Writing is not especially difficult but writing well is hard.
The best writing is both poetic and scientific and so very rare. Euclid is still rare, as are Euler and Einstein.
I find the most difficult art of writing is to share appreciation and that this is best done with gentle reference. To elucidate is the rarest craft as this requires insight.
Author here. You're absolutely right. I enjoy writing, it's fun, but once I start thinking that someone might read it, I get anxious and clam up. That's why I love to journal with pen and paper: I don't have to worry about someone reading it. I don't even read it myself.
The thing that has always sucked joy out of the process is that the initial draft never look as good as someone else's finished text. Which is the wrong comparison on so many levels.
I like to compare it to phtography. A photographer doesn't take just one perfect image and moves on. For each published image, a thousand might be rejected in the editing process.
I agree, first drafts are most difficult, and second and third tend not be be much easier. As much as it's like slowly carving a gem from a rock it's also like cleaning a toilet with pristine thoroughness. It must a pleasure for the next person to experience. It's a heady responsibilty, to think for oneself and some other at the same time.
And I reckon I read many thousands of words for every word I write. Especially here on HN, the erudition and generosity on display is always a treat.
You express yourself with the tools you have at that moment, on the ideas you have at that moment. You work on it and work on it again until you are satisfied or want to move on.
In general, I recommend showing what you have written to others.
I publish essays on substack that are read, at most, by 8 people, but my repeated effort, knowing that someone, even just a few people, read what I write, makes it worth the effort in my mind.
WriteOrDie.com style of writing is great, I agree. And I agree that you shouldn't be editing the initial draft, just get it out and keep writing; review and rearrange things later. Editing and fixing typos while writing is like feeding your horse while she's galloping.
My personal problem though is the language. English is hard. Yes, English is beautiful and versatile and egalitarian and it has flavors, etc. But I am not a native English speaker and I still haven't learned how to form
copiously coherent sentences in my mind, let alone complete paragraphs. I can write beautiful sentences in my native tongue, but not in English. And I just can't write my thoughts in my native tongue first and then translate them later - something gets lost whenever I try; and I tried many times - it's just not the same.
It's difficult to become an adequate writer for someone born into the language, almost impossible for someone who had to learn it in adulthood.
I have the same problem. Time and practice have certainly helped. But sometimes I just write whatever I want in my native language and then put it in Google Translate and then manually fix the errors in Google Translate's result.
Many already pointed out that your writing is good. I will just add, read about "imposter syndrome". That will clear some of your doubts and you might start thinking in a different direction (at-least for writing capabilities if not anything else).
p.s. I totally understand your feeling. I am also a non native English speaker.
Well, I'm not saying that my writing is incomprehensible, I assume I've overcome that barrier.
But I'm still years of practice away from achieving goodness. Maybe a good analogy would be something like a chef who grew up in Japan and learned how to cook tasty Yakitory (skewered chicken), and then moved to Korea and learned their cuisine. He makes unbelievably tasty Dakkochi (Korean skewered chicken), it sells well, yet it's not the same. He knows - something is missing, but he can't tell exactly what. And his only hope is to keep trying. And that's just chicken - arguably the easiest meat to deal with.
As a native English speaker, your writing seems beautiful and perfect to me. I would never have guessed you aren't a native speaker. The feeling of foreignness can be pernicious. You'll always wonder if a miscommunication is because of foreignness or the countless other reasons even two native speakers misunderstand each other.
Thank you for your kind words. They mean a lot to me and may sound gratifying to those who, just like me, are still trying to get a grip on the subtle art of expressing their thoughts freely and without any hurdles, like swimming or running.
I feel awkward now. My initial intent wasn't a plea for sympathy. I didn't mean it to sound like: "look at me, the poor foreigner, my life is tough, yadda yadda..."
I think English is interesting and a curious case here because it is exceptionally forgiving; not only does it allow mistakes - sometimes, "breaking the rules" is encouraged.
As long as you try to convey your thoughts, whatever path you choose, it most likely finds acceptance, and your voice gets heard.
I remember the day I arrived at JFK for the first time. I couldn't speak. I knew words;
with whatever elementary grammar I had at the time and the pathetic vocabulary that I would thinly stretch to communicate, I could say things in my head, yet I wouldn't dare to say them out loud.
From the day our ancestors left the trees and tried communicating with each other, we started associating and measuring our intellectual level tying it to our speaking abilities. When we cannot freely express our thoughts, we feel (subconsciously or otherwise) inferior to our interlocutors.
However, for most English-speaking people, English is a second language, and for hundreds of millions, it's not even a second but a third or fourth.
And most often, simply demonstrating the commitment to learn and get better earns you respect from even the native speakers.
For this reason alone, I think anyone who learned English, even at the primary level, should try to write in it.
No rule says that whatever story you're trying to tell needs to be fluid, has to sound harmonic, and is not allowed to have sharp edges.
Enigma's song comes to mind:
The principles of l̵u̵s̵t̵ [writing in English] are easy to understand...
Do what you feel, feel until the end...
My suspicion is that you are blocked because you demand perfection in every aspect from yourself? You should be able to achieve excellent writing in more technical areas, or in niche topics.
You will likely struggle to write poetically in English. Perhaps instead encourage skills that are not specific to English: good metaphors, writing simply and clearly, choosing an interesting topic.
I suggest you keep an eye out for compelling writing that is written by people that do not have English as a first language, and see if you can recognise their tricks. And remember: if you write then you are a writer. Just write. The best writers usually wish their writing were better, and can see all the flaws in their work.
My personal pet peeve with writing is exactly the contrary, I find the fact that people could read what I wrote very distressing. One of the best things that could happen with what I write is that no one reads it, because then I don't have to appease anyone or handle criticism. I'll admit it's a very cowardly stance to have, but it's very liberating in a sense. Obviously this means I'll start writing schizophrenic stuff eventually and need a reality check, it's okay though: "No great mind has ever existed without a touch of madness." - Aristotle.
I find myself experiencing a bit of both: I want people to read the things I write -- but not really; I want them to know the ideas I write and to credit me for them -- but only if they're good ideas! If everyone just forgets all the stupid things I ever write and that I ever said or did anything stupid, that'd be great.
Similarly, I want to know the criticism so I can incorporate it into my thinking -- but I don't want to be criticized. :)
Some of my writing is to help me think, some is for future me, and some of it is for others. All three are different modes of writing, and I approach them differently. Personal stuff, in particular, gets written on loose paper and shredded immediately afterward— It’s the act of writing that I find actually useful, and knowing that nobody will ever read it is incredibly liberating.
It's hard because it probably won't change the world, but it becomes much harder when shouting.
It's entirely OK to sit and write without fanfare, we're not wizards or witches any longer, just plain people with the same plain obligation towards the mind as towards the body: tend, feed, and regularly empty out.
If today you really gotta go write, go ahead, knock yourself out.
If tomorrow you just scribble in the margins of empty pages but nothing comes, have a bath or a nap or both, and sit again the day after.
I also find it very helpful to remember that I'm not addressing others when writing, I'm not in a possibly empty auditorium talking into the void, instead I'm reaching across time and continue a discussion I started with myself earlier, and may pick up again later.
The trend since stationary became affordable has been to get a daily journal going, and start some weekly correspondence, that'll give you opportunity both to write and to communicate, and you'll also creating a self-referential echo chamber, and you bootstrap yourself up from there.
It helps a lot if you have questions that bug or interest you. Writing is thinking, you have to want to think about something, don't confuse it with presenting the writing.
Writing helps you sail on the void and dive in its depths. An audience isn't necessary for that, so if you get your writing done on the computer rather than on paper, remember that you don't need to publish it. That may take a load off you, and free you to think about what you want to write, not how it'll be typeset or who will read it or whether it'll get points, stars, or otherwise pointless superficial kudos.
In fact, write daily, but don't publish until after the first couple of times you burn your past notebooks (or "rm -rf ~/txt", though its really not the same).
PS, I just got this stuck in my mind, if you need a silly essay prompt: If you don't write when you think, how do you know that you're thinking when you think you're thinking, rather than hallucinating thinking that you're thinking?
There is value in writing even if no-one reads the result. I would even argue that the main value of writing is in the process of writing. Writing helps you structure your thoughts. It provides you with a mental grip on the world.
This goes for non-fiction but also for fiction. As a fiction author I do relish being read and appreciated by the right people. However, the gratification I get from that is mainly an ego thing, whereas the gratification of producing something that I find complete and beautiful (that sense of rightness washing over you when you put in that final period) gives a deeper fulfillment.
I'm a writer and I'm good enough at it to have suffered some devastating real-life consequences.
The terrifying thing isn't shouting into the void, and it isn't being visible to everyone. It's the adverse combination of the two. When you need to be heard is when your status has taken a dive or something bad has happened... at which point, people just want you to go away because you're depressing them. On the other hand, every little thing you write that could one day be attributed to you is available to any authoritarian government or employer (the euphemism we use for authoritarian private governments) on a three-second Google search... and, since these people have bad intentions, can only be used against you. HR people don't Google you because they think you're a fascinating person; they do it because protecting the company from someone with internet dirt is one more scalp to display at annual review time.
Also, when I had a successful blog, I found that a lot of my best posts were ignored, whereas the good stuff that really deserved to get exposure barely got noticed. It feels like influence but it really isn't because people stop listening as soon as you say something that makes them uncomfortable.
I enjoy writing but the percentage of people who will gain anything by doing it in public under their real name, in this time of belligerent capitalist authoritarianism, is very very low.
That's pretty much what I do[0]. I really don't give a damn, whether or not anyone reads what I write, but, if someone is planning to attack me, it might not be a bad idea to read my prose, because I'll likely reference it, when responding.
I enjoy writing, but, like everything I do, I don't do "half measures." It's an "all-in" thing. I haven't written anything in a while, because I have been working on a fairly intense coding project for the last year or two.
My first draft is usually pretty good, but I always have typos. I'l generally police my writing several times, correcting typos, first, then missing words (I forget "the," or "a," or "an," all the time, and often miss the omission, even after rereading. Our brain inserts the conjunctive), then, repeats and inappropriate words. Finally, I often see that I can add to what I initially wrote. I do that on HN posts, all the time.
I also tend to write a lot. To paraphrase Emperor Joseph, "Too many words." (i.e. "prolix").
People don't like reading more than about five paragraphs, these days.
I struggle with this as well. But the feeling of shouting into the void has little to do with your writing ability. It’s much more a function of a) marketing and b) luck.
If you’re writing, it’s because you have the inkling of an idea. Through the writing process, you clarify that idea and then release it to the world. That process — the act of creation — is enough for me.
I think there's a balance. When you've been writing for a while, sometimes you write just to get an idea out of your head. When it becomes a habit, sometimes you write just because. Creative process is all about fear indeed. Hope you find a community or a writer in your area that can inspire you, as it's very hard to start all by yourself! You also do sometimes need an "other" to write for, so I mean you end up being in a place where you aren't writing for yourself, even if that "other" doesn't exist. Puts less burden on yourself.
I struggle with something similar: Fear of rejection. What if people read and they don't like it, or even worse, they think that it is a waste of time?
A good way to get around the second problem is: think that your audience is really bad people. Literally Hitler. Or at least that it's possible that they are. If that's the case, all the time you can keep them reading what you wrote, they will not spend it doing evil deeds. So waste their time. Save the world.
On a journey to stop struggling with this. Less void and more "why is what I have to say worth reading?" and I've kind of decided it's not up to me to decide that so not to worry about it.
A quote attributed to Hemingway I’ve always loved: “Writing is easy. You just sit at your typewriter and bleed.” Whether or not he actually ever said that it’s quite true.
Quote Investigator does a pretty decent job of tracking down this quote (and it's pretty clearly not Hemingway, but it sounds like you already guessed at that.)
The hardest part is having something to say. There is no structure, flow or organization that can make up for the lack of content.
It is a bit like those "tutorials" on how to make small talk at dinners, conferences, with people you don't know or don't know much. Sure, they tell you the right tone, the right number of words, the right posture. But it's still small talk.
The essay hits this and it’s a good point, regardless of domain: don’t let the tooling define the work.
This is where systems like LaTeX, markdown, plain text, a typewriter (if you’re so inclined), or pen excel. Remove the ability to distract yourself and focus on content. Presentation exists to bolster the prose. Don’t attempt to fill an arbitrary structure until you know what to say.
But my God is it hard to find anything non-distracting. I think MS Word is the best for me, but still. I would prefer Markdown, but this is just terrible for academia. I tried AsciiDoc, but again, nothing is more distracting than AsciiDoc, expect for the horrible, cruel syntax of LaTex. Scrivener is perfect, except, EXCEPT there is no integration with Zotero, or any reference manager. So I am left with MS Word, which is horrible for a 200 page file. Splitting up the file just clutters the workflow of browsing the whole document. I am trying to let go of tools, but there is no alternative fulfilling the minimal requirements.
Have you tried TeXmacs? It's neither TeX nor it's Emacs clone. It's WYSIWYG scientific editing platform. Documents created can be saved in TeXmacs, Xml, Scheme, PDF or Postscript. Converters exist for TeX/LaTeX and HTML/MathML. It can also be used as a graphical front-end for other computer algebra, numerical analysis, statistics software[1].
Have you tried LyX? It doesn't have all the advantages of plaintext and it's still easy to get distracted, but I find it's quite good at getting out of your way when you're not too worried about specific formatting, and it still has all the power of LaTeX when you need it.
Would separating the stages of making a document help at all?
A list of references (on paper?) then banging out a draft using anything at all and then editing the language, finally assembling the paper with its apparatus.
Disclaimer: I've never written anything as long as 200 pages
Yes, actually that's how I am working right now. But I was just doing a paper on the side just in Word with Zotero, and it really helps to have a reference manager.
I get your point on distraction-free writing and all the other tools. But for Pete's sake, calling "LaTex" distraction-free is a far stretch.
Lord knows how many endless hours I spent debugging and tweaking TikZ code (the LaTex graphics package) to fight obscure errors and missing dependencies and whatnot.
I believe that reading a line-editing manual [0] has greatly improved my writing. Keeping writing and editing as distinctly separated as possible also helps a lot.
Unfortunately alluding to any kind of standard isn't a popular sentiment. To say this article isn't well written and expresses the sort of advice that guarantees mediocrity would diminish its spirit of self-actualization for creatives "expressing themselves".
If you have a real interest in having any writing ability, be hard on yourself and read books that are well written (not just informative). The idea that "writing for yourself" has some underlying virtue besides just being an act of self-indulgence, isn't apparent given the final product typical of the effort. We should be able to get past the point where we applaud any scribble of "creativity" as being justified and worthy of praise, since we've lived past our childhoods and must now function as competent adults producing the sort of work that accomplishes something beyond our self-satisfaction.
Before writing, don't look for any advice, tips, or recommendations. Just write. It is very hard to apply an advice to a blank page!
I have no problem vomiting words on a page, what I have difficulties with is to write what I want to say. I'd be sitting in a cafe watching a red car drive by. Now to write about that.
"When ford invented the assembly line, he may have pictured a world where every American could not only afford a car, but their livelihood would depend on it. What he didn't imagine is being painted as a prophet in every self-help seminar ever held."
Hmmm, what did I want to say about the red car again?
I’m getting really tired of “is hard.” It’s empty and discouraging. Providing actual insights about something must be hard, so people just say things are “hard.”
Yeah, good advice would provide insight into why it is hard. I am not sure the linked article succeeds.
One insight I have had lately is that some people struggle to write because their brains are not "wired" in the right way to make it easy. It would be good if we didn't shame ourselves and others about a lack of progress and instead accepting that it might just require more effort to do some tasks for some people.
I'm fortunate to have grown up reading voraciously. I read literally everything I could get my hands on, and kept that trend going through high school. When I think, it comes out as paragraphs, sentences, and phrases. It's not hard to write for me: I think onto a page, and it usually works.
The difficult part for me is the discipline of writing itself. In order to produce something I'm proud of, I have to sit down, think about something for a period of time, and then begin producing words that need one or two rounds of editing before they're ready.
It's not so much a matter of having a natural talent for it as having the discipline to apply my ability properly. I'm not sure how to teach writing either, since I rely on my subconscious to do the work of organizing thoughts into coherent words for me.
Perhaps a first principles approach is ideal:
- Decide what you will write
- Choose a style, or let a style choose you
- Organize your thoughts, whether internally, with an outline, or some combination
I find that I make more mistakes when typing than when writing on paper. The stop editing advice I agree with, but I also think there's a benefit to slowing down and allowing the idea time to make its way to the page, so in that way the speed of typing can be a detriment. At this point, my brain/finger interaction doesn’t raise to the level of a conscious thought. This means that when typing I often substitute similar sounding words, transpose words, use a word with many of the same letters, or just leave words completely out. I have never had this problem when writing on paper. When rereading later, these can be difficult to catch, since your brain is excellent at filling in the blanks.
1. Start by writing down everything you know about what you want to write about in a disorganized way.
2. Read the disorganized text and figure out which information goes together, then put that information together.
3. Elaborate on the points you've now brought together.
4. Turn each elaboration of points into a proper paragraph.
5. Reread the whole document and figure out if the paragraphs make sense together, and if not, edit them to integrate them.
6. Edit out everything in your text that is besides the point you are trying to make.
Let me make an example:
1.
Trees are tall. Trees are living and have lived for millions of years. The bark of a tree is hard. Trees are immobile.
2.
Trees are tall. The bark of a tree is hard. Trees are immobile.
Trees are living and have lived for millions of years. Trees bring up nutrients from their roots and absorb sunlight in their leaves. The branching patterns of roots and branches are similar. There is a reason for this.
3 - 4.
Trees are tall living creatures that have existed for millions of years. They can be so tall because they are very hard due to the strong structures that cellulose holds. They can't be too hard, and some flexibility is necessary so the tree doesn't snap, but they are still much harder than they are flexible. This hardness makes them immobile, which requires the static form they take to be reliable and robust enough to keep them alive.
The best static form a tree can take is the one they evolved to take. The fractal branching pattern is the pattern that exists in the equilibrium of three requirements: it needs the strongest possible structure, allows for the greatest surface area of leaf coverage, and takes the least amount of volume up. These requirements lead to the formation of the fractal structure of tree branches. The fractal structure of roots is governed by two main forces: the need to fill as much volume of earth as possible with the least amount of root matter. This leads to branches being slightly different from roots, and according to these requirements, one would predict that roots have a much shorter distance-to-divergence of their branches than tree branches.
5 - 6.
How are trees so tall? Why do they branch as they do? Over millions of years, trees have evolved into the form they take. Several forces guided this evolution, and the properties of trees reflect them. What lets trees get so tall is that they are very hard and flexible due to the strong bonds that cellulose holds. This hardness makes them immobile, which requires the static form they take to be reliable and robust enough to keep them alive. What determines the properties of this static form?
The best static form a tree can take is the one they evolved to take. The fractal branching pattern is the optimal pattern that falls in the equilibrium of three requirements or forces: it needs the strongest possible structure, allows for the greatest surface area of leaf coverage, and takes the least amount of volume up. These requirements lead to the formation of the fractal structure of tree branches. The fractal structure of roots is governed by two main forces: the need to fill as much volume of earth as possible with the least amount of root matter. This leads to branches being slightly different from roots, and according to these requirements, one would predict that roots have a much shorter distance-to-divergence of their branches than tree branches.
------
As you can see, it's a simple process that allows for rapid expansion of ideas, starting from me simply dumping information about trees, to making a point about why trees take the structure they do.
Harrold Lasswell's model of communications is useful to analyze practices: Who says what in which channel to whom with what effect? I'd add to that one further element: with what intent?[1]
At least in its intimate forms, speech is interactive. When talking directly to an audience, whether that's yourself (0), in a dialogue (2), a conversation with multiple people (typically ~< 15), or even lecturing to groups or large audiences (20 -- 1,000 or so), there's a live interaction between the speaker and others (interlocutors or audience), though that's tempered somewhat as group size exceeds about 20: teachers plan courses and sections, speakers write out and rehearse their speeches.
Writing ... has little or none of that. You're writing to a reader (or readers), at some future point in time. Key to that is you must anticipate questions or interactions a reader might wish to have. This means spelling out what you're writing about, why it matters, how it coheres, your main points and supporting evidence or arguments (in persuasive writing), plotting and development (in fiction), processes and interactions (for instructions), etc.
One of the better books to read on writing to this extent is Mortimer Adler's How to Read a Book[2]. In guiding readers how to read books (despite the title, the intent addresses more than a single book ;-), the types of book, and the types of reading. Reversing the product provides some insights to writers in how they might better compose books.
One of the key points of Adler's analysis is that there are different types of both documents and readers. When writing, it's highly beneficial to keep this in mind, and to have at least some view of which you have in mind. Advice does differ across genres and audiences.
Then there's the challenge of actually getting words on paper (or screens, or disk, or cloud, or whereever it is your deathless prose shall live). Here the basic principles I'd suggest in general:
- Know at least in general what you're writing and for whom. Technical? Amusing? How to? Why? What? Bearing witness? Persuading? And who will likely read this?
- Plot your course. Have some idea of where you're going to begin and where you'll end up. As with most journeys, this may change. Whether you're walking to the kitchen or tracing the source of the Nile, it's quite possible you'll revise your plans along the way due to changing circumstances or random chance. But have some idea. This might manifest as thoughts, a rough outline, a set of index cards, a mind map, whiteboard notes, or other materials. As with other aspects, find an appropriate approach to your task.
- For sufficiently complex writing, as with construction, frameworks and scaffolding may be necessary. It's possible to build a sand castle or assemble a sandwich without much of a plan. The Space Shuttle or a chip fab might require slightly more advance preparation. There's a whole host of tools available for this, many writers, myself included, find index-card systems (or their digital analogues) invaluable. Very little high-quality writing or speech is extemporaneous. Most is rehearsed, or at least has been through numerous versions and attempt through the years. The trick as with most performance arts is to make what is highly rehearsed appear spontaneous.[3]
- Write, revisit, have others review (if the work is significant enough), and revise. Often it's useful to let a work rest at least a few hours or overnight before posting, even if short. There are books which have taken years, or even lifetimes. Wittgenstein wrote two books in his life, both of which profoundly changed Western Philosophy. Joseph Needham conceived of a text on Chinese technological innovation which has grown to over 27 bound volumes, written from 1954 to the present, and is still ongoing 27 years after its originating author's own death.[4] Even a brief dashed-off line deserves re-reading and proofing before hitting "submit" or otherwise loosing on the world.
- One key use for me of sites such as Hack News or platforms like Mastodon is to pose thoughts and viewpoints for consideration and development. Feedback, corrections, praise, criticism, and other viewpoints can all be invaluable.
3. Even exceptions usually prove the rule. Speakers or writers who perform spontaneously are practiced at that, and typically perform or write within a familiar context or venue. In particular, they've often seen the standard responses, criticisms, heckling, and other interactions, and have, again, a framework for responding. There's much practice behind the performance.
I hate videos on the internet, so I started my blog (see profile) with an emphasis on text and photos. About seven years later, still going strong. Some of it gets traffic, most doesn't. Some of my absolute "shitposts" are the best performing ones (a Mazda 3 oil change post is consistently the most popular one).
I mostly write for myself. Forcing myself to finish a project so I can write about it has been good, and I know I write anything weird about it, so I can just flush state after I've finished writing and clear the mental space for it. On occasion, I'll go search for something on the web and realize that I wrote a post on it years back and had entirely forgotten that I even wrote it, which tells me that the goal of "Flush it out entirely" is working.
What's funny is that despite an absolute non-goal of optimizing for traffic, I write about weird enough stuff that I've got a lot of first page Google hits. Often enough, a friend will mention that they were searching for something and found my blog as the top hit.
About the only effort I've put into "SEO" is to make sure that my site is tight and fast (webp support, image sets, no Javascript required for function), and I'll occasionally start a "howto" post with a list of the tools required.
But I absolutely don't try to guess what people will like. I write what I want to write, and if traffic comes, great. If not, don't care either.
I hate videos on the internet, so I started my blog (see profile) with an emphasis on text and photos.
Funny enough, I have about 50 Youtube videos in my browser that I've been meaning to watch "some time" but haven't. The problem is that, unlike a book where you can skim for content quality and decide whether or not to read for real, these long video essays are very hard to audit for quality without getting engaged ("hooked") enough to spend significant time. Some of them are fantastic, some are mediocre but good when you don't feel like thinking too much... and a lot of them are 17 minutes surrounding 12 seconds of information. Videos have a similar discoverability problem to novels--it takes time investment to get a sense of whether the content is worth your time at all--but, with video, you can get a sense of quality (if a flawed one, and maybe an outright misleading one) based on pictoral production values.
Personally I like sell-outs, writers who aim to please and are complete morons. It's schlock and I love it. In fat, i'm thinking of paying imbeciles who can't write to write me something so I can enjoy it's utter blandness, incompetence and naivete
Writing can be hard because sometimes we put up barriers to our thoughts, to our level of “what’s good enough”, to what is appropriate or PC to talk about, etc.
I think that’s why many great writers were alcoholics - it takes down the barriers we set up within and gives us the “liquid courage” to just say something and not give a s*it.
I hope we can be adults enough to acknowledge the historical fact of substance use and its (potentially positive!) effect on the output of some writers without jumping to the conclusion that such an acknowledgement rises to an endorsement or recommendation.
Alcohol is known to reduce inhibitions, and I've noticed in my own work that the fear of imperfection will inhibit me from working at all, so even anecdotally this isn't surprising.
> I think that’s why many great writers were alcoholics - it takes down the barriers we set up within and gives us the “liquid courage” to just say something and not give a s*it.
Absolutely. There are certain styles of writing best done with a bottle of hard liquor, a keyboard that can take some abuse, and a clear night with nothing going on the next day until about noon.
Most authors at some point write about their process. I've read many accomplished, experienced authors' takes. Authors seem to agree that there's a struggle at the beginning to figure out a process that works for them, and do in fact take the time to tell others what worked for them to help ease the discovery process for new writers.
Here's some examples of famous, accomplished and prolific writers doing what you claim they won't do:
> Most experienced writers don't stop to tell people how to write.
That's not true. Anyone who masters any kind of craft sooner or later feels compelled to teach it to others. Humans are biologically driven and evolved to share knowledge. Many well-known writers wrote about writing. There are tons of different books about writing.
The best writing is both poetic and scientific and so very rare. Euclid is still rare, as are Euler and Einstein.
I find the most difficult art of writing is to share appreciation and that this is best done with gentle reference. To elucidate is the rarest craft as this requires insight.
Writing is fun, and we should enjoy it more