This week, we had the opportunity to engage with several articles. All of them uniquely broach writer’s block. One such article– Anne Lamott’s “Shitty First Drafts,” an excerpt from her novel: “Bird By Bird” pioneers the concept that shitty first drafts are entirely normal. Her approach inducted it into what was a part of the process of writing, for many. Two other articles followed the release of Bird By Bird. These works of writing denied the credibility of shitty first drafts.
One article was penned by George Dila, titled “Rethinking the Shitty First Draft.” It did not take me long to understand that him and I view writing–in general– differently. He was not one to turn to if I found it ideal to read up on examples that he was taking initiative to stand behind to support the known argument– which I fortunately grasped despite his tight structure of opinions with no other verbiage surrounding his train of thought. It read as a quick internet comment with some spotty quoting of Lamott. Another article I read this week stemmed from a podcast by Renee Long, who adapted the podcast episode into a webpage. Its title is, “Why I Reject the Idea of Shitty First Drafts (And What I Do Instead).” This text has way more substance. It was less conversational, as Dila’s approach had been. Dila sprinkled in his thinking and didn’t break up the conversational tone of his text which would have given readers more of a leg to stand on with their judgments. In short, he was much too brief for my liking. Metaphorically, Long’s transcript of a podcast episode is anything but brief. I appreciated the metaphors and used my brain to picture the acorns and the oak trees. I fully resonated with this style as opposed to Dila.
Two other articles were the focal points of this week– for different reasons than Long’s or Dila’s articles. I’d like to first reflect on the least appealing article of the two articles. Christopher Morales penned a web post titled, “Diversify Your Outlines.” It was incredibly challenging to understand his thoughts. The concept is something I only grasped from the title of this work of literature. Truth be told, of the five articles with different approaches in each, I couldn’t grasp every word like I had done for the others. Simply put, I skimmed it rather than immersed myself within it. There were a number of comical syntax errors, such as punctuation and the flow of his words. Ironically, it sounded like this was his own rough draft of a future work of his that put his thoughts together much more fluently. As for my preferred article of these two isolated articles, Michaela Ramirez articulates in, “Writer’s Block is Easily Preventable” that there are relatable efforts that every person could take to remedy the hard aftermath of writer’s block. What I do find fault with in her argument is the claim that writer’s block has rules that completely fend it off, as if it won’t happen to the best of us. Somewhere else in her argument, she contradicts herself saying that writer’s block is inevitable. I do acknowledge that she may be playing devil’s advocate by bringing both sides of the argument to the reader’s attention. Sometimes, it’s the best way to get the attention of an audience. The way this method was done is not as clean as it could be.
As far as the principles of these articles are concerned, I understand all of the points of most of these articles. In principle, it may help writers follow in the footsteps of bigger names in the industry to just get their thinking written– even if that turns out to be less coherent and far from the final product. It may help to follow the path of other characters and give fully to that inspiration. Sometimes, it may come out in shitty terms, if that is the preferred informal tone that any particular author chooses to adopt. If an individual has more sensitivity to their work and prefers a different limelight, Renee Long’s viewpoint is as close to the perfect perspective that can be offered.
She helps those who are unafraid to dive deeper understand the undertaking and the processes of what writing entails, beyond just having shit be what a good story, paper or novel leads with. Despite Dila’s perspective paling in comparison–and dare I say, piggybacking off of– Long’s, I understand what the gist of what he says is meant to be, despite its flawed delivery. I, too, know what it’s like to pore over works of writing–whether it’s a novel or a blog post or an essay– and revise it an ungodly number of times. I think all of us in the writing community, in classes or otherwise, have faced this temptation. There is pressure that exists to have perfect writing and not to let it fall where it does for the sake of Lamott’s reasoning that it is less important and cannot be seen. As for Michaela Ramirez, it makes sense that writers block is the product of pent-up stress and brain activity that simply exist to deter the creative process. It makes even more sense to pride oneself on little habits that give our brains a break– a task as simple as a quick lie-down or nap.
As for the concept that I especially enjoyed the most, Renee Long is the person that remedied any questions and shifted my perspective without me realizing I needed a reality check on such views. As I’d mentioned, I used my imagination to immerse my brain in itself, essentially. I used her article as a stepping stool to become inspired and to gently process how I need to be more accomodating of myself. No one can accomodate me more than I can for my own good. When I write and the walls go up, I’m taking Long’s advice and keeping myself in line vicariously through her examples.
Leave a Reply