Are first drafts supposed to be horrible?

Lidiya said:

-- are first drafts supposed to be like this?

Click to expand...

For most of us...

yes.

Yes.

"Supposed" to be? Well, that's a matter of opinion. It would be better if it wasn't horrible, but I think at 14K words in, you're (if you're like me) still processing where you want the book to go and you will have moments of insight where you can close in those holes.

Besides, I learn by doing. My first novel-length attempt was originally about 70K words, then got chopped to a 44K word POD novella (which sucks--I blush when people refer to it). My second attempt started at 230K, revised to 200K, rewritten to 109K (subbed to many agents and publishers with no bites), and is now getting rewritten again to hopefully 90-100K. My third attempt? I aimed at 80K, finished at 92K, and it's now under contract with a publisher.

So just keep at it.

Are first drafts supposed to be horrible? NO.

No writing is supposed to be horrible. But it is okay if a first draft is horrible.

The statement that we are allowed to write crappy first drafts doesn't mean that we have to write crappy first drafts. Personally, I no longer give myself permission to write crappy first drafts. I expect more of myself since I have a some writing experience. The more I write, the closer the first draft comes to the final version, with some variation since all stories are different. My first couple of stories were different--the first drafts were indeed crappy. But they were learning experiences, both for first draft writing and for the editing process. We should learn from each of our stories, and show some progress as evidence of that learning.

When I asked this, I got a lot of 'yes'.

A first draft, especially when you're a fairly new writer, is just you scrabbling at the page trying to claw a story out of thin air.

The more practice you get, the better your first drafts will be.

I don't think they're "supposed" to be horrible. But they can be. Some people here talk about having first drafts that are extremely clean and just need a bit of a tighten before they go off for sub - people who edit as they go. Other people dump everything onto the page and then pull the story out when they're finished - and there's a whole nother bunch who are sort of in-between.

I think if this is your first one, you'll just be finding out which way you work. There's no "supposed to be".

ETA: 14,000 - it sounds like it's coming on well! Keep going :0

It is what it is, that's my thinkin'. You start something and the words start flowing. First draft is the result of that creative process, without the edits. Getting your thoughts down. For me, censuring at that point would be counter-productive. But after you've done that, stepping away is a good idea. Then, when you come back to it, when you've given yourself a chance to remove yourself a bit from the emotion of it, of writing that stream-of-consciousness whatever it is, you can see with a more discerning eye, and that's when editing, revising, rethinking and reworking comes into play.

Don't second-guess the process, whatever your process is.

This is your first serious attempt at writing a novel, isn't it? And you are 14?

So yeah, your first draft will be fairly crappy. As long as you get the story down, everything is fixable.

And like a lot of other people have said, the first draft of the first novel is a steep learning process. You're doing well. Don't worry yet. In fact, enjoy this bit. This bit is fun.

Editing is when the real work starts!

No, no, no. As NeuroFizz said, no.

First drafts aren't 'supposed' to be horrible. They are whatever you can make them.

I allow myself to write crap and conversely, this permission makes my writing looser, less self-conscious and, I believe, somehow better for it.

Saying "the first draft of anything is shit," doesn't mean it should be. It just means you don't worry if it is.

Agree with most here - first drafts don't have to be horrible, but a lot depends on how long you've been writing. The more you write, the better you get overall. And then you also find out what works best for you - getting it all down first and then edit/revise, or edit/revise as you write. But writers have to experiment to find out what works best for them. The main thing is to finish.

mccardey said:

Some people here talk about having first drafts that are extremely clean and just need a bit of a tighten before they go off for sub - people who edit as they go. Other people dump everything onto the page and then pull the story out when they're finished - and there's a whole nother bunch who are sort of in-between.

Click to expand...

In a writing class, they talked about plodders, sprinters, and bleeders. Plodders make sure every word is perfect before they write. They write slowly, but they don't need revisions at all. Sprinters will write a bunch and then go back and edit/revise (that's what I am, but I tend to plodding). Bleeders just *blach* everything onto the page and then go back and edit, edit, edit.

There is no best way to do it, just whatever way you do it make it work for you.

They're not supposed to be horrible, but it's not a disaster if they are. I try my best do do what work is needed while writing, so I don't have to work on it extensively after. However, the first draft is sort of like an artist sketch before you apply the oils to make it into an oil painting.

The better you do on your first draft, the less you have to edit later.

I always think my first drafts are horrible as I am writing them. When I finally finish, they aren't as bad as I think, but definitely not as good as they need to be. Finishing is the important thing; then you can go back and fix it.

I can only speak for myself and the answer is yes. I try to get the basics out there on the first draft and then go back and mold it into something that people would enjoy reading. As mentioned above though, the better the first draft, the less editing you have to do later. I'm still learning that lesson.

Are first drafts supposed to be horrible?

Click to expand...

They can be, and they often are, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they're supposed to be horrible.

The most important part of a first draft, however, is finishing. Not producing prose-and-plot that's equal to other authors' revised-and-edited material.

In the days of pulps there were mighty authors who could write publishable first draft. In the days of pulps there were a ton of markets. How many of those mighty authors are remembered now? How many of the stories are still read? A handful, and we can name them all.

Unless you are a mighty author, do not be too uptight. Type, then revise when you have a finished piece. In this way lies serenity of spirit.

14K in, I'm still flailing around anxiously trying to figure out what the story is about, so at 14K in? Yeah--things are pretty shitty.

Farther into the WIP, I'll have more figured out and the writing will proceed a bit more smoothly, although there's still plenty of flailing and anxiety occurring. There's a reason I write with the door closed.

And, like Amadan, when I'm done and go back to read it all for the first time, I'm usually pleasantly surprised at how much better it is than what I thought it would be.

James D. Macdonald said:

They can be, and they often are, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they're supposed to be horrible.

The most important part of a first draft, however, is finishing. Not producing prose-and-plot that's equal to other authors' revised-and-edited material.

In the days of pulps there were mighty authors who could write publishable first draft. In the days of pulps there were a ton of markets. How many of those mighty authors are remembered now? How many of the stories are still read? A handful, and we can name them all.

Unless you are a mighty author, do not be too uptight. Type, then revise when you have a finished piece. In this way lies serenity of spirit.

Click to expand...

THIS (especially the part with emphasis mine). I want to hang this on my wall for inspiration.

I wouldn't say they are supposed to be - as in it's some kind of mistake if they're not! But they are allowed to be. Especially when you're still early in your writing career, when you're still figuring it out.

When you're not yet on any kind of deadline then there are no bad consequences to writing a messy, even crappy first draft. The sky won't fall. The police won't come get you. Nobody else ever has to see it if you don't want them to. So enjoy that freedom while you have it.

The primary function of the first draft, in my opinion, is to make the story exist. Editing it for making it better.

scarletpeaches said:

I allow myself to write crap and conversely, this permission makes my writing looser, less self-conscious and, I believe, somehow better for it.

Click to expand...

This.

In my current WIP, I love my action scenes and the main plot. But the relationships aren't fleshed out, there are gaps in my historical knowledge, and some elements are horribly cliched.

But that is what the second draft is for.

No, first drafts are not supposed to be horrible. I think this notion stems from the idiotic statement Hemingway made about all first drafts being shit. Too many take this literally, and have no clue what Hemingway's first drafts were actually like.

A first draft may, indeed, be horrible, but if it is it shouldn't be because you said, "What the heck? I can write as poorly as I want, I can write complete crap, and then turn it into pure gold later."

Even a first draft should be written as well as you can write it. This may be extremely well, or it may be pretty bad, but unless you're trying to write well, don't count on selling whatever comes later.