12 ms·

If You Have Writer's Block, Maybe You Should Stop Lying

157 points by anarbadalov 5y ago

twodave 5y ago
IMO this article comes off a little strong. It's not all that uncommon for a topic to be difficult to write about for a variety of reasons besides dishonesty. I can think of several off hand: - Lack of experience (you're blocked because you need to go do something first in order to be able to relate first-hand about it) - Lack of knowledge (you're blocked because you don't yet fully understand your subject, or you have the head knowledge but haven't really assimilated it yet) - Lack of coherence (you're blocked because you haven't yet been able to condense your feelings on the subject into words that make sense) Is there a value in writing straight from the heart? Of course there is. But even in "lying", as the author puts it, there is value in exploring the positions of others through the writing process. This is a great way to validate what one DOES believe as well as to better understand those one might disagree with.
- darkerside 5y ago
  If you're trying to write something valuable, not having something to say is probably worse than lying
- jszymborski 5y ago
  I agree that the article comes off a bit strong and the headline even stronger, however the underlying advice I think is still helpful in this case. I have a terrible habit of trying to make my first draft my last draft by self-editing incessantly. I'm partly writing this out for my own benefit, so apologies if this sounds perscriptive. Even if you haven't anything interesting to say, you're mind is thinking something regarding the topic. One might not know the first thing about "Luminal Collapse in Early Breast Cancer", but I bet you can write a million questions. "How 'early' is early breast cancer? What exactly is collapsing and how can I see it? This luminal collapse thing sounds ominous, what exactly does it mean for outcomes? The 'collapse' part is particularly ominous sounding. If I suffered from breast cancer, that word would be pretty scary. I wonder what the relation is between scariness of medical terms and the decisions of patients to undergo treatment." Immediately, you've something on the page and some off-topic ramblings. By the time you've answered those questions and filtered out the truly off-topic material, you'll probably realise there's a better framing or some underlying truth. You've achieved an early draft and are ready for editing! tl;dr: I don't love the tone of the article but the general and common advice of writing drunk and editing sober is probably good advice.
- munificent 5y ago
  > IMO this article comes off a little strong. Is that not the point? The author could have tempered their words to fit into something more palatable to a wider audience. But then they'd be saying what they think would be easily received and not what they actually felt. I whole-heartedly agree with the author that much of the difficulty for many writers is having the courage to say what they mean. And it takes courage to say that that's the problem, because it risks hurting readers' feelings. But that kind of shock might be necessary to get people out of their rut. And, even if not, if it's what the author feels, I respect their honesty. I'd rather read something heartfelt that I disagree with than a pile of prose whose sharp edges have all been rounded off to the point that only a meaningless pebble remains.
  - birdyrooster 5y ago
    It’s also likely that this was something they wrote to themselves and then shared it with a wider audience. It says more about their internal monologue than it does about them admonishing the reader. For me the art in this article is about their grappling with a universal struggle and how they have tried to come to terms with a solution.
  - watwut 5y ago
    > The author could have tempered their words to fit into something more palatable to a wider audience. The issue is also tempering to the words to what is actually true about world and human psychology. Something being funny or insulting or strong in words does not imply it brings in deep truth. Pretty often, it creates false description of world. And the words being strong are making that lie more convincing. > But then they'd be saying what they think would be easily received and not what they actually felt. Feelings are not facts. It way more honest to write about feelings in a way that makes it clear you write about feelings. Instead, articles like this pretend to describe the world around and not feelings. > And it takes courage to say that that's the problem, because it risks hurting readers' feelings When you lie about other people mental state or make it up, them objecting is 100% valid. Their feelings are rightfully hurt. Because the actual issue is not that you was impolite, it is that you are saying untrue things about them.
  - twodave 5y ago
- kayodelycaon 5y ago
  There is also lack of capacity. Due to any number of reasons, someone may not have the time or energy to actually write. Recognizing which one is the problem is difficult because they compound each other. Each one has a different fix. I struggle with capacity and fixing that probably requires me to make time and rearranging my life to make more energy available. If that means talking to a therapist, don’t be afraid to. :)
  - twodave 5y ago
    Indeed. And as a software engineer I find there are many parallels with this to writing code.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- u385639 5y ago
  I believe your 3 points are covered by dishonesty, and perhaps the writing process can be said to be a potential cure for "lack of X". Still, when one is competent and has something to say, writing is not difficult in the sense being discussed, only technically.
  - twodave 5y ago
    Wanting to write about a subject you're not fully prepared to write about isn't dishonest, it's just premature. I think the difference that this has from dishonesty is dishonesty can be cured by... simply being honest. These 3 hypotheticals I've mentioned (and there are certainly many others) can all be cured instead by doing more groundwork.
- mbrodersen 5y ago
  The article is honest. Which makes it better than 99% of articles written nowadays. And I am pretty sure that the author would say that your excuses are just that: excuses. 5 year old kids write stories without problems. So why can’t you? You don’t have to publish it if it isn’t good enough.
SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
I have Dysgraphia[1]. I don't think in words, without conscious effort to translate my thoughts into words. I don't have an inner monologue unless I'm trying to think of how to put my thoughts into words (or otherwise thinking with language, eg pretending to narrate what's going on around me). It takes me conscious effort to use written language, and a bit less effort for verbal language; I essentially have permanent writer's block. This person seems to think that everyone naturally thinks in words, instead of that being a skill they learned and got good enough at that they don't even notice it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgraphia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgraphia
- lostcolony 5y ago
  I think the intent of the author is to say "you have an inner thought life; write that". To your point, even if that isn't an inner monologue, turning that into words is a different challenge than literally not having anything to write about. But I think that's where the author maybe is missing the point; yes, we can always find something to write. That doesn't mean it's worth writing, especially in whatever context had me sit down to write.
  - saltcured 5y ago
    Right, I read an unstated assumption in the article that the only task at hand is to write out what you already know. It seems to completely ignore the potential goal to create and the block of not yet knowing what needs creating. This may be useful pragmatism in the sense of, "if you depend on work, and cannot do the job, find another job (at least for now)". But it does not address the unmet need to perform the original job. Whether in writing, other arts, or even science and engineering, I think it is quite possible to be strongly motivated to create yet to have an empty mental hole where the target idea will live. Capturing all the qualities of the hole is not the same thing as capturing what you want, the thing that is supposed to be there instead of that hole. You can struggle to find more external context or infer things about the absent target, but you are stuck until some kind of creative insight or exhaustive exploration drags it to light. Capturing the process or the meta experience of having this hole is not your goal at all, and so no amount of dumping what you already know will fulfill your creative longing. Some creative processes may be supported by journals or other intermediate work products, but that does not mean that you can make progress just by producing more such stuff either. You really can be blocked by a failure to induce new insights. To say that you should write out what is in your mind and declare that progress is to assume that your goal is just to reach some metric of output. That the specific topic either does not matter or is already clearly defined. But writing/creative blocks can be about a future or hypothetical that hasn't been located yet, not just some reluctance to document what has already been imagined.
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
ok, maybe they mean they don't have anything interesting to write about.
- cyber_kinetist 5y ago
  In that case, you need to "lie" to yourself about having something interesting to write about. Trying to come up with some pretend bullshit to fill some words is one of the most excruciating and frustrating moments a writer can have (and is probably such a frequent occurence for office job workers that they hate their jobs because of it)
- tgb 5y ago
  Yeah it feels like the author is strawmanning what "I have writers block" means. It's not that they've forgotten every word in the language. They have thoughts. Those thoughts are probably like "I hate this writers block, ugh what to say, what to write, I'm having block...". Doesn't matter if they wrote that out, no one would want to read it. And we all know there are too many "meta" pieces out there about the author's struggles with writer's block - please don't subject us to another one!
plorkyeran 5y ago
This seems like one of those articles which says more about the author than they intended. It's probably good advice for some people, but I can't say that I identify with it at all.
- ajkjk 5y ago
  Really hits home for me! I kinda think it's honest enough that it genuinely only applies to some people, whereas -- in their own framing -- if you tried to make something palatable to everyone, you'd have trouble writing it (and it wouldn't hit _anyone_ very hard, probably, either).
motohagiography 5y ago
I didn't think there was anything left to write about how to write well, but this has left me both surprised and sure. I'd go so far as to say it's the last article anyone needs to read about writing. No further comment.
pddpro 5y ago
It might just be me, but the thing that has given me trouble constantly through all these years while writing is that at some point, I just can't bring myself to like what I've written. I guess it's analogous to how one does not like his or her own voice once it's recorded? But I have been one of those writer who makes significant progress in one sitting and in the next just thinks that it's not "as good" as I was writing it before. Sometimes, what I think helps the most is the mindset that choosing the correct words, writing the most poetic prose, and being eloquent is not what matters. What matters the most is actually finishing the piece! If I were allowed one advice to inspiring writers, I would just say this: use Kindergarten level language if you have to, write in broken English, use French, or even mix up some pig-latin for all it matters, but just complete the piece. Writing is an iterative process and the biggest hurdle in that process is finishing the first draft. Once you are past that, rest is just reading it a lot and revising until you think that yeah, it doesn't suck after all.
- munificent 5y ago
  > I just can't bring myself to like what I've written. This speaks directly to the author's point. When we cringe from our own writing, I think it's often one of: 1. We didn't express are true feelings well, so we feel deceitful or inauthentic. This is the vague shame and guilt you feel when you wrote what you thought you were supposed to say but not what you really believe. 2. We did express our true feelings, and we're scared of the vulnerability it creates. When you bare your soul, you lower the shield between you and your audience. You show them exactly where your soft spots are. Any criticism will cut all the more deeply. This is that blushing cringe you feel when realize your heart is laid bare for all to see.
  - pddpro 5y ago
    3. How bad (or ineloquent) we are at expressing our true feelings. 4. Maybe our true-feelings are mistaken and we'll come off as a sham (this ties with inferiority complex). 5. 6. 7. ... I understand that I may have some overlap with the author, but while the author stresses on being genuine with oneself, I stress on actually completing the piece (whether or not genuine) and not worrying about auxiliary stuffs like word choice, rhythm of the writing, eloquence, etc. that can always be improved upon in next iterations.
kayodelycaon 5y ago
Yeah… no. It isn’t as simple as writing down any idea you have magically becoming a story. I really don’t like the framing here. To be blunt, this person is being a jerk. For a real discussion on the process of making art of any kind, I recommend reading [Art and Fear](https://www.amazon.com/Art-Fear-Observations-Rewards-Artmaking/dp/0961454733 https://www.amazon.com/Art-Fear-Observations-Rewards-Artmaki...) by David Bayles and Ted Orland. It’s a lot more insightful about human nature than calling people lairs for falling into the same patterns that have existed since Art has existed. I’m a fan of the audio book but definitely listen to the sample first. The narrator may not be to your taste.
- mbrodersen 5y ago
  The author is writing his truth. That doesn’t make him a jerk. Do you think everybody who says something you disagree with is a jerk?
- cyber_kinetist 5y ago
  The article is not talking about how to write better though, it's about why people have trouble starting to write in the first place. From the article: "By contrast, when you’re in touch with your honest aesthetic/spiritual/material/intellectual priorities, writing is pretty easy. I don’t mean, like, that it’s easy to write immortal masterpieces—there are heights of aesthetic perfection that can only be reached when the right material meets a well-trained set of hands. But writing a decent enough first draft—something to fuck around with until it’s readable—should be fairly simple. Sure, it takes discipline to open the document and begin typing rather than continuing to scroll Twitter. But once you begin, it shouldn’t feel like trying to squeeze champagne out of wrought iron. It should feel like opening a floodgate—whether that results in a furious swell or an amiable trickle."
  - kayodelycaon 5y ago
    It isn’t that simple. The blog presents what the author thinks everyone’s problem is. The problem they present is one facet of a much larger topic.
cyber_kinetist 5y ago
The real problem is (which the article mentions), is that a lot of the time the things people write are something that they're forced to. Another bureaucratic task report, another writing assignment for a mandatory class that they have no interest in, another marketing gibberish article pandering to investors, another puppet news piece requested by people of higher status to protect their status quo. Being forced to lie is one of the most mentally degrading things one can be imposed on.
- wisty 5y ago
  I've got mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, writing dross is actually quite good practice. On the other hand, having standards (at least before publishing) is something that should be encouraged.
munificent 5y ago
I love this article with all my heart. Does it apply to 100% of writer's block? Of course not. The kind of writing that is so careful to qualify every claim to the point that it's a chore to read is exactly what the author is railing against. I believe strongly that they are right that avoidance is one of the key reasons people who want to write don't. One of the challenges I've experienced is that that sensation of avoidance can from two opposing sources: 1. If I'm not saying what I really feel, I get a vague sense of guilt and unease. I feel insincere and it makes me shy away from writing. It starts to feel less like I'm sharing and more like I'm a guilty defendent on the witness stand trying to assemble a convincing alibi. My conscience keeps telling me I'm going down the wrong path. 2. When I am saying what I really feel, I get a different discomfort. I feel this blushing cringe, like I accidentally posted private poetry meant for a lover to my Facebook feed. I am being vulnerable and exposing myself to attack. My sense of self-protection tells me I'm taking a risk. The hard part is that these two sensations can feel quite similar but the way to take action on them is directly opposed. If it's my conscious making me squirm, I need to change course. But when it's my vulnerability, it usually means I'm on the right path. It's taken me years and a lot of introspection to learn to tease these apart. On good days, I'm able to lean into the discomfort of the latter and avoid the former so that I can say something I truly believe is worth saying.
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  > 2. When I am saying what I really feel, I get a different discomfort. I feel this blushing cringe, like I accidentally posted private poetry meant for a lover to my Facebook feed. I am being vulnerable and exposing myself to attack. My sense of self-protection tells me I'm taking a risk. You can just write but not publish: A historically popular choice in times when expressing yourself too clearly was worse for your longevity than smoking. Another option is to be so cryptic nobody knows quite what you mean (looking at you, German 18th-19th century philosophers) Or write and publish under a pseudonym. Good enough for Voltaire is good enough for anyone.
- mbrodersen 5y ago
  You can write whatever you want in private. Get it out of your system. Be cruel, evil, vulgar, petty, hateful, a racist and whatever else you really want to write in private. Just don’t publish it unless you are willing to defend it.
caconym_ 5y ago
I wanted to start writing fiction for years, but I never made much progress. The thing that finally got me going was the (implicit) realization that I'd been censoring myself, and that the kind of fiction I like to write isn't really what I thought it would be. > The remedy is simple, although it does involve a short, sharp shock of frankness with oneself. Stop lying about who you are, and write the things that are actually inside you. If, deep down, you want to write about misunderstood teen gymnasts with pet magic lions, your literary fiction about sad suburbanites will not easily come out of you, and it will probably not come off well. This is great advice. Maybe not so easy to internalize for people stuck on the other side of the wall, but worth thinking about.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
reggieband 5y ago
This article has a very "you're all a bunch of phoneys" kinda vibe that I both love and hate. I think this kind of optimistic cynicism is much derided in Western culture and especially so in North America where we live under the tyranny of optimism. I think Žižek described it well and I would paraphrase his insight as, not only are we coerced to do things that we don't want to do, we are also expected to act as if we love doing them. It reminds me of British customer service. If you haven't lived in the UK you might not be familiar with the phenomenon of a checkout person being surly. They clearly don't want to be scanning your groceries or engaging in inane chit-chat with you. And they have almost no pretence about that fact. At first it was a shock to me but after some time I grew to appreciate it. It's a similar observation many who have lived in both New York and California make about the general difference in phoneyness between the coasts. New Yorkers may seem assertive/rude/cold at first but you will soon love the fact you always know where you stand. So I interpret the author as saying: not only are you being forced to write about something you don't want to write about, you can't even admit you don't want to write about it. Instead you make excuses like you are blocked, you big phoney. While that is likely to be a valid insight for some cases, I don't believe that it applies to all cases.
- iechoz6H 5y ago
  "They clearly don't want to be scanning your groceries or engaging in inane chit-chat with you. And they have almost no pretence about that fact." Whilst true, and perhaps forgiveable, with regard to checkout persons I did hate it when the same general disdain for customers permeated the whole service sector. This is changing thankfully and going to a restaurant in the UK is now no longer (or at least, not always) a chore. Speaking as a native Brit.
  - lwotton 5y ago
    I prefer it, at least you don't get the fake niceties, coming off as almost passive aggressiveness.
    - iechoz6H 5y ago
      If it's fake, and always fake, they're in the wrong business.
anotherman554 5y ago
This article makes some interesting points but if you want to be a professional fiction writer you don't want to just write what you believe or what comes to mind, you want to write in a way that meets some hypothetical bar of quality or that some hypothetical target audience would enjoy. What if I look deep down inside myself and what comes out are boring Star Trek reruns? I'm not going to write those, I'm going to have writer's block until I come up with something more original. "We've all seen that movie or read that book before" is a perfectly valid reason not to write something.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
MarkLowenstein 5y ago
I think this is the phenomenon behind people's mealy-mouthed inability to speak fluently these days, filling time with "like", "you know", etc. We now live in a world where anything you say is a potential landmine of violations of strict politically and morally correct thinking. It takes energy to evaluate what you are about to say, and self-censor before you step on one...energy that is subtracted from planning the expression of your next point. Compare people's apologetic and noncommittal tech presentations now, to those from the old films with 1950s people in their lab coats and thick-rimmed glasses. They had utmost confidence and verbal fluency back then.
- smsm42 5y ago
  If people are getting punched (virtually and sometimes physically) for speaking their mind, then there's no wonder there would be people reluctant to speak their mind. You reap what you sow. If you build the society on safety rather than success - and that's where American society is definitely turning (or should I say, have turned) - then you get mealy-mouthed safespacers instead of bold outspoken geniuses.
- dec0dedab0de 5y ago
  Compare people's apologetic and noncommittal tech presentations now, to those from the old films with 1950s people in their lab coats and thick-rimmed glasses. They had utmost confidence and verbal fluency back then. I don't think this is a good example. There was a huge barrier to entry in the 50s to end up in a position to be recorded talking about something. Capable speakers would have been chosen more often than not. There has always been pressure from various groups to say or not say things. I think the only thing that has drastically changed is how much easier it is to put something out there, and for the public to respond. I'm sure Galileo would think political correctness is much better now than in his time. edit: I just found this link that is a pretty interesting list of scientists being ignored, ridiculed, beaten, jailed, and killed for politically incorrect ideas that were later proven correct. https://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/mavericks-and-heretics/ https://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/maveri...
  - 5y ago
anthk 5y ago
Gopher holes often are truly sincere and maddening.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
whalesalad 5y ago
I do believe that this is one facet of a much larger and deeper subject which is to live your life with authenticity.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jancsika 5y ago
> Almost nobody is as constantly vehement as many journalists claim to be, and 100% nobody has a head that’s entirely filled with opinions that fit inside today’s rapidly shifting Overton Window. Ooh, not only is "Overton" capitalized but so is "Window." Even better-- since the main use of the term has been to elucidate changes to acceptable discourse over time, simply calling it a "shifting Overton Window" would be rather pedestrian. Rather than reflect honestly on the purpose of writing that sentence, the author seems to double down by adding the word "rapidly" to make the sentence appear as more than a mere truism. In conclusion, I agree with the author's point that authors should stop lying to themselves and just write their actual opinions. But seriously, solving writer's block seems ripe for disruption. How are there not already several Decentralized Apps in this space? Did the regulators beat us all to the punch?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Legion 5y ago
> And maybe the thing you write will be a crock of shit. Because we definitely need more of that. If there's one thing the Internet is not lacking, it's ideas written down before they're fully thought through.
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  The article expressly stated they were encouraging people to simply write it down and distinguished that from the act of publishing it He's correct that a lot of people are scared to do that initial brain dump and that brain dump is a necessary first step in the creative process. First, just write. Later, edit. But first, just write. You have to start somewhere and first drafts are notorious for being terrible.
- nonbirithm 5y ago
  Comments like yours are a major reason I do not have the heart to write. But that doesn't even mean you're wrong. For example, an idea for a blog post came to my mind 30 minutes ago: You can't wander into a supermarket and see a substance as addictively tempting as heroin stocked next to the Advil. Imagine you're just trying to get groceries on some mundane Sunday afternoon and go home within a half hour when you turn your head and see a magazine with a picture of your favorite <YouTube content creator/acid techno producer/dog> on the racks. If this were me, and the thing I saw was one I highly cherished, under my default mode of action, the rest of my entire afternoon would be set in stone. The time would have been lost. I have remembered about the most interesting thing in the location of the most mundane things, and I feel validated. So I will get distracted. And my argument would be that the <YouTube content creator/acid techno producer/dog> that occupies a my time is not at fault. The fault would lie with us as a species, because although natural selection filters out the most successful genes and ideas, it does not put limiters on the ones that are successful to a fault. Laws, regulations, and legislation are, at a simplistic level, ways of preventing people from getting what they want. What if what I "truly" want is the thing that will destroy me? The above is what I would consider an idea that is not fully thought though. I came up with it in all of fifteen minutes. Through some shred of luck, I've managed to do what the article encourages and wrote it down somewhere. I could spend a lot of time writing a blog post explaining this idea. I could cite sources. I could throw it online just for the sake of finishing something, not because I believe the product of my effort is perfect. Then I could be told that I shouldn't have finished what I did, because my writing was a net negative. Even though I know that I have never really written any blog posts, and that releasing shitty blog posts is inevitable if you are ever going to blog consistently. It's sad that I have to picture comments like these in front of me, because they will always exist, but even if they are harsh, that doesn't mean they're wrong. It's sad because that is what ultimately destroys my motivation to share most of what I've made with anyone, unless it offers no real grounds for opinion (in the sense of the universality of mathematical formulae). At the same time, the difference between carrying on or not shouldn't be determined by how harshly the critic happens phrase their criticism. People have told me that I need to stop being so vulnerable and develop thick skin. You can tell all the dismissive people to "be nicer", but there will always be more dismissive people. That is the reason that the idea I'm proposing, however disjointed and rough it is, will probably not become a blog post. It's the idea that people should not write to be seen unless they have enough focus to pass a certain bar. That if you have nothing insightful to say, you should keep quiet instead, and of course I am not going to be able to define "insightful" in a closed vacuum all by myself. And of course, the only real reason I feel comfortable writing all of this here is because it concerns an article about not caring what people are going to think of what you say. If it were under any other article, all that insight becomes implicit, and you are on your own in dealing with the guilt and fear. I am tempted to give myself the habit of telling everyone who judges what I say that I was just trying to finish something for once, instead of wallowing around wishing I finished something for all of my life. "This piece is awful because I finished it." I can see dozens of places I could have improved if I had the heart - but no, I had to ship instead. Maybe that still won't be a good enough excuse. If so, then I guess the fear the original author dismisses is justifiable, at least.
mlboss 5y ago
Same advice can also be applied when you don't know how to start a conversation. Just speak whatever you are thinking/feeling. Your thoughts matter.
l0b0 5y ago
This might be good advice for fiction, but I would expect most non-fiction writers to be familiar with how terribly your intuition or instinct actually matches the real world. For example, the natural intuition about something which has literally never happened is that it won't happen. Intuition gave us the gambler's fallacy (my own father thought he was getting better odds every week of playing the same lottery numbers), Monty Hall (check out the Mythbusters episode if you think that intuition has been defeated), xenophobia, and so on. You have to consciously fight these natural tendencies at every turn to produce reasonable non-fiction.
lamontcg 5y ago
This article seems completely and utterly ass-backwards to me. If you want to get over writers block just embrace bullshitting, lying, and faking it until you make it. Learn how to obscure your lack of knowledge with anything through prose that pulls sleight-of-hand word games so that the bulk of people don't realize you have no idea what you're talking about. And people will eat it up.

157 points by anarbadalov 5y ago

IMO this article comes off a little strong. It's not all that uncommon for a topic to be difficult to write about for a variety of reasons besides dishonesty. I can think of several off hand: - Lack of experience (you're blocked because you need to go do something first in order to be able to relate first-hand about it) - Lack of knowledge (you're blocked because you don't yet fully understand your subject, or you have the head knowledge but haven't really assimilated it yet) - Lack of coherence (you're blocked because you haven't yet been able to condense your feelings on the subject into words that make sense) Is there a value in writing straight from the heart? Of course there is. But even in "lying", as the author puts it, there is value in exploring the positions of others through the writing process. This is a great way to validate what one DOES believe as well as to better understand those one might disagree with.

darkerside 5y ago
If you're trying to write something valuable, not having something to say is probably worse than lying
jszymborski 5y ago
I agree that the article comes off a bit strong and the headline even stronger, however the underlying advice I think is still helpful in this case. I have a terrible habit of trying to make my first draft my last draft by self-editing incessantly. I'm partly writing this out for my own benefit, so apologies if this sounds perscriptive. Even if you haven't anything interesting to say, you're mind is thinking something regarding the topic. One might not know the first thing about "Luminal Collapse in Early Breast Cancer", but I bet you can write a million questions. "How 'early' is early breast cancer? What exactly is collapsing and how can I see it? This luminal collapse thing sounds ominous, what exactly does it mean for outcomes? The 'collapse' part is particularly ominous sounding. If I suffered from breast cancer, that word would be pretty scary. I wonder what the relation is between scariness of medical terms and the decisions of patients to undergo treatment." Immediately, you've something on the page and some off-topic ramblings. By the time you've answered those questions and filtered out the truly off-topic material, you'll probably realise there's a better framing or some underlying truth. You've achieved an early draft and are ready for editing! tl;dr: I don't love the tone of the article but the general and common advice of writing drunk and editing sober is probably good advice.
munificent 5y ago
> IMO this article comes off a little strong. Is that not the point? The author could have tempered their words to fit into something more palatable to a wider audience. But then they'd be saying what they think would be easily received and not what they actually felt. I whole-heartedly agree with the author that much of the difficulty for many writers is having the courage to say what they mean. And it takes courage to say that that's the problem, because it risks hurting readers' feelings. But that kind of shock might be necessary to get people out of their rut. And, even if not, if it's what the author feels, I respect their honesty. I'd rather read something heartfelt that I disagree with than a pile of prose whose sharp edges have all been rounded off to the point that only a meaningless pebble remains.
- birdyrooster 5y ago
  It’s also likely that this was something they wrote to themselves and then shared it with a wider audience. It says more about their internal monologue than it does about them admonishing the reader. For me the art in this article is about their grappling with a universal struggle and how they have tried to come to terms with a solution.
- watwut 5y ago
  > The author could have tempered their words to fit into something more palatable to a wider audience. The issue is also tempering to the words to what is actually true about world and human psychology. Something being funny or insulting or strong in words does not imply it brings in deep truth. Pretty often, it creates false description of world. And the words being strong are making that lie more convincing. > But then they'd be saying what they think would be easily received and not what they actually felt. Feelings are not facts. It way more honest to write about feelings in a way that makes it clear you write about feelings. Instead, articles like this pretend to describe the world around and not feelings. > And it takes courage to say that that's the problem, because it risks hurting readers' feelings When you lie about other people mental state or make it up, them objecting is 100% valid. Their feelings are rightfully hurt. Because the actual issue is not that you was impolite, it is that you are saying untrue things about them.
- twodave 5y ago
kayodelycaon 5y ago
There is also lack of capacity. Due to any number of reasons, someone may not have the time or energy to actually write. Recognizing which one is the problem is difficult because they compound each other. Each one has a different fix. I struggle with capacity and fixing that probably requires me to make time and rearranging my life to make more energy available. If that means talking to a therapist, don’t be afraid to. :)
- twodave 5y ago
  Indeed. And as a software engineer I find there are many parallels with this to writing code.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
u385639 5y ago
I believe your 3 points are covered by dishonesty, and perhaps the writing process can be said to be a potential cure for "lack of X". Still, when one is competent and has something to say, writing is not difficult in the sense being discussed, only technically.
- twodave 5y ago
  Wanting to write about a subject you're not fully prepared to write about isn't dishonest, it's just premature. I think the difference that this has from dishonesty is dishonesty can be cured by... simply being honest. These 3 hypotheticals I've mentioned (and there are certainly many others) can all be cured instead by doing more groundwork.
mbrodersen 5y ago
The article is honest. Which makes it better than 99% of articles written nowadays. And I am pretty sure that the author would say that your excuses are just that: excuses. 5 year old kids write stories without problems. So why can’t you? You don’t have to publish it if it isn’t good enough.

SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago

I have Dysgraphia[1]. I don't think in words, without conscious effort to translate my thoughts into words. I don't have an inner monologue unless I'm trying to think of how to put my thoughts into words (or otherwise thinking with language, eg pretending to narrate what's going on around me). It takes me conscious effort to use written language, and a bit less effort for verbal language; I essentially have permanent writer's block. This person seems to think that everyone naturally thinks in words, instead of that being a skill they learned and got good enough at that they don't even notice it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgraphia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgraphia

lostcolony 5y ago
I think the intent of the author is to say "you have an inner thought life; write that". To your point, even if that isn't an inner monologue, turning that into words is a different challenge than literally not having anything to write about. But I think that's where the author maybe is missing the point; yes, we can always find something to write. That doesn't mean it's worth writing, especially in whatever context had me sit down to write.
- saltcured 5y ago
  Right, I read an unstated assumption in the article that the only task at hand is to write out what you already know. It seems to completely ignore the potential goal to create and the block of not yet knowing what needs creating. This may be useful pragmatism in the sense of, "if you depend on work, and cannot do the job, find another job (at least for now)". But it does not address the unmet need to perform the original job. Whether in writing, other arts, or even science and engineering, I think it is quite possible to be strongly motivated to create yet to have an empty mental hole where the target idea will live. Capturing all the qualities of the hole is not the same thing as capturing what you want, the thing that is supposed to be there instead of that hole. You can struggle to find more external context or infer things about the absent target, but you are stuck until some kind of creative insight or exhaustive exploration drags it to light. Capturing the process or the meta experience of having this hole is not your goal at all, and so no amount of dumping what you already know will fulfill your creative longing. Some creative processes may be supported by journals or other intermediate work products, but that does not mean that you can make progress just by producing more such stuff either. You really can be blocked by a failure to induce new insights. To say that you should write out what is in your mind and declare that progress is to assume that your goal is just to reach some metric of output. That the specific topic either does not matter or is already clearly defined. But writing/creative blocks can be about a future or hypothetical that hasn't been located yet, not just some reluctance to document what has already been imagined.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

ok, maybe they mean they don't have anything interesting to write about.

cyber_kinetist 5y ago
In that case, you need to "lie" to yourself about having something interesting to write about. Trying to come up with some pretend bullshit to fill some words is one of the most excruciating and frustrating moments a writer can have (and is probably such a frequent occurence for office job workers that they hate their jobs because of it)
tgb 5y ago
Yeah it feels like the author is strawmanning what "I have writers block" means. It's not that they've forgotten every word in the language. They have thoughts. Those thoughts are probably like "I hate this writers block, ugh what to say, what to write, I'm having block...". Doesn't matter if they wrote that out, no one would want to read it. And we all know there are too many "meta" pieces out there about the author's struggles with writer's block - please don't subject us to another one!

plorkyeran 5y ago

This seems like one of those articles which says more about the author than they intended. It's probably good advice for some people, but I can't say that I identify with it at all.

ajkjk 5y ago
Really hits home for me! I kinda think it's honest enough that it genuinely only applies to some people, whereas -- in their own framing -- if you tried to make something palatable to everyone, you'd have trouble writing it (and it wouldn't hit _anyone_ very hard, probably, either).

motohagiography 5y ago

I didn't think there was anything left to write about how to write well, but this has left me both surprised and sure. I'd go so far as to say it's the last article anyone needs to read about writing. No further comment.

pddpro 5y ago

It might just be me, but the thing that has given me trouble constantly through all these years while writing is that at some point, I just can't bring myself to like what I've written. I guess it's analogous to how one does not like his or her own voice once it's recorded? But I have been one of those writer who makes significant progress in one sitting and in the next just thinks that it's not "as good" as I was writing it before. Sometimes, what I think helps the most is the mindset that choosing the correct words, writing the most poetic prose, and being eloquent is not what matters. What matters the most is actually finishing the piece! If I were allowed one advice to inspiring writers, I would just say this: use Kindergarten level language if you have to, write in broken English, use French, or even mix up some pig-latin for all it matters, but just complete the piece. Writing is an iterative process and the biggest hurdle in that process is finishing the first draft. Once you are past that, rest is just reading it a lot and revising until you think that yeah, it doesn't suck after all.

munificent 5y ago
> I just can't bring myself to like what I've written. This speaks directly to the author's point. When we cringe from our own writing, I think it's often one of: 1. We didn't express are true feelings well, so we feel deceitful or inauthentic. This is the vague shame and guilt you feel when you wrote what you thought you were supposed to say but not what you really believe. 2. We did express our true feelings, and we're scared of the vulnerability it creates. When you bare your soul, you lower the shield between you and your audience. You show them exactly where your soft spots are. Any criticism will cut all the more deeply. This is that blushing cringe you feel when realize your heart is laid bare for all to see.
- pddpro 5y ago
  3. How bad (or ineloquent) we are at expressing our true feelings. 4. Maybe our true-feelings are mistaken and we'll come off as a sham (this ties with inferiority complex). 5. 6. 7. ... I understand that I may have some overlap with the author, but while the author stresses on being genuine with oneself, I stress on actually completing the piece (whether or not genuine) and not worrying about auxiliary stuffs like word choice, rhythm of the writing, eloquence, etc. that can always be improved upon in next iterations.

kayodelycaon 5y ago

Yeah… no. It isn’t as simple as writing down any idea you have magically becoming a story. I really don’t like the framing here. To be blunt, this person is being a jerk. For a real discussion on the process of making art of any kind, I recommend reading [Art and Fear](https://www.amazon.com/Art-Fear-Observations-Rewards-Artmaking/dp/0961454733 https://www.amazon.com/Art-Fear-Observations-Rewards-Artmaki...) by David Bayles and Ted Orland. It’s a lot more insightful about human nature than calling people lairs for falling into the same patterns that have existed since Art has existed. I’m a fan of the audio book but definitely listen to the sample first. The narrator may not be to your taste.

mbrodersen 5y ago
The author is writing his truth. That doesn’t make him a jerk. Do you think everybody who says something you disagree with is a jerk?
cyber_kinetist 5y ago
The article is not talking about how to write better though, it's about why people have trouble starting to write in the first place. From the article: "By contrast, when you’re in touch with your honest aesthetic/spiritual/material/intellectual priorities, writing is pretty easy. I don’t mean, like, that it’s easy to write immortal masterpieces—there are heights of aesthetic perfection that can only be reached when the right material meets a well-trained set of hands. But writing a decent enough first draft—something to fuck around with until it’s readable—should be fairly simple. Sure, it takes discipline to open the document and begin typing rather than continuing to scroll Twitter. But once you begin, it shouldn’t feel like trying to squeeze champagne out of wrought iron. It should feel like opening a floodgate—whether that results in a furious swell or an amiable trickle."
- kayodelycaon 5y ago
  It isn’t that simple. The blog presents what the author thinks everyone’s problem is. The problem they present is one facet of a much larger topic.

cyber_kinetist 5y ago

The real problem is (which the article mentions), is that a lot of the time the things people write are something that they're forced to. Another bureaucratic task report, another writing assignment for a mandatory class that they have no interest in, another marketing gibberish article pandering to investors, another puppet news piece requested by people of higher status to protect their status quo. Being forced to lie is one of the most mentally degrading things one can be imposed on.

wisty 5y ago
I've got mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, writing dross is actually quite good practice. On the other hand, having standards (at least before publishing) is something that should be encouraged.

munificent 5y ago

I love this article with all my heart. Does it apply to 100% of writer's block? Of course not. The kind of writing that is so careful to qualify every claim to the point that it's a chore to read is exactly what the author is railing against. I believe strongly that they are right that avoidance is one of the key reasons people who want to write don't. One of the challenges I've experienced is that that sensation of avoidance can from two opposing sources: 1. If I'm not saying what I really feel, I get a vague sense of guilt and unease. I feel insincere and it makes me shy away from writing. It starts to feel less like I'm sharing and more like I'm a guilty defendent on the witness stand trying to assemble a convincing alibi. My conscience keeps telling me I'm going down the wrong path. 2. When I am saying what I really feel, I get a different discomfort. I feel this blushing cringe, like I accidentally posted private poetry meant for a lover to my Facebook feed. I am being vulnerable and exposing myself to attack. My sense of self-protection tells me I'm taking a risk. The hard part is that these two sensations can feel quite similar but the way to take action on them is directly opposed. If it's my conscious making me squirm, I need to change course. But when it's my vulnerability, it usually means I'm on the right path. It's taken me years and a lot of introspection to learn to tease these apart. On good days, I'm able to lean into the discomfort of the latter and avoid the former so that I can say something I truly believe is worth saying.

marginalia_nu 5y ago
> 2. When I am saying what I really feel, I get a different discomfort. I feel this blushing cringe, like I accidentally posted private poetry meant for a lover to my Facebook feed. I am being vulnerable and exposing myself to attack. My sense of self-protection tells me I'm taking a risk. You can just write but not publish: A historically popular choice in times when expressing yourself too clearly was worse for your longevity than smoking. Another option is to be so cryptic nobody knows quite what you mean (looking at you, German 18th-19th century philosophers) Or write and publish under a pseudonym. Good enough for Voltaire is good enough for anyone.
mbrodersen 5y ago
You can write whatever you want in private. Get it out of your system. Be cruel, evil, vulgar, petty, hateful, a racist and whatever else you really want to write in private. Just don’t publish it unless you are willing to defend it.

caconym_ 5y ago

I wanted to start writing fiction for years, but I never made much progress. The thing that finally got me going was the (implicit) realization that I'd been censoring myself, and that the kind of fiction I like to write isn't really what I thought it would be. > The remedy is simple, although it does involve a short, sharp shock of frankness with oneself. Stop lying about who you are, and write the things that are actually inside you. If, deep down, you want to write about misunderstood teen gymnasts with pet magic lions, your literary fiction about sad suburbanites will not easily come out of you, and it will probably not come off well. This is great advice. Maybe not so easy to internalize for people stuck on the other side of the wall, but worth thinking about.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

reggieband 5y ago

This article has a very "you're all a bunch of phoneys" kinda vibe that I both love and hate. I think this kind of optimistic cynicism is much derided in Western culture and especially so in North America where we live under the tyranny of optimism. I think Žižek described it well and I would paraphrase his insight as, not only are we coerced to do things that we don't want to do, we are also expected to act as if we love doing them. It reminds me of British customer service. If you haven't lived in the UK you might not be familiar with the phenomenon of a checkout person being surly. They clearly don't want to be scanning your groceries or engaging in inane chit-chat with you. And they have almost no pretence about that fact. At first it was a shock to me but after some time I grew to appreciate it. It's a similar observation many who have lived in both New York and California make about the general difference in phoneyness between the coasts. New Yorkers may seem assertive/rude/cold at first but you will soon love the fact you always know where you stand. So I interpret the author as saying: not only are you being forced to write about something you don't want to write about, you can't even admit you don't want to write about it. Instead you make excuses like you are blocked, you big phoney. While that is likely to be a valid insight for some cases, I don't believe that it applies to all cases.

iechoz6H 5y ago
"They clearly don't want to be scanning your groceries or engaging in inane chit-chat with you. And they have almost no pretence about that fact." Whilst true, and perhaps forgiveable, with regard to checkout persons I did hate it when the same general disdain for customers permeated the whole service sector. This is changing thankfully and going to a restaurant in the UK is now no longer (or at least, not always) a chore. Speaking as a native Brit.
- lwotton 5y ago
  I prefer it, at least you don't get the fake niceties, coming off as almost passive aggressiveness.
  - iechoz6H 5y ago
    If it's fake, and always fake, they're in the wrong business.

anotherman554 5y ago

This article makes some interesting points but if you want to be a professional fiction writer you don't want to just write what you believe or what comes to mind, you want to write in a way that meets some hypothetical bar of quality or that some hypothetical target audience would enjoy. What if I look deep down inside myself and what comes out are boring Star Trek reruns? I'm not going to write those, I'm going to have writer's block until I come up with something more original. "We've all seen that movie or read that book before" is a perfectly valid reason not to write something.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

MarkLowenstein 5y ago

I think this is the phenomenon behind people's mealy-mouthed inability to speak fluently these days, filling time with "like", "you know", etc. We now live in a world where anything you say is a potential landmine of violations of strict politically and morally correct thinking. It takes energy to evaluate what you are about to say, and self-censor before you step on one...energy that is subtracted from planning the expression of your next point. Compare people's apologetic and noncommittal tech presentations now, to those from the old films with 1950s people in their lab coats and thick-rimmed glasses. They had utmost confidence and verbal fluency back then.

smsm42 5y ago
If people are getting punched (virtually and sometimes physically) for speaking their mind, then there's no wonder there would be people reluctant to speak their mind. You reap what you sow. If you build the society on safety rather than success - and that's where American society is definitely turning (or should I say, have turned) - then you get mealy-mouthed safespacers instead of bold outspoken geniuses.
dec0dedab0de 5y ago
Compare people's apologetic and noncommittal tech presentations now, to those from the old films with 1950s people in their lab coats and thick-rimmed glasses. They had utmost confidence and verbal fluency back then. I don't think this is a good example. There was a huge barrier to entry in the 50s to end up in a position to be recorded talking about something. Capable speakers would have been chosen more often than not. There has always been pressure from various groups to say or not say things. I think the only thing that has drastically changed is how much easier it is to put something out there, and for the public to respond. I'm sure Galileo would think political correctness is much better now than in his time. edit: I just found this link that is a pretty interesting list of scientists being ignored, ridiculed, beaten, jailed, and killed for politically incorrect ideas that were later proven correct. https://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/mavericks-and-heretics/ https://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/maveri...
- 5y ago

anthk 5y ago

Gopher holes often are truly sincere and maddening.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

whalesalad 5y ago

I do believe that this is one facet of a much larger and deeper subject which is to live your life with authenticity.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jancsika 5y ago

> Almost nobody is as constantly vehement as many journalists claim to be, and 100% nobody has a head that’s entirely filled with opinions that fit inside today’s rapidly shifting Overton Window. Ooh, not only is "Overton" capitalized but so is "Window." Even better-- since the main use of the term has been to elucidate changes to acceptable discourse over time, simply calling it a "shifting Overton Window" would be rather pedestrian. Rather than reflect honestly on the purpose of writing that sentence, the author seems to double down by adding the word "rapidly" to make the sentence appear as more than a mere truism. In conclusion, I agree with the author's point that authors should stop lying to themselves and just write their actual opinions. But seriously, solving writer's block seems ripe for disruption. How are there not already several Decentralized Apps in this space? Did the regulators beat us all to the punch?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Legion 5y ago

> And maybe the thing you write will be a crock of shit. Because we definitely need more of that. If there's one thing the Internet is not lacking, it's ideas written down before they're fully thought through.

DoreenMichele 5y ago
The article expressly stated they were encouraging people to simply write it down and distinguished that from the act of publishing it He's correct that a lot of people are scared to do that initial brain dump and that brain dump is a necessary first step in the creative process. First, just write. Later, edit. But first, just write. You have to start somewhere and first drafts are notorious for being terrible.
nonbirithm 5y ago
Comments like yours are a major reason I do not have the heart to write. But that doesn't even mean you're wrong. For example, an idea for a blog post came to my mind 30 minutes ago: You can't wander into a supermarket and see a substance as addictively tempting as heroin stocked next to the Advil. Imagine you're just trying to get groceries on some mundane Sunday afternoon and go home within a half hour when you turn your head and see a magazine with a picture of your favorite <YouTube content creator/acid techno producer/dog> on the racks. If this were me, and the thing I saw was one I highly cherished, under my default mode of action, the rest of my entire afternoon would be set in stone. The time would have been lost. I have remembered about the most interesting thing in the location of the most mundane things, and I feel validated. So I will get distracted. And my argument would be that the <YouTube content creator/acid techno producer/dog> that occupies a my time is not at fault. The fault would lie with us as a species, because although natural selection filters out the most successful genes and ideas, it does not put limiters on the ones that are successful to a fault. Laws, regulations, and legislation are, at a simplistic level, ways of preventing people from getting what they want. What if what I "truly" want is the thing that will destroy me? The above is what I would consider an idea that is not fully thought though. I came up with it in all of fifteen minutes. Through some shred of luck, I've managed to do what the article encourages and wrote it down somewhere. I could spend a lot of time writing a blog post explaining this idea. I could cite sources. I could throw it online just for the sake of finishing something, not because I believe the product of my effort is perfect. Then I could be told that I shouldn't have finished what I did, because my writing was a net negative. Even though I know that I have never really written any blog posts, and that releasing shitty blog posts is inevitable if you are ever going to blog consistently. It's sad that I have to picture comments like these in front of me, because they will always exist, but even if they are harsh, that doesn't mean they're wrong. It's sad because that is what ultimately destroys my motivation to share most of what I've made with anyone, unless it offers no real grounds for opinion (in the sense of the universality of mathematical formulae). At the same time, the difference between carrying on or not shouldn't be determined by how harshly the critic happens phrase their criticism. People have told me that I need to stop being so vulnerable and develop thick skin. You can tell all the dismissive people to "be nicer", but there will always be more dismissive people. That is the reason that the idea I'm proposing, however disjointed and rough it is, will probably not become a blog post. It's the idea that people should not write to be seen unless they have enough focus to pass a certain bar. That if you have nothing insightful to say, you should keep quiet instead, and of course I am not going to be able to define "insightful" in a closed vacuum all by myself. And of course, the only real reason I feel comfortable writing all of this here is because it concerns an article about not caring what people are going to think of what you say. If it were under any other article, all that insight becomes implicit, and you are on your own in dealing with the guilt and fear. I am tempted to give myself the habit of telling everyone who judges what I say that I was just trying to finish something for once, instead of wallowing around wishing I finished something for all of my life. "This piece is awful because I finished it." I can see dozens of places I could have improved if I had the heart - but no, I had to ship instead. Maybe that still won't be a good enough excuse. If so, then I guess the fear the original author dismisses is justifiable, at least.

mlboss 5y ago

Same advice can also be applied when you don't know how to start a conversation. Just speak whatever you are thinking/feeling. Your thoughts matter.

l0b0 5y ago

This might be good advice for fiction, but I would expect most non-fiction writers to be familiar with how terribly your intuition or instinct actually matches the real world. For example, the natural intuition about something which has literally never happened is that it won't happen. Intuition gave us the gambler's fallacy (my own father thought he was getting better odds every week of playing the same lottery numbers), Monty Hall (check out the Mythbusters episode if you think that intuition has been defeated), xenophobia, and so on. You have to consciously fight these natural tendencies at every turn to produce reasonable non-fiction.

lamontcg 5y ago

This article seems completely and utterly ass-backwards to me. If you want to get over writers block just embrace bullshitting, lying, and faking it until you make it. Learn how to obscure your lack of knowledge with anything through prose that pulls sleight-of-hand word games so that the bulk of people don't realize you have no idea what you're talking about. And people will eat it up.