In Part 1, I said that writing can be perfect. In Part 2, I’ll talk about how to get there. This is dangerous territory though, if for no other reason than every writer is different. Some write best in secluded silence, others write best blasting AC/DC. Some write 30 pages a day, others write 10 words a day (Joyce is famous for this). Some write when the mood strikes, and some write everyday, for a certain number of hours. The point is, there are a lot of different styles that produce a lot of different types of good writing.
But I will argue here that one style, or one tool, is the key to perfect writing… no matter what type of writer you are. Those who read the blog will probably be unalarmed to hear that it centers on revision, and on writing out loud.
I think, as I said in part 1, that a certain set of words has a harmonious center - a certain combination of look and feel, timing and meaning, that’s right. Given this, It’d be presumptuous for any writer to assume that they’ll get it right on the first try, every time. It just doesn’t happen like that. Not in athletics, not in chemistry, and not in writing. If you want perfect writing, you have to work for it.
Some of your revisions can happen on paper, on screen, or in your head. But I believe it’s essential, at some point (preferably in the end), to read your writing out loud. The act of saying it, not to mention hearing it out in the world allows you the chance to truly evaluate it. It is then that you either hear disharmony or harmony, and then, depending on your motivation, that you choose to go on or revise again.
Training your ear takes time, but it’s not a magical skill. It’s an inherent one… available to any writer who wants to use it. Which brings me back to the question I ended with in Part 1: if it’s just a little work, and there’s such a high reward, why would you settle for anything less?
{ 0 comments… add one now }