Thinking about first drafts as open doors is wonderful. You want to see where the draught is coming from, maybe fix it where it sticks, tighten up the handle, and shut it (mostly) some day. You get there. It's not easy for people to continue on if they've been told by someone who "knows better" that the door is worthless anyway. You may have to work to get it door-shaped, but nonetheless it is still a door.
I once had a writing teacher who ended workshops with a zesty, "Go now, and write like gods!" It was joyous, engaging, never felt like pressure. He just wanted us to feel good, and we did.
Sometimes a lot of preplanning and prewriting take place in my mind, so the first draft on paper or screen is further along than one might expect if his or her writing process is different. Yet a draft is a draft. I like your open door metaphor.
Writing teachers who call a work shitty are being lazy. Aren't they supposed to model the use of precise language and actually encourage the honing of craft? Such harsh language seems unnecessarily cruel and arrogant and maybe self-serving in limiting the pool of potential writers. Many writers I know are sensitive people who already deal with feelings of insecurity about their work and themselves and have had to work at both honing their craft and layering on emotional armor. An instructor can be both honest and kind.
I had exactly that in college: a mentor who was honest and kind. That's been my model. Degrading students is not a good teaching model, and we all know how easily it is to become deflated in the face of harsh criticism. So why apply it to yourself?
And yes, a lot of writing gets done before the physical act and sometimes we can feel like we're transcribing something already formed. But even then, a draft is not something to be loaded with derision.
I never think of my stories as "shitty" - dry, cold, lack of oomph, going nowhere... yes, all that, and I have a few sitting there gathering dust for those reasons. Besides, what's a first draft anyway? I rarely write a story in one go (even less a book), I write, rewrite, fine-tune, then move forward - 1 step backward, 2 steps forward, on a good day. So draft #1 might be draft #32, and by the time I get to the end, it's a lot more than a "premier jet" as we say in French. Then an editor might come and say: that ending could use some rework. I'm lucky so far, I've only dealt with polite people :)
Wonderful! I hate to hear writers use this phrase as well. My words to first drafters is: "You are the first audience who will read this version. Be kind to the writer in you who has demonstrated the courage to trust you with their work."
It just simply isn’t the correct word. It’s a little embarrassing to me that a person who deals with words and gets paid for it would reach for that one.
A draft may work, and may not work, it seems to me. And the trick is to figure out why, and carry on with the job.
I don’t like the message that you can turn shit into gold; that seems like terrible advice. Even a thing you end up deciding not to salvage can be hugely valuable as a lesson for you in what sort of thing you can’t quite pull off. Or maybe just don’t want to because it isn’t your voice.
To align with the writing process, I prefer to call first drafts gathering raw materials. Next comes shaping the raw materials to realize your vision, then polishing it for readers. If you call a draft shitty or bad, there is nowhere for the writer to go. (Sorry for preaching.)
I agree that first drafts don't have to be perfect, but they are not poop. We know that great writers like Arthur Miller and Samuel Taylor Coleridge revised their drafts of prose and poetry. We have Coleridge's letters to friends, which often contained a rough draft of a poem that he was working on. We have early drafts of Miller's plays and can see what he changed in the final version. We need to be patient with ourselves as we refine our first drafts and praise ourselves for the courage to tackle the difficulties that writing a manuscript presents.
Best wishes for 2024!
Sincerely,
Janet Ruth Heller
Author of the poetry books Nature’s Olympics (Wipf and Stock, 2021), Exodus (WordTech Editions, 2014), Folk Concert: Changing Times (Anaphora Literary Press, 2012) and Traffic Stop (Finishing Line Press, 2011); the scholarly book Coleridge, Lamb, Hazlitt, and the Reader of Drama (University of Missouri Press, 1990); the middle-grade chapter book for kids The Passover Surprise (Fictive Press, 2015, 2016); and the award-winning picture book for kids about bullying, How the Moon Regained Her Shape (Arbordale, 2006; seventh edition 2022).
I've seen relatively successful writers describe their first drafts as 'shitty' and it's never sat well with me. Like, @SarahStyf, I'm in tune with your reappraisal, Lev. Well said.
What Anne Lamott hath wrought! Still, there's a place for shit as a metaphor for the process -- like fertilizer or Yeats's rag and bone shop of the heart. Anne did give in to too much self-deprecation there, though, even though her intention was good. Gentleness, with oneself and with other writers -- even if it finally comes round to an assessment of "this is shit" -- should always be the way.
Ahh...but shit and manure are words that have a different valence, even though I still wouldn't use either because they're too negative. Writers can be easily dispirited by the wrong words, so why internalize them no matter what writing guru has made them supposedly palatable?
I was brought in in 2011 to teach CW at Michigan State because the English Dept. chair discovered I'd "published more books than the entire creative faculty put together." His words, not mine. That did not sit well with everyone and there were faculty objections to my teaching advanced CW classes even when students from my intro CW classes would have loved the continuity. That's just one example.
Thinking about first drafts as open doors is wonderful. You want to see where the draught is coming from, maybe fix it where it sticks, tighten up the handle, and shut it (mostly) some day. You get there. It's not easy for people to continue on if they've been told by someone who "knows better" that the door is worthless anyway. You may have to work to get it door-shaped, but nonetheless it is still a door.
I love what you've done with the image!
Ah, thanks! And thank you for such a great piece - it made me think about first drafts in a completely different way.
I'm glad to hear that!
I once had a writing teacher who ended workshops with a zesty, "Go now, and write like gods!" It was joyous, engaging, never felt like pressure. He just wanted us to feel good, and we did.
I love that! The best way to end a class.
The door metaphor is gold!
Sometimes a lot of preplanning and prewriting take place in my mind, so the first draft on paper or screen is further along than one might expect if his or her writing process is different. Yet a draft is a draft. I like your open door metaphor.
Writing teachers who call a work shitty are being lazy. Aren't they supposed to model the use of precise language and actually encourage the honing of craft? Such harsh language seems unnecessarily cruel and arrogant and maybe self-serving in limiting the pool of potential writers. Many writers I know are sensitive people who already deal with feelings of insecurity about their work and themselves and have had to work at both honing their craft and layering on emotional armor. An instructor can be both honest and kind.
I had exactly that in college: a mentor who was honest and kind. That's been my model. Degrading students is not a good teaching model, and we all know how easily it is to become deflated in the face of harsh criticism. So why apply it to yourself?
And yes, a lot of writing gets done before the physical act and sometimes we can feel like we're transcribing something already formed. But even then, a draft is not something to be loaded with derision.
This is a perfect reframing of drafting our work.
Thanks!
I never think of my stories as "shitty" - dry, cold, lack of oomph, going nowhere... yes, all that, and I have a few sitting there gathering dust for those reasons. Besides, what's a first draft anyway? I rarely write a story in one go (even less a book), I write, rewrite, fine-tune, then move forward - 1 step backward, 2 steps forward, on a good day. So draft #1 might be draft #32, and by the time I get to the end, it's a lot more than a "premier jet" as we say in French. Then an editor might come and say: that ending could use some rework. I'm lucky so far, I've only dealt with polite people :)
Wonderful! I hate to hear writers use this phrase as well. My words to first drafters is: "You are the first audience who will read this version. Be kind to the writer in you who has demonstrated the courage to trust you with their work."
That's a great message!
It just simply isn’t the correct word. It’s a little embarrassing to me that a person who deals with words and gets paid for it would reach for that one.
A draft may work, and may not work, it seems to me. And the trick is to figure out why, and carry on with the job.
I don’t like the message that you can turn shit into gold; that seems like terrible advice. Even a thing you end up deciding not to salvage can be hugely valuable as a lesson for you in what sort of thing you can’t quite pull off. Or maybe just don’t want to because it isn’t your voice.
Or maybe because you're not ready, for whatever reason, whether technique, experience, emotional question.
I agree that we can learn a lot from our experiments. And nothing we write is a waste of time in the end since it's taught us something.
Excellent way to think of a first draft. Fecal pejoratives are definitely not helpful. :)
To align with the writing process, I prefer to call first drafts gathering raw materials. Next comes shaping the raw materials to realize your vision, then polishing it for readers. If you call a draft shitty or bad, there is nowhere for the writer to go. (Sorry for preaching.)
That's not preaching at all, it's a wise recognition of the writing process and respectful of writers, too.
Thank you. I can't bear to see someone's eyes well up when receiving writing feedback.
I agree that first drafts don't have to be perfect, but they are not poop. We know that great writers like Arthur Miller and Samuel Taylor Coleridge revised their drafts of prose and poetry. We have Coleridge's letters to friends, which often contained a rough draft of a poem that he was working on. We have early drafts of Miller's plays and can see what he changed in the final version. We need to be patient with ourselves as we refine our first drafts and praise ourselves for the courage to tackle the difficulties that writing a manuscript presents.
Best wishes for 2024!
Sincerely,
Janet Ruth Heller
Author of the poetry books Nature’s Olympics (Wipf and Stock, 2021), Exodus (WordTech Editions, 2014), Folk Concert: Changing Times (Anaphora Literary Press, 2012) and Traffic Stop (Finishing Line Press, 2011); the scholarly book Coleridge, Lamb, Hazlitt, and the Reader of Drama (University of Missouri Press, 1990); the middle-grade chapter book for kids The Passover Surprise (Fictive Press, 2015, 2016); and the award-winning picture book for kids about bullying, How the Moon Regained Her Shape (Arbordale, 2006; seventh edition 2022).
My website is https://www.janetruthheller.com/
Patience is very important in writing, absolutely!
I've seen relatively successful writers describe their first drafts as 'shitty' and it's never sat well with me. Like, @SarahStyf, I'm in tune with your reappraisal, Lev. Well said.
Thanks. It's possible they think they're being encouraging to less famous writers, but I don't think they get the potential impact.
What Anne Lamott hath wrought! Still, there's a place for shit as a metaphor for the process -- like fertilizer or Yeats's rag and bone shop of the heart. Anne did give in to too much self-deprecation there, though, even though her intention was good. Gentleness, with oneself and with other writers -- even if it finally comes round to an assessment of "this is shit" -- should always be the way.
Ahh...but shit and manure are words that have a different valence, even though I still wouldn't use either because they're too negative. Writers can be easily dispirited by the wrong words, so why internalize them no matter what writing guru has made them supposedly palatable?
There is a lot of cruelty among academics, and academic writers excel at put-downs.
I was brought in in 2011 to teach CW at Michigan State because the English Dept. chair discovered I'd "published more books than the entire creative faculty put together." His words, not mine. That did not sit well with everyone and there were faculty objections to my teaching advanced CW classes even when students from my intro CW classes would have loved the continuity. That's just one example.
Now you have a piece of why it was so easy for me to write and publish ten academic satires: https://www.levraphael.com/mystery.html :-)