad out of chicken droppings. If the work presented to them is irredeemable junk, all the red pencils in the world aren't gonna fix it.

As for the public, I'm one of them and I know how crappy my tastes are at times. I should expect theirs to be so much more superior?

You don't need an overly-inflated sense of your own greatness as a writer to be any good of it, but if the final arbiter is always the marketplace and its gatekeepers, everything published would be a literary masterpiece. It's not.

Believe in yourself first with a sense of humility, but don't be so humble you don't believe in the work.