What is your process of writting?

Miscellaneous General
1

As many posters on here are also bloggers and even writters of Mises dailies, I would like to ask you all what is your process of writting? How do you write?

I find that before the age of computers I would have been incapable of writting anything of any value or sense. I find it very difficult to write even one paragraph from start to finish that would be very good. What I do is revise the text in front of me many times over. My “writting” really consists of 9 parts editing and one part writting. Not even writting, really more like brainstorming. I spew the stuff that I have to say in a word file, sometimes it does not even take the form of sentances. Then I edit the file over and over again, so it gets nearer to something appropriate for human consumption with each turn, though the differences between two consecutive versions can be very small. This is easy with a word processor, but it would be horrendously difficult with a typewriter. God bless technology!

How about you? Do you write sentance by sentance, so that when you get to the end you are more or less done? Or do you have some more unorthodox method?

2

I got my start debating on dialup bulletin boards in the late 80s and early 90s. In effect, constantly debating caused me to evolve a rhetorically effective writing style. It also, at least because I’m not self-deceptive and avoid cognative biases, forced me to refine my ideas, moving ever close to what is true, not simply what I already believe or simply wish to.

Therefore, one of my best writing processes is to accost a board like this one and get into debates. My writing style in a column where I want to convince people is actually completely different from when I am seeking to refine my ideas by forcing them to compete with others. In the latter case, I state things very strongly, sometimes going out of my way to assert points without supplying support, in order to draw out criticism and get the discussion moving. There’s nothing that’ll kill a new discussion faster than presenting all of the proof so that nobody feels they can rebut what you claim.

Note that I don’t really expect to convince my opponents in those debates. Confrontational tone rarely does this, although you can convince some of the other 99% of readers who never post.

If I have a new issue I want to address, I go out and get into debates with adamant, hopefully intelligent opponents until my article actually writes itself, in what is left over as my core defense that the badguys can’t seem to get past.

For example, on here yesterday I stumbled upon what seems to be the irrefutable proof that fractional reserve banking is not fraud:

Any fractional reserve bank can simply print on each certificate “this is redeemable for its value in gold, pending supply: we keep 10% of our notes, in gold, as reserves”. This illustrates what is already true: That everyone knows it’s not a literal gold warehouse already, ergo it’s not fraud.

Nobody has even TRIED to refute that. I think it’s simply insurmountable.

My actual writing process can therefore just be a matter of nicely formatting the tightest set of arguments I’ve come up with in debates, putting them into a more neutral tone.

If I haven’t debated out an article’s structure, what works best for me is exactly what you say; I throw up (pun intended) some rough idea and then rewrite/edit it repeatedly, until it’s tight and pretty.

3

From my own experience, I find things to be much, much easier once I’ve identified the thesis to my piece of writing. Once you have identified your central argument, everything else usually comes together quite nicely. When I have trouble, it’s generally either because (1) I don’t have a good thesis, or (2) new questions start popping up as I’m writing that need further investigation. In dealing with the latter case, you may need to tidy up your thesis a bit to make your argument and subsequent writing consistent and easy to follow.

As for the topic, you can take one of two paths. The first, and easiest, is to critique someone else and justify why their position is wrong or flawed. The second path is actually arguing your own position. The latter is much more difficult because people will critique your own position relentlessly. It’s much, much easier to explain why you think something is wrong than it is to create something that will convince people you’re right. But as Kaz noted, when dealing with the latter, it’s useful to throw the ideas out into the open and read to responses. It’s a humbling and educational experience, which is a critical component to any successful writer!

4

I usually start my process by checking the grammer of my subject.

:wink:

edit: oh, you’ve used ‘writting’ a bunch of times, so you think that’s how that’s spelled.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/writing

5

I just sort of throw my thoughts together into words. I don’t prepare much, and in fact I dislike outlining. I find it much easier to just turn my thoughts into text in one sitting without having to worry about every little detail. Usually once I’ve decided I’m done with a statement, I quickly look it over and correct spelling, grammar, or punctuation, and out it goes (whether it be an essay, forum post, etc.). Most of the time I auto-correct errors I notice as I’m typing something

I find it gives me a clearer and simpler writing style. It’s probably one of the reasons I don’t use many big words in essays or posts. My style may not be eloquent or quote-worthy, but it works for me.

6

I 'm poor at spelling. I relly on spellchecker applets. Again, God bless technology.

7

I find that writing an outline helps structure my article, and reminds me of what I’m trying to say (sometimes I tend to go on tangents when I write, as I try to develop a point that is independent of the thesis). Revisions and editing are very important — I’ve started to print out my rough drafts and go over them on paper, instead of re-reading through Word; I find it helps. Sometimes my writing flows very well, other times it doesn’t. For example, “A Culture of Fear” (apparently the fifth most read Mises Daily of 2010) is, by my standards, some of my worst writing (well, not my worst, but relative to the other articles I’ve written, certainly — the first version of that piece, though, was an entire magnitude worse.

Reading is imperative to good writing. I have always been relatively good at writing (maybe not very good, but above average is where I’d put myself), and my style reflects on what I read (nonfiction books, mostly). I really wish I read more fiction, but it’s just not very interesting to me (most of the fiction I’ve read has been for school, and I’ve also read political novels such as 1984).

Anyways, like I said: outlines (for structure) and revision.

8

Tsk-tsk, Nielsio - you broke the cardinal rule of internet spell checkers.

You misspelled a word yourself while correcting someone else - grammar.

:smiley:

9

Also, it’s “sentence”, not “sentance”.

10

Its 90% lightning. I become possessed. I did this in about 3 hours total work time, but it took me a month of mulling the idea around in my head for it to come out.

I spend a little bit of effort organizing my pieces. Usually the subject is pretty narrow so organization is not a big deal.

Timewise, I might spend a lot of it editing. But this part is mostly mechanical for me, so I can put my brain on the back burner.

11

I once gave writing advice to a new writer, and he has since become one of the best writers I know. The core of it was as follows:

  • Rely heavily on a thesaurus. Word choice is very important.
  • I think it’s all about re-writing. After you write a draft, take each paragraph at a time, and really work it over until you love how it sounds and how much it makes sense. Hone your style. (1) read a ton (to absorb the best elements of the styles of other writers) and (2) read your own writing over and over and over again, constantly making little improvements.
12

Marco, if you develop a good note taking and note storing system from your readings, then much of your writing is simply paste and fill. Though many would disagree, i think a mistake that many writers indulge in is worrying about whether their thoughts or writings are innovative or parroting. I know some individuals who exhaust vast amounts of time Googling their thoughts to see if anyone else has written about it before abandoning the project. Also, i say screw proofing! I teach math for a living, not grammar. Find yourself a cheap editor. My editor if about average but she edits for .005 cents per word with a decent turn around time (i can provide you her contact info if you would like).

13

The things I write about - even the arguments within the piece - tend to just slap me in the face at random times. I don’t usually choose the subjects (except for the newspaper since I have deadlines), but my good work always happens by itself. I write those thoughts on a whiteboard, jot down a few extra notes, and then wait until I’m in the mood to actually write it out, and I try to do that in one sitting. I never force myself to write because I feel like it will sound forced when someone is reading it.

I try not to use a thesaurus, but this is a very good point. I definitely take the time to arrange sentences in specific ways and use specific-sounding words when I can in order to fit the tone/mood of the piece. Crossing out ‘run’ and replacing it with ‘sprint’ may not seem important, but it can affect how the reader feels when he’s looking over a sentence.

I used to do this. I still do it sometimes out of curiosity, but not too often. I realize that people have most likely already written about the things I want to write about, but not everyone has read those past pieces. My writing might get read by some passerby who realizes that politics interest him in great ways, and that’s just one step in a previously-apathetic person become enlightened. I never thought I’d give a damn about libertarianism/politics, but now I can’t stop thinking about it, and it’s due to good writers writing old pieces in new ways.

14

I’m the worst. I hate it when people attack my spelling and grammer when their argument is in shambles. Though I understand when it gets so bad people can’t read what I am trying to say.

15

While you undoubtedly meant it in a good way, taken wrong that would be horrible advice.

If your epistolary hortatory is chock-full of risible, sesquipedalean solecism, even an irrefragable argument leaves you looking like a logoleptic hobbledehoy.

The wording needs to feel natural…words you look up in a thesaurus can easily come across as awkward. Even if you refer to the definition, that doesn’t really impart the gestalt of how the word is comfortably used. It can also end up looking really pseudo-intellectual. Like a lexicographically pedantic article in the New York Times.

Word choice IS important, and a thesaurus is good for reminding you of an alternative, because avoiding redundancy is a good rhetorical techunique, but it should always be words you’re already comfortable with, and at the right level, in the correct style, for the reader.

16

I think that is why Danny added “Word choice is very important.”

17

Absolutely, I specified that it’s valid, but said it can easily be interpreted wrong.

It can, obviously, mean “open up the thesaurus and CHOOSE a fancier word”.

Which, thanks to socialized education, is almost exclusively what people think thesaurae are for.

Post script:

I did peek at http://highvocab.wordpress.com/ to remind me of a few of the words in that fancy paragraph…but in my defense, I already knew the words, because I edit that site.

18

i.e. the thesaurus is important, but make sure you know what the word means and in what context it can be used.

19

One other question: do you have a house rule what length sentence or paragraph should not exceed?

I often feel my paragraphs and sentences will seem way too long (which is esspecially bad when you are poor at placing commas). Despite that I often don’t have the heart to cut them into pieces.

20

I advise the author to adopt the habit at the editing stage of reading ones text out-loud at a medium pace.