This experiment was made with intention to write down everything there is on your mind without making connections between them. Reading and referencing previous thoughts can create an urge to begin editing early on (for example, your next idea needs better support from previous one).
I think they might have been referring to needing to type the whole thing again. Back in the typewriter days, I remember drafting papers on pen and pencil until I was read, and then typing it out; occasionally switching to white out ribbons to fix mistakes. Word processors changed a lot of that, and big high school we could all type our papers in Word97 or Corel WordPerfect and print them out; no intermediate steps.
I suppose with a typewriter today, you could still just OCR the result using an old scanner you can pick up at a garage sale or thrift store for nothing, if you didn't want to re-type everything by hand.
R.R. Martin has said he still uses and old word processor with Word Star on it, to have fewer distractions. He transfers things over via floppy disk.
Yesterday I watched "All the President's Men". Even I knew of course, there was an time without computer in the offices, but still, it felt a bit .. really like from a different time. I also did think about, how it would not be so easy like today, to change words or just wrong chars like today.
A go (囲碁, not ~lang) master once taught me how to get my subconscious to reveal moves it knew were bad. We played a quick game, cleared the board, and then played the same game over again. The moves I remembered immediately were the right ones. The moves where I hesitated were the wrong ones. He was easily 20 stones better than me but my subconscious knew, at least, every time I made a mistake against him, even in complex situations.
Repetition is under-appreciated today. I think it's something we lost when we gave up typewriters. I'm not saying we should go back to ink and paper in all cases but I do think there is an aspect we're missing out on, like someone whose fitness deteriorates when they start driving everywhere, or who doesn't know where anything is now that they have a GPS-enabled smartphone.
I completely agree. The first draft should never see the light of day. Just put down your ideas and your points in no particular order. Do not outline. Do not format. Adhere to no rules except to get the first draft done well before the deadline.
Shameless plug - my app, Writing Streak, has the "typewriter" mode (Alt+T) that prevents you from editing the text you wrote, and a "blurred" mode (Alt+B) that hides the text you type, achieving the same effect:
I like the blur, but I find it hard to use. I make extremely many typos and my normal typing method involves simply hitting backspace a lot of times. Obviously I should address that instead of complaining about your blur feature on HN, but the gist is: if I can't even see the last few words I wrote, I'll end up writing gibberish :-)
If there'd be a "blur everything except the last 15 characters or so" kind of mode, or something where it gradually blurs characters as they're further away from the cursor (like a warcraft "fog of war" for typing), then that'd be ultra neat.
That said: WOW that app is nice. You got yourself a new user. I love how it's essentially device local and signup is optional. Super user friendly that way, in a literal sense (i.e. it's very kind & friendly to the user)
Just FYI, in "typewriter" mode, you can still delete if you use Ctrl + Delete or Option + Delete on a Mac. And then if you delete everything in "typewriter" mode using either of those key modifiers, using the other modifier on the empty text input crashes the app.
> Shameless plug - my app, Writing Streak, has the "typewriter" mode (Alt+T) that prevents you from editing the text you wrote
Does it support overstriking? Typing o<BS>/ is a legitimately good way to type ø, for example; it isn't a universal input method by any stretch but when it works, it's very mnemonic.
This is a bit funny to say, since I've only seen both this and the Show HN app in the last 5 minutes, but something I immediately wished for was this blurred mode + the hide everything except the current line from the OP. In other words, blur everything except the current line.
Blurring everything makes it impossible to fix (or see) typos which is annoying, knowing that the output of the thing is going to be full of typos. Hiding texts has another issue (even if not hiding the current line), that is you don't even have a rough idea of how much you've written and what the paragraph lengths look like so far.
If we do blur, but don't blur the current line, it solves both problems for me.
Saying Alt/Option is better, but it’s not true that there is no “Alt” key on Macs. There are many Mac models where the key has both “alt” and “option” written on it. Sometimes it also has the symbol for the Option key.
Yet another shameless plug - my app, Cold Turkey Writer, forces you to write for a certain amount of time or word count before letting you close the app. The pro version also lets you disable the backspace/delete key to prevent editing.
It doesn’t work on mobile, but you should use it with a proper keyboard anyway. There’s nothing sent from the JavaScript to any server; it’s a static page hosted on Netlify with very simple code. It’s just an index.html with style and script tags, 39 lines total.
I use it in the evening when the baby is asleep and I just want to reflect and think for a while. Maybe you will like it too.
This might be an unpopular opinion but I always edit while writing my first draft. This is how I've written 250+ technical blog posts and over a million words worth of course notes.
I basically write a couple of sentences or paragraphs, stop, review, reword things if needed, change things around and move on. Then at the very end I'll give it all a final reordering / fixing until I'm happy with it.
I feel like I can't progress to the next chunk of an article until the prior section is 95% edited because what I write next depends on what was previously written.
Me too. I find that I use the writing process to identify what I'm really trying to communicate. I see that it is important to get the text on the page, but I can't seem to move on until I can't reduce the writing before losing meaning.
A book people might find interesting is Joe Moran’s "First You Write a Sentence: The Elements of Reading, Writing … and Life". He examines writing from the ground up. I found it a really wonderful book to read. Each sentence in it is great.
The "never edit while drafting" advice comes from the creative writing community. It might be of limited use in cases like technical writing, where you already might have a solid idea what the final product should look like before you start. Most people find that trying to write a novel and edit it at the same time is like baking cookies one by one.
This. Technical writing is a different species entirely. You know beforehand all of the pieces, or at least reason about them.
Creativity doesn't work that way. You'll literally inventing new things. It would be like saying, "let me plan out how I will innovate." Makes no sense.
My blog posts and course scripts aren't just documenting code.
I very rarely know what I'm going to write until I start writing. I don't even outline anything. I just start writing and relentlessly edit as I go.
I do the same thing for 1,000 word blog posts as I do with 400,000+ word course scripts.
If anything editing is more important for the larger pieces of work because in order to cleanly flow to the next lesson or section of a course the prior stuff has to be pretty much in its final form.
I agree with all that. If something really isn't working and you just keep flinging words and other content onto the page, that's a pretty good recipe for having a lot of throwaway work. I don't usually polish drafts as I'm writing them unless I do so for something to do while I'm mulling where to take the piece.
I'm not really a big outline person either for either writing or presentations. I almost always have some idea where I'm going though it's not unusual for that to diverge.
That's not what the parent comments are saying. The difference with technical writing isn't that you have a plan for what you're going to write. It's that you already have the domain knowledge that you're going to compile into prose. It's a communication process, rather than an invention process.
A good way to think of creative writing, if you're a technical writer, is to imagine attempting to write a textbook when you don't know the subject at all, and the "demand" from each new paragraph causes you to do the research necessary to acquire the knowledge necessary to write it.
How would you even structure a thing like that, in advance?
How would it ever attain a sensible shape if done a paragraph at a time, when something you learned while doing the research necessary to write paragraph 100 invalidates everything you wrote before it, or causes a complete restructuring of your mental model such that you realize the topic should be presented in an entirely different order? (And then you realize that again, and again, and again...)
A similar thing occurs in investigative journalism. How would you know how to present a story—know what story you're telling, really—before you know all the key facts? In est, before you've completed your investigation? You could certainly write notes about what you might write, but those have little to do with drafting the final story.
For many disciplines, the actual research involves field work, performing experiments, etc., and the thesis is primarily about reporting on that process and connecting it to the pre-existing body of research. For other disciplines (for example, philosophy), the text of the thesis is all there is to the research. Maybe the later is more like creative writing and the former more like technical writing??
(My uncle did a PhD in creative writing, his PhD thesis was a novel.)
Technical writing IS a different beast, and I do a lot of slow writing which involves lots of editing and reworking.
That said, I sometimes feel like I should get more on the page first before doing the work to make sentences elegant and clear, or make the right nuanced point.
>This. Technical writing is a different species entirely. You know beforehand all of the pieces, or at least reason about them.
The advice to "don't edit while you write" usually comes after the advice to "make an outline" before you write. You are supposed to figure out how the pieces fit. Then quickly write it all out. Then edit edit edit.
The general idea is that is easier to edit afterwards than to edit on the fly. Its true for me.
Yet... it does go like this. Art is similar: You cannot simply change a watercolor that much in the middle of painting, for example, so if I have some surrealist scene in my head, I need to at least have the concept laid out before starting to paint. I can do this with acrylic to a point and to a lesser point, oils.
Same thing with writing. Yes, you are literally making things up and inventing new things, but that doesn't mean that one is writing freely and not needing to edit along the way. Outlines give framework, and editing gives time to reflect and plan things that might not have been planned in the beginning. I'm not saying that no one works this way - just sits and writes, or does freehand paintings (I do this last one, even with watercolor, and accept a certain failure rate) - but how one works doesn't really reflect on their creativity nor how their creativity works.
It is not very good advice for creative writing either, though. The general advice given by agencies and professional authors is to write "to the final version" and roughly edit after every writing session or before the next one. (I'm also talking from personal experience, have written eight novels in German and didn't follow this advice in the beginning.)
Not that I know how the mind of a great author works, but it seems that it would be difficult to write a great story without having some solid idea of what the final product should look like before you start. Like creating a product, maybe they pivot a lot after realizing that something doesn't work well (Margaret Atwood apparently did that for a book once, completely started from scratch after realizing that she had chosen the wrong point of view for the protagonist). BUT it's difficult for me to imagine they don't actually have a good solid idea of the story they want to tell before they start writing. If not book by book, then at least chapter by chapter. But hey, I'm not an author, maybe their minds really do work differently. It's possible.
I guess my overall point is that I don't think having a solid idea about what the final product should look like is the reason why authors have the "never edit while drafting" because I think they also pre-structure their ideas, and diverge on "editing while drafting" for some other reason. But of course I have no data or evidence to back this idea up.
Yeah, Rowling is famous for how much she planned her novels in advance. The advice that I am passing on isn't "Don't plan your writing in advance"; it's "While you are in the drafting stage, do not pause to go back and do editing work."
It's good abstract advice for writing, but in practice, even when you're writing the first draft of a longer work -- a novel or novella, or even a short story that has multiple scenes -- it's not uncommon to come up with an idea in the current scene you're writing that's going to require changes to an earlier scene. This is true even if you're working from an outline (even if major beats in the story are set before you're writing, you're almost certainly going to have room for improvisation, and that might just lead to better versions the scenes you thought you already had in mind.) And I've also found that when I sit down and discover myself blocked on a story -- or, for that matter, a technical blog post or even documentation -- sometimes going back and doing minor editing what I wrote the day before will kickstart the creative process.
I completely agree with you.
When it comes to academic writing, the content transforms itself into a more coherent entity as I write. Oftentimes the big picture seems laughably inadequate and even inaccurate when I look at the final product, so much so that writing itself seems like research and thinking beforehand, almost redundant.
There are some parallels, but I don't know if the writing:editing::programming:testing analogy is very strong. I think editing is more like refactoring than anything else, but I hesitate to make parallels between code and prose in general.
Among professional authors, John Scalzi has said many times that he edits as he goes along[1].
For shorter academic and work pieces (and back when I blogged) I’ve done this as well, but I do an outline for longer papers first, and then edit as I go. Of course I wasn’t anywhere near nickjj’s level of output.
For me this edit while writing habit developed in school because I didn't enjoy using a pencil and multiple drafts meant hand writing the entire paper over and over.
For this reason I trained myself to make the first draft the final draft. Now with computers this is no longer relevant as I'm not hand writing multiple drafts on paper.
There are other factors, but I think this one is major for a lot of people.
I'm pretty similar once I actually start writing (100+ technical blogs, 900+ non-technical blogs). But, before I "write", I start with a really rough point form outline -- sometimes it's only a few points that I know I need to make and sometimes it's a dozen points I want to include (some of which may get cut). This high level view helps me create a better story and I find that narrative useful, albeit to a lesser extent, in my technical blogs too.
I also start writing in a fairly basic text editor, not a word processor, which makes it easy for me to reorder that point form outline with my keyboard and get the flow of the major points down before I start the actual writing.
The text editor also prevents me from spending too much time on that 5% of improvements until the very end. But, I do edit major grammar issues and color as I go since, like you, I feel like I can't move on until it sounds right, and the way I say something often shapes what comes next. Still, having an outline helps me get into those weeds a little bit in the moment and not lose sight on where I'm going next.
I can't stress the outline enough. I wish I did it in the early days, but I wasn't able to "see" the whole story from the beginning back then. Now, I find it is the thing that helps me see what is important to the topic. Sometimes I feel like I need to talk about a point up front but after roughing it out I realize it's actually more interesting and easier to understand if I hold it back until the end. Conversely, there are some really interesting things that can't be explained until the end but I can tease them up front to build excitement and then explain them after the foundation is laid.
I've tried the 'never edit your first pass' approach before, and I found that my ideas flowed like sandpaper instead of silk. It was awful. I simply do not think in that manner.
I work like you. Usually paragraph by paragraph, sometimes sentence by sentence. I usually won't break a chain of thought before editing, but I'll usually go back over what I just wrote when I'm done.
It's not really real editing though. You don't catch everything because you're still in the writing mindset. Plenty of times i've just gone back and completely re-written whole sections during editing. I won't usually do that while writing something. Editing and writing are two somewhat different skillsets.
Editing requires a detachment you can't quite get while something's fresh. You need a bit of time away from something before you can go and do a full real edit. It helps you look at things more objectively. Re-reading a first draft of something I wrote after usually only a couple of hours kinda makes me cringe sometimes even with some inline editing while writing.
I look at it like coding. I'll write a section, test it, fix simple mistakes, keep going until I hit a bigger complete milestone, then go back and fix all the real mistakes while I'm debugging.
ETA: Sometimes I wish the edit windows were longer on hn. There's been a few comments on here I wish I could go back and change after i've had time to.look at them more objectively. Not always downvoted ones.
I did, until I discovered that doing it is less efficient overall.
When writing my first draft, I often have very little idea how the whole thing is going to turn out. I simply don't have the big picture yet. If I spend time honing my sentences then, most of the editing time is wasted because I'd later rewrite them anyways.
If you don't do some editing while writing a first draft, but instead defer your intent to make those corrections, you will fail to execute some of those corrections later.
The virtue of editing on a computer is that you can easily correct as you go. If you don't think that's a good idea, you might as well go back to a typewriter or handwriting.
By the way, I understand that editing while writing disrupts some people's "flow". But that doesn't mean that we have to write an entire larger work in a flow. We can switch to flow mode the granularity of paragraphs or sections/chapters.
Masters in all kinds of areas have in common that they start with the big picture and then start refining level by level. But they can keep themselves from refining details that are smaller than the current level.
I think this works for writing as well.
Personally I also use this in programming. When I was young I directly dove into the details but that just doesn't work. Now I'm more like a painter. First big strokes and taking smaller brushes as I move along.
Many many many fiction writers have said they don't plan things out this way. A vast majority of writers I've read interviews of do not plan things out this way. Salman Rushdie, Zadie Smith, Jeffrey Eugenides, Stephen King, and George Saunders are a few I've seen talk about this in person.
Reported pieces are sometimes different, but even then in narrative non-fiction that narrative can evolve along the way. For technical pieces it could be the same.
The reason it works is that it is far easier to futz around with the master plan/outline than it is to get your ass in a chair and write. Also, in fiction certainly, the characters reveal themselves as they go. You can't build more than a pastiche of a human with an outline.
It also makes it easier to still make larger changes early on; details often depend on how the basic structure looks, so they make changes more difficult.
I do something like this from time to time, just with pen and paper. I often have thoughts for blog posts, and I'll write out as much as I can in a dedicated notebook. After ~2-6 days, I'll look at it again with fresh eyes and type up a first rough draft, doing edits, writing more, and rearranging everything to be more cohesive. Again, after 2-6 days I'll take another look and polish the draft.
Generally by that point I find the post is ready to go, but sometimes I go through three or four edits on pieces I'm not sure about. Feedback is also good- I typically ask a friend or my brother to see what they think.
Planes and trains are great for this; I find that I get a lot of writing done while traveling. Even on the subway, sometimes I just type up thoughts into the Notes app, and then pull it up on my computer later.
I wrote the second half of the draft of my novel (kids Sci-Fi) on my iPhone on the train to/from work (scrivener app). I could get in the zone and just tap away.
Now editing, that’s a whole different ballgame. I find editing very hard to do on the phone.
I think you'd enjoy "Draft No. 4" by John McFee. He talks about a very similar approach to writing. You might pick some things up from him talking in depth about the same :)
Doesn't the fact that language improves ability to reason suggest that structure does too? I wonder if this edit later advice is any good. ISTR Harper Lee said she worked on a page at a time till it was right.
- you can see the previous lines (the last 4 lines of text), i.e. they don't fade, so you can still keep some context
- you cannot select, edit (the UX makes it hard). I'm still working on making the UX around it more explicit, curious to hear feedback.
There are several reasons for that (or use cases):
- I use it to foster a better writing habit
- During the day, I keep it on split screen and write to organise my thoughts when I work on more complex problems
- I use it as a diary (and paste the text to the Notes app)
Do you use it in a similar manner? Did working on the app change your writing habits in any way? The reason I ask is because in my case writing this way feels somehow more natural. I ended up writing 800 words per day on average (with spikes to 2-3k).
Also, I'm following the same `div.fade` approach to mask text in my app. The main reason for that was incorrect colour correction/mixing on Firefox (banding or shifting the colour by 1 point).
PS. I'll send over some of the apps here to my partner (a writer) and see which one suits her needs better. I'll let you know if I get any feedback.
This strategy seems like it makes it very difficult to write. What if you lose track of what you've already said? It seems like a better solution is to just disable backspace.
You can edit the current line (to fix spelling misteaks) but not anything else. You can reference as much as your terminal shows.
This is a perfect example of the superiority of the Unix way. Simple programs that do one thing and work well together, combined into things their authors didn't think of. This is my idea of beauty.
So this is an interesting idea. And I do tend to write that way. Especially if I'm not sure what to say, or how to say it.
But I'm not sure what the point is. I mean, searching yields "We couldn’t find any repositories matching 'rolandasb'". And I'm certainly not going to write anything substantive on this site. So how would I do this locally?
The advice we got from our professors when writing theses was: crack open a bottle of fine whisk{e}y [0], get a couple glasses in, write (while keeping your drink topped of course) until writing is a serious challenge, edit the next morning in the harsh and sober light of day [1].
Works a treat, even if you liver may not fully appreciate it.
[0] Whiskey may be substituted for your preferred liquor, but it is a solid traditional writers' choice
This works for many kinds of writing. I often tell people who are trying to work on their website copy to do this. Otherwise your mind comes up with too many objections and you don't get anything done. ;-)
94 comments
[ 20.7 ms ] story [ 1496 ms ] threadWhy not just make it uneditable?
The key, for me, is to retype into a computer and edit during that phase.
Acquiring and operating a typewriter is definitely not, in my view, a simple alternative.
Just writing with pen and paper seems simpler on all counts.
Typewriter acquisition is about an hour of time and $50.
Admittedly, I've owned a typewriter for longer than I've owned a conputer. I put it down in favor of WP5.1, but picked it back up a few years ago.
The advantage over pen and paper, for me, is speed and legibility.
I suppose with a typewriter today, you could still just OCR the result using an old scanner you can pick up at a garage sale or thrift store for nothing, if you didn't want to re-type everything by hand.
R.R. Martin has said he still uses and old word processor with Word Star on it, to have fewer distractions. He transfers things over via floppy disk.
Repetition is under-appreciated today. I think it's something we lost when we gave up typewriters. I'm not saying we should go back to ink and paper in all cases but I do think there is an aspect we're missing out on, like someone whose fitness deteriorates when they start driving everywhere, or who doesn't know where anything is now that they have a GPS-enabled smartphone.
I'm not sure why this is a good thing though. Often times I find I need to go back and edit something for the purpose of continuity.
This doesn't prevent that, but it does hide the reason for it. But, hey, if it works for the user I find no reason to criticize those who'd use it.
Feature idea: prevent you from leaving the page or doing anything else on your laptop for the time period, that way you can’t research anything.
More tips: https://dtrejo.com/how-to-write-consistently-painlessly-and-...
After that, you write.
https://writingstreak.io
I like the blur, but I find it hard to use. I make extremely many typos and my normal typing method involves simply hitting backspace a lot of times. Obviously I should address that instead of complaining about your blur feature on HN, but the gist is: if I can't even see the last few words I wrote, I'll end up writing gibberish :-)
If there'd be a "blur everything except the last 15 characters or so" kind of mode, or something where it gradually blurs characters as they're further away from the cursor (like a warcraft "fog of war" for typing), then that'd be ultra neat.
That said: WOW that app is nice. You got yourself a new user. I love how it's essentially device local and signup is optional. Super user friendly that way, in a literal sense (i.e. it's very kind & friendly to the user)
Just FYI, in "typewriter" mode, you can still delete if you use Ctrl + Delete or Option + Delete on a Mac. And then if you delete everything in "typewriter" mode using either of those key modifiers, using the other modifier on the empty text input crashes the app.
Does it support overstriking? Typing o<BS>/ is a legitimately good way to type ø, for example; it isn't a universal input method by any stretch but when it works, it's very mnemonic.
Blurring everything makes it impossible to fix (or see) typos which is annoying, knowing that the output of the thing is going to be full of typos. Hiding texts has another issue (even if not hiding the current line), that is you don't even have a rough idea of how much you've written and what the paragraph lengths look like so far.
If we do blur, but don't blur the current line, it solves both problems for me.
https://getcoldturkey.com/writer/
https://swa.sh
It doesn’t work on mobile, but you should use it with a proper keyboard anyway. There’s nothing sent from the JavaScript to any server; it’s a static page hosted on Netlify with very simple code. It’s just an index.html with style and script tags, 39 lines total.
I use it in the evening when the baby is asleep and I just want to reflect and think for a while. Maybe you will like it too.
I basically write a couple of sentences or paragraphs, stop, review, reword things if needed, change things around and move on. Then at the very end I'll give it all a final reordering / fixing until I'm happy with it.
I feel like I can't progress to the next chunk of an article until the prior section is 95% edited because what I write next depends on what was previously written.
Does anyone else work like that?
A book people might find interesting is Joe Moran’s "First You Write a Sentence: The Elements of Reading, Writing … and Life". He examines writing from the ground up. I found it a really wonderful book to read. Each sentence in it is great.
Creativity doesn't work that way. You'll literally inventing new things. It would be like saying, "let me plan out how I will innovate." Makes no sense.
I very rarely know what I'm going to write until I start writing. I don't even outline anything. I just start writing and relentlessly edit as I go.
I do the same thing for 1,000 word blog posts as I do with 400,000+ word course scripts.
If anything editing is more important for the larger pieces of work because in order to cleanly flow to the next lesson or section of a course the prior stuff has to be pretty much in its final form.
I'm not really a big outline person either for either writing or presentations. I almost always have some idea where I'm going though it's not unusual for that to diverge.
A good way to think of creative writing, if you're a technical writer, is to imagine attempting to write a textbook when you don't know the subject at all, and the "demand" from each new paragraph causes you to do the research necessary to acquire the knowledge necessary to write it.
How would you even structure a thing like that, in advance?
How would it ever attain a sensible shape if done a paragraph at a time, when something you learned while doing the research necessary to write paragraph 100 invalidates everything you wrote before it, or causes a complete restructuring of your mental model such that you realize the topic should be presented in an entirely different order? (And then you realize that again, and again, and again...)
A similar thing occurs in investigative journalism. How would you know how to present a story—know what story you're telling, really—before you know all the key facts? In est, before you've completed your investigation? You could certainly write notes about what you might write, but those have little to do with drafting the final story.
For many disciplines, the actual research involves field work, performing experiments, etc., and the thesis is primarily about reporting on that process and connecting it to the pre-existing body of research. For other disciplines (for example, philosophy), the text of the thesis is all there is to the research. Maybe the later is more like creative writing and the former more like technical writing??
(My uncle did a PhD in creative writing, his PhD thesis was a novel.)
The advice to "don't edit while you write" usually comes after the advice to "make an outline" before you write. You are supposed to figure out how the pieces fit. Then quickly write it all out. Then edit edit edit.
The general idea is that is easier to edit afterwards than to edit on the fly. Its true for me.
Same thing with writing. Yes, you are literally making things up and inventing new things, but that doesn't mean that one is writing freely and not needing to edit along the way. Outlines give framework, and editing gives time to reflect and plan things that might not have been planned in the beginning. I'm not saying that no one works this way - just sits and writes, or does freehand paintings (I do this last one, even with watercolor, and accept a certain failure rate) - but how one works doesn't really reflect on their creativity nor how their creativity works.
Not that I know how the mind of a great author works, but it seems that it would be difficult to write a great story without having some solid idea of what the final product should look like before you start. Like creating a product, maybe they pivot a lot after realizing that something doesn't work well (Margaret Atwood apparently did that for a book once, completely started from scratch after realizing that she had chosen the wrong point of view for the protagonist). BUT it's difficult for me to imagine they don't actually have a good solid idea of the story they want to tell before they start writing. If not book by book, then at least chapter by chapter. But hey, I'm not an author, maybe their minds really do work differently. It's possible.
I guess my overall point is that I don't think having a solid idea about what the final product should look like is the reason why authors have the "never edit while drafting" because I think they also pre-structure their ideas, and diverge on "editing while drafting" for some other reason. But of course I have no data or evidence to back this idea up.
Hamming agrees in his famous speech (see the Q&A section on this page - https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html) that 50% of the time is just spent writing/presenting research.
* Conventional development = writing, then editing
* Test-driven development = writing and editing simultaneously
The preferences are endless and neither removes the most difficult part which is the conceptual architecture.
Personally, I like to splatter a whole bunch of ideas down first and then later go back and commit.
For shorter academic and work pieces (and back when I blogged) I’ve done this as well, but I do an outline for longer papers first, and then edit as I go. Of course I wasn’t anywhere near nickjj’s level of output.
[1] https://www.panmacmillan.com/blogs/science-fiction-and-fanta...
For this reason I trained myself to make the first draft the final draft. Now with computers this is no longer relevant as I'm not hand writing multiple drafts on paper.
There are other factors, but I think this one is major for a lot of people.
I also start writing in a fairly basic text editor, not a word processor, which makes it easy for me to reorder that point form outline with my keyboard and get the flow of the major points down before I start the actual writing.
The text editor also prevents me from spending too much time on that 5% of improvements until the very end. But, I do edit major grammar issues and color as I go since, like you, I feel like I can't move on until it sounds right, and the way I say something often shapes what comes next. Still, having an outline helps me get into those weeds a little bit in the moment and not lose sight on where I'm going next.
I can't stress the outline enough. I wish I did it in the early days, but I wasn't able to "see" the whole story from the beginning back then. Now, I find it is the thing that helps me see what is important to the topic. Sometimes I feel like I need to talk about a point up front but after roughing it out I realize it's actually more interesting and easier to understand if I hold it back until the end. Conversely, there are some really interesting things that can't be explained until the end but I can tease them up front to build excitement and then explain them after the foundation is laid.
The words, style and delivery of my intentions through a pen/pencil/crayon differ from my spoken word and typed thoughts.
Trite "avoid ..." theses are often ... trite.
I've tried the 'never edit your first pass' approach before, and I found that my ideas flowed like sandpaper instead of silk. It was awful. I simply do not think in that manner.
It's not really real editing though. You don't catch everything because you're still in the writing mindset. Plenty of times i've just gone back and completely re-written whole sections during editing. I won't usually do that while writing something. Editing and writing are two somewhat different skillsets.
Editing requires a detachment you can't quite get while something's fresh. You need a bit of time away from something before you can go and do a full real edit. It helps you look at things more objectively. Re-reading a first draft of something I wrote after usually only a couple of hours kinda makes me cringe sometimes even with some inline editing while writing.
I look at it like coding. I'll write a section, test it, fix simple mistakes, keep going until I hit a bigger complete milestone, then go back and fix all the real mistakes while I'm debugging.
ETA: Sometimes I wish the edit windows were longer on hn. There's been a few comments on here I wish I could go back and change after i've had time to.look at them more objectively. Not always downvoted ones.
When writing my first draft, I often have very little idea how the whole thing is going to turn out. I simply don't have the big picture yet. If I spend time honing my sentences then, most of the editing time is wasted because I'd later rewrite them anyways.
The virtue of editing on a computer is that you can easily correct as you go. If you don't think that's a good idea, you might as well go back to a typewriter or handwriting.
I think this works for writing as well.
Personally I also use this in programming. When I was young I directly dove into the details but that just doesn't work. Now I'm more like a painter. First big strokes and taking smaller brushes as I move along.
Many many many fiction writers have said they don't plan things out this way. A vast majority of writers I've read interviews of do not plan things out this way. Salman Rushdie, Zadie Smith, Jeffrey Eugenides, Stephen King, and George Saunders are a few I've seen talk about this in person.
Reported pieces are sometimes different, but even then in narrative non-fiction that narrative can evolve along the way. For technical pieces it could be the same.
The reason it works is that it is far easier to futz around with the master plan/outline than it is to get your ass in a chair and write. Also, in fiction certainly, the characters reveal themselves as they go. You can't build more than a pastiche of a human with an outline.
Generally by that point I find the post is ready to go, but sometimes I go through three or four edits on pieces I'm not sure about. Feedback is also good- I typically ask a friend or my brother to see what they think.
Planes and trains are great for this; I find that I get a lot of writing done while traveling. Even on the subway, sometimes I just type up thoughts into the Notes app, and then pull it up on my computer later.
Now editing, that’s a whole different ballgame. I find editing very hard to do on the phone.
[0]: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/04/29/draft-no-4
I'm working on a very similar problem atm: https://ulysses.sonnet.io/
My approach is slightly different though:
- you can see the previous lines (the last 4 lines of text), i.e. they don't fade, so you can still keep some context
- you cannot select, edit (the UX makes it hard). I'm still working on making the UX around it more explicit, curious to hear feedback.
There are several reasons for that (or use cases):
- I use it to foster a better writing habit
- During the day, I keep it on split screen and write to organise my thoughts when I work on more complex problems
- I use it as a diary (and paste the text to the Notes app)
Do you use it in a similar manner? Did working on the app change your writing habits in any way? The reason I ask is because in my case writing this way feels somehow more natural. I ended up writing 800 words per day on average (with spikes to 2-3k).
Also, I'm following the same `div.fade` approach to mask text in my app. The main reason for that was incorrect colour correction/mixing on Firefox (banding or shifting the colour by 1 point).
PS. I'll send over some of the apps here to my partner (a writer) and see which one suits her needs better. I'll let you know if I get any feedback.
ctrl+d to exit.
You can edit the current line (to fix spelling misteaks) but not anything else. You can reference as much as your terminal shows.
This is a perfect example of the superiority of the Unix way. Simple programs that do one thing and work well together, combined into things their authors didn't think of. This is my idea of beauty.
But I'm not sure what the point is. I mean, searching yields "We couldn’t find any repositories matching 'rolandasb'". And I'm certainly not going to write anything substantive on this site. So how would I do this locally?
Works a treat, even if you liver may not fully appreciate it.
[0] Whiskey may be substituted for your preferred liquor, but it is a solid traditional writers' choice
[1] TL;DR 'Write drunk, edit sober'