I am not the kind of person who goes into a writing piece with a set routine. Sure, there are times when I decide to lay out my essay before I get started just to organize my thoughts, but that is not something I do often. I do not believe in shitty rough drafts. I am sure they work for other people, but it is not what helps me write.
Anne Lamott believe that in order to be a “good” writer, you have to write a shitty rough draft before creating your final piece. Every writer has different styles and tendencies that make them successful or unsuccessful. It seems unfair for Lamott to state that a person is ONLY a “good” writer if they use this technique. I also believe being a “good” writer is a very interpretive statement. What makes a good writer? Who decides if a piece of writing is good? These seem to be very opinion based observations that Lamott tried to explain as facts.
George Dila explains in detail exactly how I feel about Lamotts opinions. He too, does not understand why it is necessary to write a shitty first draft in order to curate a successful piece of work or to be a satisfactory writer. Dila explains to be a successful writer himself, but he does not write shitty first drafts. He sees it as unnecessary and almost takes him back a few steps in the writing process. Why would he want to start with a shitty piece of work, when he could start with a good piece of writing and tweak it to make it great.
Shitty first drafts being the “only” way to be a “good” writer is such a bold and honestly insane statement to me. I think everyone writes in their own ways which make them successful.
Leave a Reply