How the **** did they cope?

[Garpy]

I've been reading some old novels by Nevil Shute....he wrote a lot of them back in the 50's-60's, on one of them old typewriter thing-a-ma-hoobies. And you know what? When I think about it...I'm amazed at how they managed to do it without the benefit of a PC/Mac.

Editing my recently finished MS, doing global search/replaces, cutting sections and pasting, deleting words, adding words. You just can't do that on a typwriter without having to retype the entire the entire chapter after each edit!!!

I suspect the major hassle of editing back in those pre-Gates days meant that what you read today of their works, pretty much resembles their first draft, with perhaps one or two minor editor-requested tweaks.

I know this....if someone told me I could only be allowed to write on a typewriter, I'd go find another job.

[KTC]

I'd write on toilet paper with a felt marker if I had to.

[DragonHeart]

And before they had typewriters they wrote by hand. I think he just used what he had available for the times. Before we got a computer at my house I did use a typewriter, although I didn't write much then. (Mostly schoolwork.) Yeah it was kind of a pain but I'd rather use it than handwrite everything.

Computers do make everything ridiculously easy, though.

~DragonHeart~

[scribbler1382]

Editing my recently finished MS, doing global search/replaces, cutting sections and pasting, deleting words, adding words. You just can't do that on a typwriter without having to retype the entire the entire chapter after each edit!!!

I think this made for better manuscripts in a lot of cases. It gave a kind of permanence to what you were doing. I wrote my first 10 or so short stories on a typewriter. You made damn sure the change you wanted to make was worth making, but you also found about five more changes as you were retyping a section or story.

Harlan Ellison despises computers. Last I heard, and I doubt it's changed, he still writes all his stuff on a manual typewriter. I'm sure there's a lot more like him out there. I have to admit that there was a lot more significance and precision to my typing when I was pounding instead of pressing keys. Then again, I can write on the same floor when everyone is asleep now, too.:Hammer:

[Garpy]

I think I read that JK Rowling writes her Potter stuff on sheets of foolscap with a nice fountain pen. Although that does sound a little like publisher spin, (although they'd probably prefer to say she writes with a quill)...it's true. I saw her interviewed sometime last year and she flourished her recently finished MS for I guess it must be the one that's out now, and it was all handwriting, nothing typed.

But I'm amazed. I suspect though, being the big seller she is, she doesn't get told to make too many changes by her editor....he/she probably wouldn't dare.

Thinking about it...because editing used to be such a royal pain, before computers arrived, I suspect manuscripts that arrived on the desks of editors, were considered pretty much the final article. Nowadays however, because it is comparably easy to 'jam with a script', the agent, the editor, the editor's assistant, the marketing people...all feel quite relaxed about bombarding a new author with their take on how the story should go. Which inevitably is going to lead to more homogenous, diluted works.

So computer technology, I suppose, is a bit of a double-edged sword. Makes writing easier....but also means it makes asking for endless revisions easier too.

[willietheshakes]

I think I read that JK Rowling writes her Potter stuff on sheets of foolscap with a nice fountain pen. Although that does sound a little like publisher spin, (although they'd probably prefer to say she writes with a quill)...it's true. I saw her interviewed sometime last year and she flourished her recently finished MS for I guess it must be the one that's out now, and it was all handwriting, nothing typed.

Why would you assume this is spin? All of my first drafts are written on paper with a nice fountain pen.

But I'm amazed. I suspect though, being the big seller she is, she doesn't get told to make too many changes by her editor....he/she probably wouldn't dare.

While I think this is true in Rowling's case (ie, her not being edited), there's nothing about a longhand first draft that precludes editing. The text has to be entered at some point -- a computer typescript will exist, and can be edited just like any other typescript.

Thinking about it...because editing used to be such a royal pain, before computers arrived, I suspect manuscripts that arrived on the desks of editors, were considered pretty much the final article.

Maybe, but think of the great editors from days of yor. I think there was a lot of editorial input there.

Nowadays however, because it is comparably easy to 'jam with a script', the agent, the editor, the editor's assistant, the marketing people...all feel quite relaxed about bombarding a new author with their take on how the story should go. Which inevitably is going to lead to more homogenous, diluted works.


Inevitably? I think you're overstating your case.

[Barb]

From what I gathered about the publishing world (by published writer's webblogs, How-to-books, writing articles, talking to published authors) quite the opposite is true.

Until some decades ago, it was a standard in the publishing industry to take on a young talent who was yet raw and unpolished and "grow him" from small numbers of releases to a big seller. This also included extensive editing the likes of which are *not* done anymore.

There are several reasons for that. One is that the process takes a long time to "built up" somebody from a nobody to the top of the list. Editorial stuff is expensive and the industry has cut down on its costs everywhere. And if a publishing house manages to built up an author, there is the danger of the author leaving the house, loyalty on the other side not being the same as it used to be, either.

In the end that means that a ms of today will see less editing before being published than before. And that in turn means that a ms will need to shine in that area and need little line editing, because publishers expect you do to the big work yourself.

[Jamesaritchie]

I've been reading some old novels by Nevil Shute....he wrote a lot of them back in the 50's-60's, on one of them old typewriter thing-a-ma-hoobies. And you know what? When I think about it...I'm amazed at how they managed to do it without the benefit of a PC/Mac.

Editing my recently finished MS, doing global search/replaces, cutting sections and pasting, deleting words, adding words. You just can't do that on a typwriter without having to retype the entire the entire chapter after each edit!!!

I suspect the major hassle of editing back in those pre-Gates days meant that what you read today of their works, pretty much resembles their first draft, with perhaps one or two minor editor-requested tweaks.

I know this....if someone told me I could only be allowed to write on a typewriter, I'd go find another job.

Shakespeare and a bunch of other writers made out all right with a quill, and Mark Twain did pretty well with a fountain pen. And from my point of view, nearly all the best writers of the 20th century used a typewriter. Shelby Foote wrote those massive civil war books with a dip pen, and I heard Joyce Carol Oates say she doesn't even own a word processor. I even know a couple of writers who grew up with word processors, but who have switched to manual typewriters. The typewriter is called "The invention that will not die" because so many writers,young and old, still use it.

The major hassle of editing in those days meant two things: 1. You thought more before committing something to paper. 2. You still edited, it just took a little longer. And "cut and paste" is a term from teh typewriter era, not the computer age.

I still write most of my first drafts, and an occasional second draft, in longhand, and so do a number of other pro writers. I know writers who don't commit anything to the computer until they thinks it's ready to go.

I've also written novels start to finish on typewriters, both manual and electric, and in all honesty, I prefer it.

The editing capabilities of word processors are wonderous, but I think they're also severely abused. I can't see where the overall level of writing has improved with the advent of computers and word processors. If anything, it's gone way, way down on average because of the fact that word processors make something that's always extremly difficult look easy. It's an illusion.

I do think word processors are wonderful things, and I love the editing tools available for my final drafts, but I also think many of the seeming advantages of word processors can also be severe disadvantages. They've promoted the notion that you can write as crappy as you like, and then fix it by quick and easy cutting and pasting, adding and deleting. For most, I don't believe it works this way. I think most writers who start with crap end with polished crap, word processors or not.

In all honesty, the only real reason I use word processors and computers at all is because so much of publishing is electronic these days. I have to be able to send files to agents, editors, and magazines, and receive files from them.

But I don't think writers who used quills, dip pens, and typewriters were under any disadvantage at all, editing or otherwise. Slower doesn't mean worse, it often means better, and while typing one more draft might have been a chore, it was also one extra chance to get things right.

[Jamesaritchie]

because publishers expect you do to the big work yourself.

With very rare exceptions, they always did. A writer will probably get fewer chances to succeed these days, but it has nothing to do with cutting back on editors. Publishers hire just as many editors as they ever did, and those editors work as hard as they ever did.

Nor does it have anything to do with expenses. In the long run, it costs more to do it the way it's done now.

The reason a writer gets fewer chances now is because there are so many more people trying to be writers now, and the philosphy is to publish as many novels and writers as possible, throw them all at the wall, and keep the ones who stick. It's all a quest for the next bestseller.

But the notion that manuscripts in the old days received so much more and so much better editing is largely a myth. Writers were expected to be writers then, and by and large turned in manuscripts of much higher quality than the average manuscript of today. Many of those old manuscripts are available, and it's just wrong to think they were great because editors in those days did so much more editing than editors do now. On average, those old manuscripts are of superb quality when an editor first saw them.

Being a writer then meant turning in a good manuscript, and being a writer now means the same thing. Editors have always edited, have always worked hard to give any promising manuscript the final touches it needs, but writers have never been allowed to pass off writing to an editor.

It never has been about editing, it's about selling. A writer used to be given more chances for his books to catch on with the reading public, and that's the difference.

Editors edit now, just as editors edited decades ago, and when you compare today's manuscripts with those written decades ago, it's today's editors who have the bigger job.

[PattiTheWicked]

I don't know, I'm kind of drawn to the idea of Will Shakespeare sitting in his garret, scribbling away with a quill and ink, randomly tossing things aside when a phrase didn't work well. Or Jane Austen alone at a desk with a book full of blank pages and her pen, staring out the window dreaming of her Mr. D'arcy.

Sure, it was a lot more work, but it seems almost romantic.

I can say this because I know there is no way in hell I'll ever do it.

[icerose]

When I write on paper and then later type it up, I find I make massive revisions in just typing it up. Because I have time to digest what I have written. I know of many writers who print out their work and re-type it to get the same level of revisions as they would if they had hand written it in the first place. I don't handwrite very often because my writing becomes unreadable when I start writing fast...not to mention my two kids think its fun to cut, tear, and color on the paper that has writing on it. Nothing like losing an hours worth of work in two minutes to two little kids. (Believe me they find my prized writing and sketches no matter where I hide them!)

If you are a true writer you use what you can. Nice thing about then is there probably weren't as many people who would put in the time and dedication to write a novel through those means because it was such a hassel. So I think it worked as a better filter. As for not liking modern books, I have loved most of the books I read. If the synopsis doesn't capture my imagination or interest I don't read it. Some of the writers I find myself most disappointed with are some of the best sellers and their latest books. Of course all of this is opinion but it seems like they don't allow the editor to help them polish their books as much so that would be the fault of the writer and not the editor. So yeah.
Sara

[Button]

I'd write on toilet paper with a felt marker if I had to.

I've done that. I had a brilliant idea while peeing one night at two AM. Had a marker in my bathroom so I used the toilet paper. Couldn't read what I wrote the next morning though. And I'm so sure it was so really good!

:)

I know a lot of writers take notebooks and pens to their local coffee shop to write. I can understand the pen and paper but a public place to write would just distract me. (Especially when coffee shops are usually near book shops, I couldn't resist not getting up and browsing.

[SRHowen]

I wrote my first and second novels on an old Royal typewriter. It was pre home computer age.

You used white out, you wrote in things by hand, you "cut" and "pasted" --you retyped chapters. (you still start a new chapter on a new page) I hand numbered the pages in pencil so I could change them if I added a new chapter.

A ms was not expected to be perfect as far physical things went. They expected there would be all of the above.

Computers make it seem easy and that's why so many poeple are out there saying hey I am a writer! I used spell check after all.

I used to hand write everything so someone could fix my dyslexic mistakes before I typed it out to send out. I also did a number of drafts start to finish--I do think it taught me to make it a smoother read.

[Garpy]

Well, respect for those of you who have authored with paper and pen (or typewriter) I personally can't bear writing by hand, I get appalling cramp very quickly.

I think the computer does allow us some powerful tools to use, and I'm pretty sure Sam Clemens, Will the Quill et al...would have dropped their pens in an instant if someone hand handed them a Mac laptop. But, as someone said earlier, the downside to this remarkable tool, is that the craft is way more accessable, and far less of an ordeal than it used to be...hence the flood of dross onto the market.

[Christine N.]

My first book (well, most of it anyway) was written in a notebook while I was supposed to be working. I don't have that job anymore (but it has nothing to do with my writing) I also made major revisions while typing it up. Now I have a laptop, and I just sit down and let the words flow. I think half of what I'm putting in the current WIP will be cut, but it's nice to be able to get it out on the fly.

Like Scarlett, "I'll think about it tomorra."

[victoriastrauss]

I've been reading some old novels by Nevil Shute....he wrote a lot of them back in the 50's-60's, on one of them old typewriter thing-a-ma-hoobies. And you know what? When I think about it...I'm amazed at how they managed to do it without the benefit of a PC/Mac.I wrote my first novel in longhand, and my second and third on typewriters.

I revise as I go, and my typescripts were a nightmare of cross-outs, written-in additions, and inserts. I was constantly having to retype pages and scenes and chapters. And then at the end of it all I had to type up a clean copy, with a carbon. It sucked! It was a big day for me when I bought an IBM Selectric with the self-correcting feature--but even that didn't really help all that much, except at clean-copy time.

Even though I was aware of hating the process, and hating my messy manuscripts-in-progress, I didn't really realize how much I hated it until I got my first computer. It was absolutely like magic to be able to move blocks of text around at will, to make changes and additions and always have a clean copy. I felt as if a whole new world had been opened up to me. For the first time, the process of writing wasn't a burden.

I really have an aversion to paper now, as a result of all that struggle back in my typewriter days, and I never print anything out until I'm done.

- Victoria

[Button]

The reason why I like computers is that I write slow and sloppy. :p So I couldn't read what I wrote anyways. I doesn't mean I won't use a notebook. If hubby is anxious about me sitting at the computer when I'm on a roll, I'll take up a notebook and work in the living room with him next to me.

But I can type almost as fast as I can think. I think the next best thing would be tape recorder. I hear some actually use it but I'm not brave enough to actually record my voice. I write better than I talk anyways.

[scribbler1382]

I wrote my first novel in longhand, and my second and third on typewriters.

I really have an aversion to paper now, as a result of all that struggle back in my typewriter days, and I never print anything out until I'm done.

That's interesting. I always print out my work after each writing session. I tell myself it's for safety (if the computer, backup on server and my USB Key drive all die at the same time, I can scan the pages...<ahem> ) but really it's because until my words hit paper, they don't seem real to me.

I think computers are extremely useful as REVISION tools, but I'm not so sure they help at all for actual first draft composition.

[arkady]

I wrote my first novel in longhand, and my second and third on typewriters.

I revise as I go, and my typescripts were a nightmare of cross-outs, written-in additions, and inserts. I was constantly having to retype pages and scenes and chapters. And then at the end of it all I had to type up a clean copy, with a carbon. It sucked! It was a big day for me when I bought an IBM Selectric with the self-correcting feature--but even that didn't really help all that much, except at clean-copy time.

Even though I was aware of hating the process, and hating my messy manuscripts-in-progress, I didn't really realize how much I hated it until I got my first computer. It was absolutely like magic to be able to move blocks of text around at will, to make changes and additions and always have a clean copy. I felt as if a whole new world had been opened up to me. For the first time, the process of writing wasn't a burden.

I really have an aversion to paper now, as a result of all that struggle back in my typewriter days, and I never print anything out until I'm done.

- Victoria

Amen to all of that. I wrote my first two on a typewriter, with carbon paper, duplicates, gallons of white-out, pencilled corrections and lots and lots of time spent on purely mechanical details. The reason I bought my first computer was to escape from all this, and I've never regretted it for an instant.

[Cathy C]

One thing about learning on a manual typewriter --- my accuracy skills are a lot better than some new writers I've met who only use a keyboard and spell check. In school, if you could type 90 wpm, but had two dozen errors on a page, your speed was adjusted down to about 30 wpm. You had to have 60 wpm to pass the course.

And trust me, when typing a thirty page legal contract, you DON'T want to screw up. No white-out allowed in law! A mistake meant an eraser and about three minutes of light scrubbing so you didn't cut through the paper.

Using a typewriter eraser is a skill I've kept up with. You'd be amazed how often it comes in handy! :D

(But I really don't miss manuals all that much. I like keyboards!! :) )

[Arkie]

I will add to what Jamesaritche wrote about Shelby Foote.


Mr. Foote wrote his Civil War trilogy (twice the words of the King James Bible), from 1954, to 1974. He never worked on anything else during that time. He wrote 500-600 words a day with a quill pen that he dipped in ink every 5-6 words. At the end of the day, he typed what he had written on a regular typewriter and then read it out loud, while sipping a glass of whiskey.

[LightShadow]

I wrote my first eight or so manuscripts on a typewriter, and four before that in spiral notebooks. It was harder to copy those into my computer later, to be honest, because I kept stopping to laugh at how lousy a writer I was back in those days. You know, the 70's and 80's. Now, my computer is a more important appliance than my fridge!

[Zane Curtis]

It makes me smile when I hear people talking about the "good old days" of typewritten manuscripts, and how much better the writers were back then. It's all selective memory. You remember the good stuff from the 70s and 80s and earlier because it's good -- not because it's actually representative of what got published at the time.

Me, I'm a hoarder, and I've still got all the books I read back then. Oh boy, what a steaming pile of horse**** it is! The stuff they got away with back then amazes me -- stuff that would never get published now.

[LightShadow]

It makes me smile when I hear people talking about the "good old days" of typewritten manuscripts, and how much better the writers were back then. It's all selective memory. You remember the good stuff from the 70s and 80s and earlier because it's good -- not because it's actually representative of what got published at the time.

Me, I'm a hoarder, and I've still got all the books I read back then. Oh boy, what a steaming pile of horse**** it is! The stuff they got away with back then amazes me -- stuff that would never get published now.Man, I can agree. I have over a thousand of those old paperbacks. You can buy them for a dime apiece at garage sales in ancient neighborhoods now. I actually enjoyed handwriting my stuff. Sometimes I still do. There's nothing better than grabbing a spiral and a pencil and heading out to some canyon, or a stream, or whatever. Sometimes, however, I take my laptop instead. Man, this technology has poisoned me.

[GPatten]

Oh how I like the sound of a typewriter. Not me, someone else typing. Though I could type 60 wpm back then, it seemed if I remember right, it was harder to use then the computer. I remember watching the pretty lady hitten those keys like mad. I even have an old typewriter stored away in the back room taking up space. Should I poke a paper in it and give it a try? Wish I could hear that pretty lady hitten those keys again. Sigh!

[Zane Curtis]

I remember watching the pretty lady hitten those keys like mad... Should I poke a paper in it and give it a try? Wish I could hear that pretty lady hitten those keys again. Sigh!

Chances are, your pretty lady can't do much typing these days, because she's crippled with carpal tunnel syndrome. Get a good close-up look at what that can do to a person and you won't want to even think about that old manual typewriter. In fact, you'll probably want to go out and buy a good ergonomic keyboard for your computer and refuse to use anything else. I've been using one for five years, and I'd never voluntarily go back to the usual cramped typing position now.

[BenMears]

My favorite story about writing drafts with a typewriter is in one of Dean Koontz's writing books. He used 50 reams of paper writing his novel "Whispers," which was 800 pages in manuscript. That works out to 32 complete 800-page drafts, all written on a typewriter. There was a writer who knew how to work.

[Mistook]

I read somewhere that the set-up of the qwerty keys was originally designed to slow down the typist. This was because the earliest typewriters tended to jam up if you went to fast.

But for the new invention, sales was also a concern. If you'll notice, the top row has all the letters to spell the word T Y P E W R I T E R. This made it easy for salesmen to amuse the customer without having to do a lot of hunting and pecking.

[Garpy]

My favorite story about writing drafts with a typewriter is in one of Dean Koontz's writing books. He used 50 reams of paper writing his novel "Whispers," which was 800 pages in manuscript. That works out to 32 complete 800-page drafts, all written on a typewriter. There was a writer who knew how to work.

That's little short of amazing. I'd have walked away from it, I think, after draft 3.

[Jamesaritchie]

Chances are, your pretty lady can't do much typing these days, because she's crippled with carpal tunnel syndrome. Get a good close-up look at what that can do to a person and you won't want to even think about that old manual typewriter. In fact, you'll probably want to go out and buy a good ergonomic keyboard for your computer and refuse to use anything else. I've been using one for five years, and I'd never voluntarily go back to the usual cramped typing position now.

The computer mouse actually causes far more carpal tunnel than manual typewriters ever did. The mouse is the bad guy, not a keyboard.

[Jamesaritchie]

It makes me smile when I hear people talking about the "good old days" of typewritten manuscripts, and how much better the writers were back then. It's all selective memory. You remember the good stuff from the 70s and 80s and earlier because it's good -- not because it's actually representative of what got published at the time.

Me, I'm a hoarder, and I've still got all the books I read back then. Oh boy, what a steaming pile of horse**** it is! The stuff they got away with back then amazes me -- stuff that would never get published now.

Nonsense. The junk back then was the same as the junk now. There will always be junk writers. But on average, the writing was far better then, and the best then was, I think, better than nearly anything published now.

I remember the best from back then, yes. There was some bad writing then, yes. But nothing compared to the bad writing now. It's what gets published now that amazes me.

I do not have a selective memory, and I've read literally thousands of novels form that period. And I still have thousands of them in my library. I've also seen slush piles from then and slush piles from now. There's no comparison in overall quality.

And it's simply nuts to think the stuff written then wouldn't be published now. It's pure silliness. The style might have to be updated, but the overall quality would chase nearly anything written today right off the racks. The bad now is really bad, horrifically bad. Even most of the bad a few decades ago was at least readable, else you wouldn't have read them.

The primary reason probably isn't because they used typewriters (Though there is some serious scientific research showing that both pen and paper and manual typewriters automatically use the creative center of the brain while computers do not), but largely because there were far fewer writers then, and most of those trying to be writers were college educated.

[scribbler1382]

On this, we're in full agreement, James. Nice post.

[Jamesaritchie]

Well, respect for those of you who have authored with paper and pen (or typewriter) I personally can't bear writing by hand, I get appalling cramp very quickly.

I think the computer does allow us some powerful tools to use, and I'm pretty sure Sam Clemens, Will the Quill et al...would have dropped their pens in an instant if someone hand handed them a Mac laptop. But, as someone said earlier, the downside to this remarkable tool, is that the craft is way more accessable, and far less of an ordeal than it used to be...hence the flood of dross onto the market.

They may have, but I'll be eternally grateful that they never had the chance. And until I see the new Shakespeare or the new Sam Clemens produced on a computer, I'll remain grateful.

Faster and easier doesn't always mean better. Especially faster. I cringe everytime I hear someone say "I use a computer so my writing can keep up with my thoughts. I just write too slow without a computer."

Yes, slow. That's the point. Slow is not necessarily bad, fast is not necessarily good. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know without doubt that if I want to write poorly, all I have to do is make my writing keep up with my thoughts. I follow the old carpenter's rule of "Measure twice, cut once," only I always want time to think twice, write once.

I write much, much better when my thoughts stay way out in front of my hands.

[Jamesaritchie]

My favorite story about writing drafts with a typewriter is in one of Dean Koontz's writing books. He used 50 reams of paper writing his novel "Whispers," which was 800 pages in manuscript. That works out to 32 complete 800-page drafts, all written on a typewriter. There was a writer who knew how to work.

He doesn't use as much paper now, but by all accounts, Koontz still works sixty to seventy hours per week, week in and week out, and still rewrites each and every page up to 32 times. I don't know whether to admire that kind of work ethic, or whether to pity it.

[willietheshakes]

Faster and easier doesn't always mean better. Especially faster. I cringe everytime I hear someone say "I use a computer so my writing can keep up with my thoughts. I just write too slow without a computer."

Yes, slow. That's the point. Slow is not necessarily bad, fast is not necessarily good. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know without doubt that if I want to write poorly, all I have to do is make my writing keep up with my thoughts. I follow the old carpenter's rule of "Measure twice, cut once," only I always want time to think twice, write once.

I write much, much better when my thoughts stay way out in front of my hands.

Thanks, James -- succinct and accurate, methinks. Though in the first line quoted, I think you're being far too generous: Faster and easier RARELY mean better, at least imho.

[SRHowen]

I can transcribe at 120 plus per minute, copy already written out text--that or faster. When I write I slow down quite a bit. Add in kids and cats and husbands and phone--I wonder how I ever get a thing written.

Good post James, and I agree--computers make people think writing is easy and better than it once was, just because of the speed and the many more people who claim to be writers.

Just because you can bang out words and spell check doesn't mean you can tell a good story.

[Zane Curtis]

Nonsense. The junk back then was the same as the junk now. There will always be junk writers. But on average, the writing was far better then, and the best then was, I think, better than nearly anything published now.

John Norman. I rest my case.

[GPatten]

Weally, weally interesting thread, I gave it an excellent 5. It’s brought me memories, really interesting information, and a little bit of the past. As the song goes, thanks for the memories.

[Mike Martyn]

[QUOTE=Jamesaritchie]

..... I cringe everytime I hear someone say "I use a computer so my writing can keep up with my thoughts.....

That actually works for me but only because I type about 20 words a minute.

[Kiva Wolfe]

I'm completely lost without my computer or tape recorder. I do know of an author who wrote his memoirs on paper napkins and TP. Since he couldn't, he hired someone else to type it and later to re-enter it into his brand new Tandy computer.

[brinkett]

I wrote my first two novels longhand and then typed them into WordPerfect. Never again.

[jules]

John Norman. I rest my case.

I think the fact that so many people seem to hate his work suggests he has a talent of some kind. I mean, if everybody had stopped reading after the first book, nobody would have been bothered by what his main character became, right? ;)

[aruna]

If you are a true writer you use what you can. Nice thing about then is there probably weren't as many people who would put in the time and dedication to write a novel through those means because it was such a hassel. So I think it worked as a better filter. Sara

That's the crux of the matter. Before the days of PCs, only those who really HAD to write, wrote. Those driven by the Muse. These days every Tom Dick and Harry has a PC or Mac, and every one thinks their words are golden. As a consequence, there's a lot more drivel, and a lot more to sift through.

[Mistook]

I hate to say it, but I think there's a lot of dreamy romantacism when it comes to type writers. I can easily imagine the gossip that must have taken place through the post, in handwritten letters, about those upstarts with their fancy typewriting machines.

At the time, it must have seemed that any idiot who couldn't master the fine art of penmanship, was now buying a cheep, personal printing press, and thrusting all his lustful, heathen ideas upon the masses.

And I'm sure that the guys who carved everything into stone were very upset when those youthful upstarts came along with their feathers dipped in ink, and their frilly little paper. Now everybody could scrawl their worthless little hearts out, without ever learning how to carve symbols into clay.

And before that, the cave painters mocked the idiots with the alphabet, and their grandfathers mocked the youthful obession with fire, and the wheel. Who needs wheels? We've got feet! Life isn't about sitting in the cave all day staring at the fire!

I submit that it is absolutely assinine to think that word processors are responsible for some massive influx of bad writing, and that the world was much more wonderful in the days of typewriters. It's nostalgic romanticism, plain and simple.

[Garpy]

I would argue that the arrival of computers has meant an influx of many, many 'casual' writers....and I'm sure the vast majority produce work of some value, but not neccessarily of publishable quality. In short...the market is flooded with wannabees, which does mean a lot more sifting is required, and on that issue, I'm with the crusty old traditionalists, however....

The PC is a fantastic tool for writing, it allows the writer the flexability to 'jam' with ideas, shuffle things around and experiment much more easily. Even simple things like playing around with the fonts, italicizing words for emphasis....all so easy.

[aruna]

I submit that it is absolutely assinine to think that word processors are responsible for some massive influx of bad writing, and that the world was much more wonderful in the days of typewriters. It's nostalgic romanticism, plain and simple.

There can be no doubt that a LOT more people of dubious writing talent now assume they can write novels, and are sending them in to publisghers... it's a fact that has nothing todo with romanticism.

It's also a fact that if you HAVE to write, you will write even if you have to carve your words on stone. It's also a fact that we live in an age of instant gratification, and the tools of the writer are of a very everyday nature - words!

A lot of people of questionable talent think that just because they can use words, they can become published authors.

It's not like this in the other arts. However much you may love music, and would love to BE a solo violist, you don't assume that all you have to do is pick up a violin, and voila. Every other art presupposes a time of apprenticeship, and learning, and a certain amount of difficulty. Only wannabe writers think that writing is easy, and publiction is instant. Otherwise they wouldn't dare send in some of the manuscripts they do.

This has nothing to do with the world being "more wonderful back then", and everything to do with the ease with which we can now reproduce our thoughts on paper - and the spare time we have to do it.

[maestrowork]

It's not like this in the other arts. However much you may love music, and would love to BE a solo violist, you don't assume that all you have to do is pick up a violin, and voila. Every other art presupposes a time of apprenticeship, and learning, and a certain amount of difficulty. Only wannabe writers think that writing is easy, and publiction is instant. Otherwise they wouldn't dare send in some of the manuscripts they do.

Actually, many people think they can write music just because they can hum and make a little diddly. With all the tools out there (Mac Garage, MIDI, etc.) it becomes very easy to write songs and perform without knowing squat about playing any instruments or music theories. If you go online you'll see thousands (if not tens of thousands) of wannabe musians posting and selling their music. Some of them spectacular (and you wonder why they haven't signed with a label) and some of the okay (but the same old, same old).... but a lot of them are just awful.

And all you have to do is turn on the TV and see how many wannabes think they can sing... and the success of William Hung is not helping any...

[Pencilone]

On the other hand, I believe that writing fast also means writing good. And I don't mean writing polished prose, but writing more interesting ideas, turns and unexpected twists, as we can let the unconscious surface without the usual barriers made by conscious thoughts. I think even Ray Bradbury was saying in his "Zen in the Art of Writing" write and don't think.

For me, the quicker I write, the more accessible the Muse is, and all the usual writer's blocks (like self doubt or the inner editor's sabotages) have less of a chance to bother me. That's why I'm all for fast writing for the first draft or for the outline, or draft 0, or whatever name you want to call it, till it's reviewed and polished.

[brinkett]

Actually, many people think they can write music just because they can hum and make a little diddly.
God, yeah. Check out www.fanmusicreview.com (http://www.fanmusicreview.com/) sometime.

[Garpy]

uughh....the first track is dire.

[reph]

A lot of people of questionable talent think that just because they can use words, they can become published authors.
People think that just because they can read, they can be manuscript editors, too, without having any apprenticeship or mentoring and without studying usage manuals. Their work gives the field a bad name.

[aruna]

On the other hand, I believe that writing fast also means writing good. And I don't mean writing polished prose, but writing more interesting ideas, turns and unexpected twists, as we can let the unconscious surface without the usual barriers made by conscious thoughts. I think even Ray Bradbury was saying in his "Zen in the Art of Writing" write and don't think.

For me, the quicker I write, the more accessible the Muse is, and all the usual writer's blocks (like self doubt or the inner editor's sabotages) have less of a chance to bother me. That's why I'm all for fast writing for the first draft or for the outline, or draft 0, or whatever name you want to call it, till it's reviewed and polished.

Absolutely. I don't like writing with pen because it's just too slow. During first draft, the words are poring out and I couldn't keep up using pen and paper - my writing would be illegible! So i do appreciate the PC, and when I hear of literary writers (especially Germans - they all love to say this) going on about hw usin a pen they write so slowly and how that makes them better writers I shake my head.
I welcome the day when somebody invents a gadget that will traspose thoughts directly on to paper - without the use of hands at all... because even the PC is too slow. Too many typos are the result.

[SeanDSchaffer]

....Snipped....
I know this....if someone told me I could only be allowed to write on a typewriter, I'd go find another job.


Ah, the days of the old typewriter, yes! I miss the old plunkety-plunk of the manual ones. Those were my favorites. H*ll, if I had one, I'd use it just for the nostalgia.

My very favorite typewriter was an old beat-up Underwood Portable in a plain black wooden case. That was a machine! Oh, I loved it. Too bad one of the characters came flying off one day as I was typing along. Had to toss the entire darned thing.

Seriously, I enjoyed writing on the typewriter, and I would love to get my hands on a vintage Royal or Underwood Manual, just for the nostalgia of it. I keep thinking that having one would enhance my creativity again, just like it did when I was a teenager and had plenty of access to them. Computers were rather spendy then, and most people--this was back in the mid-80's, BTW--still did most of their typing on the typewriters.

[Edited to Add: The best thing about a typewriter was that you didn't have to wait for the thing to boot up. You just put the paper into the carriage and started typing. That was the main beauty of it, and the fact that you could hear the typewriter going a mile away. It sounded like work was getting done, which is a sound I somewhat miss these days with the hum of the computer and the glare of the monitor. I know writing will transcend any writing device that comes along, but I still miss, to some extent, the old typewritten manuscripts of the past. That's a day I would like to revisit, if only because I was at the height of my creativity in those days.]

[SeanDSchaffer]

The computer mouse actually causes far more carpal tunnel than manual typewriters ever did. The mouse is the bad guy, not a keyboard.


This is quite correct. I was taught when first learning computers, that because computer word processors have a feature known as 'Word Wrap,' (where the need to use the 'Return' Key at the end of a line is taken away) people can type and type and type and type without ever stopping. This is a far greater strain on the wrists and on the fingers than an old manual typewriter ever could be.

Manual typewriters had a long bar on the left end of the carriage that you had to stop, reach up, pull over to the right, and let go of, before you could go to the next line. This Carriage Return Bar (I'm not sure if that's the real term for it) allowed for the muscles in the wrists and fingers to rest, even if only for a moment, before moving on to the next line.

Even electronic typewriters and older electric typewriters, used a 'Return' key, which is located in the same place as the 'Enter' key on the computer keyboard, which you had to press each time you reached the end of a line, before moving on. Though the wait might have been only a split second, it was still a break in the repetitive movements your fingers and wrists constantly endure when dealing with typing.

[Mistook]

I worked as a Page in my public library ten years ago, when they still had a typing room with electric typewriters available for public use. For nearly a year, there was a guy who came in every night to work on his screenplay.

He talked a big game about that screenplay, and I heard him clacking away for hours in there. It was my job to replenish his little slips of white-out, and to change the ribbon for him.

He came with penciled notes in a spiral notebook. He obviously left himself the option to erase and re-write lines of dialogue before ever commiting them to typeface, and I imagine he did some mental editing as he typed.

I imagine he re-edited, and re-typed many pages along his quest to perfect the blockbuster movie he saw in his head, but none of it did him any good. I never saw his face in the paper, or heard his name on the news. His movie never made it to the screen.

Would he have done any WORSE using MS Word?

Would he have done any better?

I don't beleive it's true that technology has unleashed a massive influx of bad writers who otherwise wouldn't have bothered. The thing about bad writers is, they'll use whatever means necessary to acheive their goals... and this may well include myself!

I know that if it were 1950, I'd still be slaving over the same stupid inspiration, armed with plenty of cheep paper and a typewriter that costs less than my modern computer did. I'd be corresponding with other writers through the post, and probably hashing out the same technical arguments with peers in my own town... or perhaps I'd have migrated to the nearest metropolis to argue the finer points of the craft with fellow writers.

[gp101]

They also had considerably fewer distractions in Shakespeare's time. He might have stare out his window at the countryside or gone for long walks through the forest when faced with writer's block. We can do those too, and we also have the internet, TV, telephones, DVDs, etc. For this reason I think they had more time to write. Other than the occasional mild outbreak of Black Death, what else could distract them?

What will people be using to write their manuscripts fifty years from now that will make them shake their heads at our ancient computers, and say, "I coulda never done it that way... those silly little freaks."

[aruna]

I know that if it were 1950, I'd still be slaving over the same stupid inspiration, armed with plenty of cheep paper and a typewriter that costs less than my modern computer did. I'd be corresponding with other writers through the post, and probably hashing out the same technical arguments with peers in my own town... or perhaps I'd have migrated to the nearest metropolis to argue the finer points of the craft with fellow writers.

Ah - but it takes much, much longer to finish a manuscript using a typewwriter, than using a PC. In the time I take to rewrite draft after draft after draft of a typewritten ms, I've written about 5 ful ones ona PC.
So a lot MORe gets written. True, a determined bad writer will use any means possible to write, and thgere have always been bad scipts . But there are also a lot of not-so-determined bad writers about, who will wruite simply bvecause it's so easy. I believe there are a lot MORE of these around now.

[scribbler1382]

Just saw a picture in the newspaper of John Irving in his writing cabin up by Georgian Bay, north of Toronto. Only thing on his desk was a stack of manuscript pages, a glass paperweight on top of them, and an electric typewriter beside it. Also, IIRC, John Grisham writers all his manuscripts by hand on yellow legal pads.

Just another couple of data points.

[Word Slinger]

I've been reading some old novels by Nevil Shute....he wrote a lot of them back in the 50's-60's, on one of them old typewriter thing-a-ma-hoobies. And you know what? When I think about it...I'm amazed at how they managed to do it without the benefit of a PC/Mac.

Editing my recently finished MS, doing global search/replaces, cutting sections and pasting, deleting words, adding words. You just can't do that on a typwriter without having to retype the entire the entire chapter after each edit!!!

I suspect the major hassle of editing back in those pre-Gates days meant that what you read today of their works, pretty much resembles their first draft, with perhaps one or two minor editor-requested tweaks.

I know this....if someone told me I could only be allowed to write on a typewriter, I'd go find another job.

My first book; the first draft was written in long hand on a pile of steno note pads. I keep it to this day and that was written almost 20 years ago and the second draft on an IBM Selectric Typewriter.. Enough about me.

Typewriters were the tool of the trade for many 20th Century Authors. Hemmingway kept an old Royal Typewriter on the top of a high boy dresser and did all his writing standing. If you look back into all the Icons of the writing craft you will find many many idiiosyncracies. It is just the recent or young writer's of today that are amazed by using methods other than a computer. Actually the computer can turn into a crutch just like the hand held calculator. With the advances in technology come the decreases in individual intellect. OOPS! I heard all the gasps.

No, actually when the calculator became such a common instrument for computing costs, doing intricate mathmatical problems, many of the users lost the ability to compute these problems in their head or on paper. We are doing the same thing with THE computer, with word searches, grammar check, etc., reducing the mental exercises that keep this knowledge fresh in our own intellect.

There is still nothing that can beat line by line, word by word re-reading, too many times too many "and's or they's" have been eliminated by using the quickie word searches. Same goes with the grammar check for punctuation, no matter what the computer may say, there are those places that NEED that coma.

[Mistook]

They also had considerably fewer distractions in Shakespeare's time. He might have stare out his window at the countryside or gone for long walks through the forest when faced with writer's block. We can do those too, and we also have the internet, TV, telephones, DVDs, etc. For this reason I think they had more time to write. Other than the occasional mild outbreak of Black Death, what else could distract them?

What will people be using to write their manuscripts fifty years from now that will make them shake their heads at our ancient computers, and say, "I coulda never done it that way... those silly little freaks."


The words will float in thin air, thanks to microchip implants attached to the optic nerves. As they think the words, they will appear. Writers will compose novels against a blank wall in the living room, while sitting on the couch, or on the ceiling, while lying flat in bed.

Ten story buildings, crammed with hard drives, will hold the slush data of billions of bad writers, to be weeded through by spiderbots, who reject several million manuscripts a day, based solely on the presence of a passive sentence within the first paragraph. Millions more will be rejected for exceeding the limit for the word "That".

[BlueTexas]

The words will float in thin air, thanks to microchip implants attached to the optic nerves. As they think the words, they will appear. Writers will compose novels against a blank wall in the living room, while sitting on the couch, or on the ceiling, while lying flat in bed.

Ten story buildings, crammed with hard drives, will hold the slush data of billions of bad writers, to be weeded through by spiderbots, who reject several million manuscripts a day, based solely on the presence of a passive sentence within the first paragraph. Millions more will be rejected for exceeding the limit for the word "That".

I could never do that. My thoughts do not come out the same way on paper as they start in my head...what a nightmare mess.

Spiderbots for editors...now I'm going to have nightmares for real!