How to Write

I recently finished a whodunit, a crime/fiction novel based in a tiny town in Wisconsin - the middle of nowhere.  The story came out well and I am (rightly I think) proud of it - of the suspense, of the surprise twists, of the original voice of the narrator.  It ain't Agatha Christie, but it ain't bad neither (as my narrator would say).

But as I finished I began to reflect back on the writing process, in the way that famous authors do when asked in interviews how they write.  For aspiring authors, this is an endless source of fascination, as if some magic formula can be discovered by learning how other authors do it.   Slate.com recently had an entire series on the creative process, looking at (for example) whether alcohol and drugs help or hinder the creative process.  I enjoy these accounts as much as the next person, but in my view they should be taken with a grain of salt.  The fact is that there are as many approaches as there are writers.

I suppose there are certain general camps, stereotypes if you will.  There are the 'creative' types who plunge bravely ahead without a roadmap, building characters and discovering where they lead them.  There are the planners, who meticulously trace out every plot twist and turn in elaborate outlines before ever putting pen to paper.  And there are the researchers, who feel they must become an expert on every topic they plan to address in print.  And there are various approaches to the act of writing itself that I suppose could be considered 'types' as well:  the procrastinators who spend the day surfing the net instead of writing, the sloggers who commit to X number of words per day whether the result is art or schlock, those who wait (and wait and wait) for divine inspiration to fill the page.

With these types in my head, I thought back to my writing process and I realized that it was difficult for me to place myself into a camp.  I know what I am not: I am not an obsessive planner who outlines every chapter and every plot twist ahead of time.  When I do that, the writing process, for me, becomes boring and the prose reflects my attitude - I feel as if the creative moment has already passed and I am just slogging along like a mechanic to fill the page.  I am also not someone brave (or foolhardy) enough to set out without any roadmap at all.  I tried that once and ended up with a manuscript that felt cobbled-together, like a Hollywood script that has been through 50 script doctors.

What works best for me is to take the time before I write to think of a concept that is both interesting to me personally and which (I hope) will catch the eye of agents and publishers.   As any aspiring writer knows, this can be a draining, difficult task.  It requires thought, analysis, consideration and - yes - creativity.  I'm not saying I'm an expert (not even close) but I have written before without doing this and the results have always been messy.  The fact is that many books live or die based on a two-line concept. I'm not saying I like that, but the trick for me is to try to find something that fits into an established niche while at the same time sparks my interest and leaves room for creativity.

Beyond that, I consider how the book should begin and end, so that I know generally where I am starting and where I am going.  That often changes as I progress, but it's helpful to me to have a vague roadmap in my head.  Beyond that, I skip all the detailed outlining, focusing rather on the parts I like best: creating characters, fitting everything together like a jigsaw puzzle, building my own little world that I can inhabit while I'm sitting here alone before my screen.  For me, it often helps to have real people and places in mind to serve as a base, a starting point if you will.

And, finally (maybe this is my journalism background talking) I am not scared to go back and tear up what I've already written.  Even the best authors require editing, and the more you are able to edit your own work the better it will be.  This can be hard - after seeing the same words 100 times skills of critical analysis tend to go right out the window.  Two things help me in looking with a fresh eye at my work: first, I print the text out on paper.  For some reason, this helps me review more critically than when I'm staring at a screen.  Second, I let the manuscript sit,  untouched for a few days before coming back to it to edit.  It's amazing all the mistakes I find by doing that.

The moral of this post, if there is any, is to find what works for you.  Maybe my process will serve as your roadmap.  Maybe someone else's.  Maybe you have your own unique approach.  But the main thing is to get writing.  If you don't do that you'll never be a writer.