Skip to main content

Start with the easy stuff

I've blogged before (here for example) on the writer's habit of prevarication. Almost everyone I've ever spoken to who writes admits to it. They'll put off starting writing as long as possible. So how to get round this?

If I've got a particularly bad case of the avoid-writing-itis I tend to trick myself by starting with the easy stuff. Something that's still part of the work in progress, but is easier to do than the bit I had been intending to start on. Then, once I'm into the writing process I can switch back to what I should be doing. Once I'm writing, it's easy to keep going.

The book I'm working on at the moment makes this particularly easy because it has 100 self-contained sections. Some are harder to write than others - so if the next one on the list really strains the brain, I'll pick off an easy one and then come back to the tough one. But even writing something more continuous, it's usually possible to skip around a barrier that's encouraging prevarication, get yourself up to speed, then come back and smash that obstacle.

It won't always work - maybe won't work at all for some - but I find it useful.

Comments

  1. (commenting because the alternative is actually doing some work)

    It also helps if you stop working half way through something, as long as you know where it's going next (and make a note of where that is!)

    I sometimes find printing work out and annotating it is useful - I like to think with a pen in my hand and it keeps me away from all the lovely distractions on the computer

    ReplyDelete
  2. Absolutely (the pen bit). I usually write straight into the computer when I'm writing a book, but I have to sit down with pen and paper when planning a book or coming up with ideas - and at least one editing pass has to be on paper.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope