THREAD

I get asked for writing tips a lot. Of all the ones I’ve given, here are a few of the ones that seem to hold true and remain somewhat universal or at least mostly unobjectionable:

#amwriting #writingtips

1. If you are a fast writer (i.e., if you compose first drafts very quickly) then you absolutely must become a slow editor. Much of what I call “writing” is really, for me, editing.
2. If you don’t read you cannot write a lot or well. Sure, maybe you can read like a maniac for a decade and then read less after that, but without some large volume of intake, there will never be a meaningful output.
2.1 I sometimes say that I feel like writing without reading is like trying to run a marathan on a cracker. And sadly I see many students struggling to write when they have simply never read enough to fuel that demand of the task at hand.
3. All writing is writing if one decides to treat it that way. If one takes some degree of intentional will when sending emails, posting on social media and writing notes and marginalia, then all of that can count as meaningful daily writing.
3.1 “Write everyday” is a wonderful rule and easy if one simply treats all writing as writing. There are literary genres for most of this, too (e.g. correspondence, aphorisms, sentences, and more).
4. The greatest treasure for writers in the English language, putting aside Strunk and White and Fowler, is the interview archive at @parisreview. Reading writers talk about how they write is such a unique and direct way to think about writing.
4.1 I also love Stephen King’s book On Writing and Mary Karr’s book on Memoir (which she says in the intro is really just about writing).
5. This point is ironic, but also quite serious. Beware writer’s tips. For instance, sure, place really matters when writing but not always. Inspiration is important, sometimes, but it is also sometimes an impediment. “Writer’s block” is a phenomenon that is real and not real.
5.1 Any “method” for writing that becomes more than a routine and way of living, any rule that is more about principle than practice, any exercise that becomes an excuse or shortcut, any of these things are are dangerous as the writer’s greatest enemy: the cliche.
6. Writing is NOT NOT NOT a solitary affair. The value of editorial support and a publishing outlet that is skilled in typesetting and other details totally and absolutely matters. One of the greatest harms for students is that so much of their writing is done alone.
7. Writing is an iterative process. Multiple drafts and editions and translations and so on all add and never subtract. This makes writing itself rather impossible but also gives one enough of a hopeless situation to venture into without too many false ambitions.
8. Structure matters. Especially sentence structure. The more I write the more grammar and syntax and usage interest me. The writer doesn’t leave the dictionary, thesaurus, and style and usage books behind; it is the opposite.
9. Language is a “thought fossil.” When we mark down our words, we leave traces of our consciousness, even our soul. This psychology of writing makes is a precious window into something that is otherwise hard to look into: the mind and, even deeper, the heart.
10. We are awash in writing. Just about everything we encounter in daily life has some writing attached to it somehow. All media is written. Television and cinema are recited from written scripts. I oppose the idea that writing is a specialized and rare thing; it is everywhere.
11. All speech is a form of writing, it is prose and poetry. Writing and speaking are tough to distinguish from each other in many ways and there seems to be a reason why the “writer” is so often thoughtful, well spoken, and the intellectual in society.
12. The best editorial key on your keyboard is the delete button.
FINIS

More from All

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
दधीचि ऋषि को मनाही थी कि वह अश्विनी कुमारों को किसी भी अवस्था में ब्रह्मविद्या का उपदेश नहीं दें। ये आदेश देवराज इन्द्र का था।वह नहीं चाहते थे कि उनके सिंहासन को प्रत्यक्ष या परोक्ष रुप से कोई भी खतरा हो।मगर जब अश्विनी कुमारों ने सहृदय प्रार्थना की तो महर्षि सहर्ष मान गए।


और उन्होनें ब्रह्मविद्या का ज्ञान अश्विनि कुमारों को दे दिया। गुप्तचरों के माध्यम से जब खबर इन्द्रदेव तक पहुंची तो वे क्रोध में खड़ग ले कर गए और महर्षि दधीचि का सर धड़ से अलग कर दिया।मगर अश्विनी कुमार भी कहां चुप बैठने वाले थे।उन्होने तुरंत एक अश्व का सिर महर्षि के धड़ पे...


...प्रत्यारोपित कर उन्हें जीवित रख लिया।उस दिन के पश्चात महर्षि दधीचि अश्वशिरा भी कहलाए जाने लगे।अब आगे सुनिये की किस प्रकार महर्षि दधीचि का सर काटने वाले इन्द्र कैसे अपनी रक्षा हेतु उनके आगे गिड़गिड़ाए ।

एक बार देवराज इन्द्र अपनी सभा में बैठे थे, तो उन्हे खुद पर अभिमान हो आया।


वे सोचने लगे कि हम तीनों लोकों के स्वामी हैं। ब्राह्मण हमें यज्ञ में आहुति देते हैं और हमारी उपासना करते हैं। फिर हम सामान्य ब्राह्मण बृहस्पति से क्यों डरते हैं ?उनके आने पर क्यों खड़े हो जाते हैं?वे तो हमारी जीविका से पलते हैं। देवर्षि बृहस्पति देवताओं के गुरु थे।

अभिमान के कारण ऋषि बृहस्पति के पधारने पर न तो इन्द्र ही खड़े हुए और न ही अन्य देवों को खड़े होने दिया।देवगुरु बृहस्पति इन्द्र का ये कठोर दुर्व्यवहार देख कर चुप चाप वहां से लौट गए।कुछ देर पश्चात जब देवराज का मद उतरा तो उन्हे अपनी गलती का एहसास हुआ।