4 ms·

I love Stephenson, but I think he's deluding himself. The "buffer" is the brain. The point of writing is to get it out of the brain. Otherwise, to quote Forster

I love Stephenson, but I think he's deluding himself. The "buffer" is the brain. The point of writing is to get it out of the brain. Otherwise, to quote Forster: "How do I know what I think, until I see what I say."

sink 4y ago
With all due respect, I think it's strange to critique something as deeply personal as a technique used in creative writing.
- maroonblazer 4y ago
  I'm not criticizing his technique, I'm criticizing his rationale. If instead he'd said something like: "I just like the feel of pen to paper." Or "I've tried both pen/paper and a computer and there's something about using a computer that just doesn't work for me." that would make more sense. But this notion of a 'buffer' just doesn't. Perhaps "deluding" was too pejorative; I'll grant that.
veidr 4y ago
Yeah, but for me (and I think most people, although I suspect there's a lot of diversity from person to person) what comes "out of the brain" is noticeably different when writing by hand. Most of us can type a lot faster than we can write with a pencil. I doubt it is just the difference in speed (and I think Stephenson is simplifying here, not really saying that is the only difference), but that's part of it. A sentence written by hand has often been drafted, considered, and revised before it actually makes it to the paper. Whereas for somebody who can type, the first sentence that hits the page is often literally the first draft of it, as originally thought. (I still cannot imagine writing an entire novel this way myself, though...)
s1artibartfast 4y ago
I think you are missing the point. Of course the buffer is the brain. the idea is to give the brain more time to process. If you write a sentence per hour and a sentence per second, they will have different quality levels.
- maroonblazer 4y ago
  I'm arguing that all of that processing happens prior to you picking up a pen or taking to a keyboard to write. I'm disputing the claim that there's materially more 'thinking' happening in the second or two longer it takes one to write a sentence with a pen than with a keyboard.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    If you have ever sat down and written or typed for a hour straight, it will become clear that the thinking/processing wasn't all done beforehand. Thoughts can lead to new ones and flow from one to another. Either way, in the absence of very compelling counter evidence, I'll defer to the expert opinion of the author on how their brain works
  - safety1st 4y ago
    There's evidence that when you're studying something, taking notes by hand promotes long term retention of information better than typing them out. That is a case where the act of writing itself influences the thought process, and the use of one writing instrument or another influences it differently. It's wholly reasonable to believe that the choice of writing instrument may influence the thought process in other ways, too, and Stephenson has struck upon the instrument that works best for him. Edit: the other salient concept which comes to mind is Marshall McLuhan's idea that "the medium is the message." McLuhan definitely believed that if you go and say something over broadcast media vs e.g. printed matter, what you say comes out very differently. Both the content and interpretation are influenced by the medium. He would probably agree there is a difference between typing and handwriting, too. Edit2: there's at least one study which has found that handwriting engages more of the brain than typing does: https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/new-study-suggests-handwriting-engages-the-brain-more-than-typing-1.5132542?cache=yes https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/new-study-suggests-handwriting...
  - upsidesinclude 4y ago
    Just give it a shot before your next reply. It isn't something you have to do, but then it's clearly not something you do.

sink 4y ago

With all due respect, I think it's strange to critique something as deeply personal as a technique used in creative writing.

maroonblazer 4y ago
I'm not criticizing his technique, I'm criticizing his rationale. If instead he'd said something like: "I just like the feel of pen to paper." Or "I've tried both pen/paper and a computer and there's something about using a computer that just doesn't work for me." that would make more sense. But this notion of a 'buffer' just doesn't. Perhaps "deluding" was too pejorative; I'll grant that.

veidr 4y ago

Yeah, but for me (and I think most people, although I suspect there's a lot of diversity from person to person) what comes "out of the brain" is noticeably different when writing by hand. Most of us can type a lot faster than we can write with a pencil. I doubt it is just the difference in speed (and I think Stephenson is simplifying here, not really saying that is the only difference), but that's part of it. A sentence written by hand has often been drafted, considered, and revised before it actually makes it to the paper. Whereas for somebody who can type, the first sentence that hits the page is often literally the first draft of it, as originally thought. (I still cannot imagine writing an entire novel this way myself, though...)

s1artibartfast 4y ago

I think you are missing the point. Of course the buffer is the brain. the idea is to give the brain more time to process. If you write a sentence per hour and a sentence per second, they will have different quality levels.

maroonblazer 4y ago
I'm arguing that all of that processing happens prior to you picking up a pen or taking to a keyboard to write. I'm disputing the claim that there's materially more 'thinking' happening in the second or two longer it takes one to write a sentence with a pen than with a keyboard.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  If you have ever sat down and written or typed for a hour straight, it will become clear that the thinking/processing wasn't all done beforehand. Thoughts can lead to new ones and flow from one to another. Either way, in the absence of very compelling counter evidence, I'll defer to the expert opinion of the author on how their brain works
- safety1st 4y ago
  There's evidence that when you're studying something, taking notes by hand promotes long term retention of information better than typing them out. That is a case where the act of writing itself influences the thought process, and the use of one writing instrument or another influences it differently. It's wholly reasonable to believe that the choice of writing instrument may influence the thought process in other ways, too, and Stephenson has struck upon the instrument that works best for him. Edit: the other salient concept which comes to mind is Marshall McLuhan's idea that "the medium is the message." McLuhan definitely believed that if you go and say something over broadcast media vs e.g. printed matter, what you say comes out very differently. Both the content and interpretation are influenced by the medium. He would probably agree there is a difference between typing and handwriting, too. Edit2: there's at least one study which has found that handwriting engages more of the brain than typing does: https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/new-study-suggests-handwriting-engages-the-brain-more-than-typing-1.5132542?cache=yes https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/new-study-suggests-handwriting...
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
  Just give it a shot before your next reply. It isn't something you have to do, but then it's clearly not something you do.