Two at a Time

Sage said:

There are many people who start novels & never finish them because they come up w/ another idea that they are so passionate about that they'll abandon the first project, & then do it again & again, never completing anything. Someone with a history of that should make an effort to stick with whatever they're working on just to complete something.

Click to expand...

This is what I'm worried about. I have a great idea for another book, but I'm really trying to restrain myself. I know that if I start working on another one, I'll stop this WIP and not come back to it. I jotted down the basic idea that I had and am trying to put it out of my mind while I'm working on this one. It's a different time period as well, which would mean a lot more research in a different direction than I am going in right now.

I know that a lot of people can write more than one book at a time, and can write and edit at the same time.
*seethes*
I'm hoping to one day finally get my head around that. I have difficulty working on two novels at once, and even writing one and editing another at the same time seems to be beyond me.
I'd see what works best for you. If you're not comfortable working on more than one at once, then don't.

I'm working on two equally unpublishable novels right now.

caw.

Hah!

Defeatist!

It's like learning to juggle. If you've got no coordination for manipulating multiple objects, don't try it. If you do, and you're successful, be careful how many balls you toss into the air at once. Too many and something is going to come crashing down on your head.

Two

I'm always working on two or three at a time, though in different genres. It all depends on the writer. If you'e comfortable doing so, and if working on one doesn't cause you to abandon the other, then why not?

I can write two or more pieces of fluff at the same time, but nothing of consequence (unconnected scenes, bits of dialog with no real story yet, that sort of thing). I tend to carry along interesting themes or visuals or motifs from one story to another. I'm afraid that if I was actually working on larger projects that they would end up being very much the same.

I write on projects other than my primary WIP when I'm stuck and need to think it out. I also do this when I'm stale, or when a new inspiration hits me. Then I return to the primary work.

When I get a new inspiation I not only record the basic concept, but I also start writing text so that I can capture the flavor of my inspiration, sufficiently to resume the writing with the original mood when I'm able to return to it.

I'm finishing up the first book of a trilogy. From time to time I step away from the primary work to record something of significance pertaining to the prequel. At this point I have sctually begun writing the prequel, though it is secondary to tne original work.

This seems to be working for me at this time. I know that I'm writing slower than some more prolific, but at this time I believe that quality is more important than speed.

My first book is the foundation of the series. I feel that my prequel and sequel will flow more rapidly, mainly because of the structural notes and concepts I'm developing along the way.

Firstly, it should be easy to write more than one book at a time because you're supposed to be taking notes as you go and outlining! Wrap your head around nothing, write it down!

Secondly, I recommend thinking in the three parts of the novel process: Researching for the outline/first draft, composition and shaping of outline/first/second drafts into something resembling a novel, and then editing until the words glow like Caravaggio's oil paintings.

Since few individuals ever make a career out of just one book, I think it is important to divide our time up among three books.

We all have a gut feeling about when we're better writing, researching, or editing. Formalize it.

In the morning write that first draft of one book. In the evening edit book 2. Then, in bed, read your research books and take notes until your eyes roll back in your head.

It's not as hard as it sounds.

Of course, it isn't for everyone.

I'm writing 9 novels at this time. Of course I write more in one novel than this other novel or that other novel. But there's always something that I like for one of my novels and then I write it down somewhere. Presently I'm writing MAINLY on 3 books. then the other ones I just write about them sporadically.

I write a number at a time, only when I'm stumped, but one novel always remains my primary focus. Usually, though, I dedicate my time to one, and read books along the same genre.

badducky said:

Firstly, it should be easy to write more than one book at a time because you're supposed to be taking notes as you go and outlining! Wrap your head around nothing, write it down!

Secondly, I recommend thinking in the three parts of the novel process: Researching for the outline/first draft, composition and shaping of outline/first/second drafts into something resembling a novel, and then editing until the words glow like Caravaggio's oil paintings.

Since few individuals ever make a career out of just one book, I think it is important to divide our time up among three books.

We all have a gut feeling about when we're better writing, researching, or editing. Formalize it.

In the morning write that first draft of one book. In the evening edit book 2. Then, in bed, read your research books and take notes until your eyes roll back in your head.

It's not as hard as it sounds.

Of course, it isn't for everyone.

Click to expand...

Well, you aren't SUPPOSED to be taking notes and outlining unless you want to do so. It certainly isn't necessary, and darned few of my favorites writers ever outline anyting, and never make notes. They seldom even research before starting to wirte.

In fact, of my dozen or so favorite writers, only one ever outlines anything, and his entire outlines are always under 2,000 words for the entire novel. And none of them make notes.

There is no way you're SUPPOSED to write a novels or novels, and when you look at how enough pro writers do it, you find they almost never do things the way you're SUPPOSED to do them.

Nor do I think outlining and notetaking or anything else makes it easier to write publishable novels, be it one or nine. Yes, you'll probably have to write more than one book to make a career, but I'm not sure writing more than one novel at a time doesn't make it far more difficult to write novels that are actually publishable for most writers.

I'm firmly on the side of Stephen King, Ray Bradbury, and a covey of other writers when it comes to this subject.

On plotting, Bradbury, a superb writer who never writes anything that doesn't have a wonderful plot, said this: "Remember: Plot is no more than footprints left in the snow after your characters have run by on their way to incredible destinations. Plot is observed after the fact rather than before. It cannot precede action. It is the chart that remains when an action is through. That is all plot should ever be."

Stephen King puts it in a somewhat blunter manner. In his book "On Writing" he says: "Plot is, I think, the good writer's last resort and the dullard's first choice."

This means, of course, no outlining and no taking of notes.

If it works for you, meaning if you can write publishable novels this way, you should absolutely do it this way. But it isn't the way you're SUPPOSED to write a novel. There is no way you're SUPPOSED to go about it, and most of my favorite writers would rather pump gas for a living than write novels in this manner. I know I would.

And how many of the writers you mentioned were able to juggle more than one novel in their head, with a full-time job in an unrelated field, and a family? And of the very few that did just that, how many of them succeeded quickly? One? Two?

Me? I'm a big F. Scott Fitzgerald fan. His outlines were sometimes larger than the books he was writing. Gore Vidal's pre-writing is where he rules the world of American Historical Fiction: research, note-taking, outlining, and etc.

My outlines are in the 5000-10000 word range, and my research notes fill multiple notebooks. I don't use all of it, but it's all in the air of the book I'm writing.

Not every outline is the same, nor every writer.

Think about it this way. Drive from Dallas to Denver.

I live in D/FW. There are two main ways to get to Denver. One is going west to the Rat Tong pass in New Mexico (slightly longer, but gorgeous desert scenery), and the other is hopping 287 through Amarillo, Oklahoma, and wiggling around highways to get to Colorado (shorter but it's like driving over one, endles field of rough grass).

When I start to drive to Denver, I have a map of the way I want to go. As I'm driving, I may encounter all kinds of weird detours, and weird sights and sounds that merit viewing. The weather may change, the roads may suck too much to continue this way,etc. The map isn't perfect. It's just the general guide in the best of circumstances.

If a writer just gets in his car with a piece of paper that says "Denver", he'd better already know the way. Stephen King, Bradbury, etc. have driven to Denver enough to know the way without being told. My Dad -- in real life -- used to live in Denver, and used to drive me up there once a month to do Drum Corps (thanks, Dad!), and he doesn't need a map to get there and to wiggle around on the way, because he's already been there so many times.

Stephen King, Bradbury, etc. are capable of doing exactly that. They know the way because they've driven it already. The very few writers that are capable of the metaphoric drive to Denver while juggling multiple books, another job or two, and a family, are the exception that prove the rule. It's so hard, only the most gifted can pull it off.

I know most of the way Denver. There are sections of the drive that I know very well, and places I don't know at all. I don't use the map all the time. I use it to get over the places that I don't know. When I'm stuck, I have somewhere to look. And, if, as I'm driving, I discover something about the road I'm on, or the tiny little town I've hit, then the map also helps me scoot over a few blocks, and still remain on the larger trail.

Outlines aren't about mechanical plot-writing. They're about efficiently pushing yourself through situations that may lead to writer's block. They're about keeping your eyes on the larger destinations.

If you don't use one, that's your concern, and obviously I can't stop you.

If you do not currently attempt taking detailed notes, I encourage you to try. You'll never really realize how much you forget until you start writing everything down.

badducky, you took the words right out of my mouth.

You and James both make great points in supporting your methods of novel writing. I admire the people who can keep everything in their head. I'd be lost without my outlines.

I can keep everything in my head, but the voices drive me nuts.

For what it's worth, I take some notes, I don't outline. However I think each writer should probably do whatever works best for them.

I start with a general idea of a story and develop well defined characters. I put them in the situations that would lead toward the telling of the story and let them write it. I'm just my characters typist.

Just wanted to share Webster's word of the day:

fictioneer \fik-shuh-NEER\ noun

: one who writes fiction especially in quantity and without high standards

Example sentence:
Dwight was a fictioneer who specialized in pulp novels, producing over 300 of them in his long career.

Jamesaritchie said:

Well, you aren't SUPPOSED to be taking notes and outlining unless you want to do so. It certainly isn't necessary, and darned few of my favorites writers ever outline anyting, and never make notes. They seldom even research before starting to wirte.
In fact, of my dozen or so favorite writers, only one ever outlines anything, and his entire outlines are always under 2,000 words for the entire novel. And none of them make notes.

Click to expand...

And most of my favorite professional writers DO outline and do take notes, albeit to varying degrees. Which goes to show that the only right way for any one writer is the way that works for him.

Stephen King puts it in a somewhat blunter manner. In his book "On Writing" he says: "Plot is, I think, the good writer's last resort and the dullard's first choice."

This means, of course, no outlining and no taking of notes.

Click to expand...

Really? I don't think it means that at all. I took it to mean that relying solely, or even mostly on plot, as opposed to strong characterization and powerful story telling, is a recipe for disaster. Nothing in outlining or note taking precludes the development of believable, memorable characters or the crafting of an unforgettable and compelling story.

If it works for you, meaning if you can write publishable novels this way, you should absolutely do it this way.

Click to expand...

On this we agree.

Beth