6 hours from Concept to Published

Norman D Gutter said:

Is this the future of e-self-publishing? Or even close?

Click to expand...

Dear lord, I hope not. There wasn't a word in there about taking time to edit, or have someone else edit the story.

Maybe DWS thinks he can get away with posting a first draft for public consumption, but the vast majority of writers can't.

God, I hope not. This to me is the equivalent of self-publishing your NaNoWriMo on December 1. Dean Wesley Smith's NaNo might be incrementally better than everyone else's, but in the end it is what it is: an unedited manuscript masquerading as a finished product.

Norman D Gutter said:

Dean Wesley Smith has a blog post today about a 3,000 word short story he just published, currently free on his web site, also available through the usual e-book distribution channels. I assume it being available for free is a temporary promotional event.

In the blog post he talks about how this short story came into being. From the concept to the writing to the e-book formatting to the cover creation was approximately 6 active hours. If I'm reading the blog post correctly, those 6 active hours all occurred in less than 24 hours.

Is this the future of e-self-publishing? Or even close? I haven't read the story yet beyond the first few paragraphs, and I've never read anything by DWS except his blog for the last month or so.

NGD

Click to expand...

It takes more than six hours to digest a meal. Far be it from me to say that nothing has ever leapt from the ether to the pen in perfection, or even best effort, but if I can't have a crap before the story is for sale (or for giveaway) I'm thinking someone hasn't cooked it long enough or chewed it thoroughly.

*burps*

Wouldn't even waste my time to pull the page up. I don't care what he's done in the past or if he's got a shelf full of awards, that's got to be a crappy story.

Maybe it should be called Ego-publishing.

Guys, there's nothing unusual about a pro writer being able to write publishable first-draft.

And a short story? There's time there to do two or three editing passes.

I have no doubts that a professional or experienced writer can write a decent story in six hours, but to present this model as the "future of publishing" is like telling people that flea markets are the "future of small business".

IMO, of course.

Writers not dedicating enough time to craft and story is one of the key reasons why they don't sell. So, I fail to see how encouraging such behavior can make things better or make them write something people will want to read, much less buy.

I would imagine there are quite a few who can think up, write, and proofread something worth reading (and design a cover and format it for Smashwords, and plug it into a blog and... well, whatever) in a few hours, but if so, it's probably best they not go trumpeting about it.

If you're giving it away, then it might be a curiosity draw, but I don't see "look how fast I can do this" as a great selling point.

These Mean Streets said:

I have no doubts that a professional or experienced writer can write a decent story in six hours, but to present this model as the "future of publishing" is like telling people that flea markets are the "future of small business".

Click to expand...

Smith didn't say that nor did he imply it. Only that he did it, had fun doing it and thought he might do it again.

I read the story. It is okay.

Al Stevens said:

Smith didn't say that nor did he imply it. Only that he did it, had fun doing it and thought he might do it again.

I read the story. It is okay.

Click to expand...

I know. I was merely offering my input to the OP's original post:

Is this the future of e-self-publishing? Or even close?

Click to expand...

What does it matter? The only thing that matters is creating a good story – one readers want to read and enjoy. Who cares if it takes a minute or a year?

To be honest, I don't see what relevance it has as long as a good product is being created.

When it comes to writing, the reader is the final arbiter of what is good and what isn't. Not the clock.

If it takes someone a day and someone else five years – what's the difference? It isn't a competition. One might make more than the other due to being more prolific, but that's the way it's always been.

I didn't see it as bragging. He has sufficient achievements already that he wouldn't need to boast. I read it as his own reaction to learning that he could actually do that. Something he wanted to share with his constituency.

Writing something fast is no big deal. Anyone who has worked deadlines in mainstream journalism knows that.

A bygone motto of the computer programmer: "Good, fast, cheap. Choose two."

DWS has stated on his blog that he doesn't feel that typos are important, and that volume is what is essential.

So I am not surprised, no.

Important to note that he writes much faster than some of us, too. (Me, at least.) Give him an hour, he'll knock out at least 1,000 words. Sadly, it can take me three to four hours to produce my 1,000 words -- and then I rewrite and rewrite.

James D. Macdonald said:

Guys, there's nothing unusual about a pro writer being able to write publishable first-draft.

And a short story? There's time there to do two or three editing passes.

Click to expand...

Norman D Gutter said:

Then you're saying this is the future of eSP.

Click to expand...

He's saying nothing of the sort.

He's saying writing and editing a 3k story in six hours is nothing special. And it isn't.

Reminds me of the 8in8 project - Neil Gaiman, Amanda Palmer and Ben Folds got together one night and tried to write, rehearse, record and release 8 songs in 8 hours. They managed 6 and they aren't bad at all IMO (you can judge for yourself if you search for 8in8). Now, I think this only works and gets a saleable product (it was sold for charity on a 'donate what you like' basis) because of the talent of the individuals involved and the fact that at least two of them spend thier lives writing and recording and performing music and the the other spends it writing...

In other words, this model is unlikely to work for someone who has never had much experience of writing because you will get a shoddy, unedited product. It may look good on first glance (because you are seeing the idealised version) but you need at least a few days gap between each draft to properly spot errors properly.

I beleive it is possible (hell, when organising LRP events I was routinely writing the equivilent of 20 - 30 flash fiction pieces over the course of a few days by way of downtime returns. Some of them were even good as fiction and I was even proud of them) but I am not sure it is desireable to put out there as an ideal to work towards because it panders to a quick sale mentality - push out a shoddy, half completed job and get a sale. Never mind that a shoddy half completed job by some authors may be great while the majority of writers out there can't aim that high. The aim should be for quality in order to maximise sales not speed. May as well use a random plot generator and churn out thousands of indentikit stories...

Norman D Gutter said:

Then you're saying this is the future of eSP.

Click to expand...

No. That's not what I'm saying at all. Only that a stunt like that is well within the skill set of any professional writer.

Harlan Ellison once wrote a short story while sitting in a store window. That is the future of eSP.

No, wrong, sorry. That was the future of regular publishing. Didn't you see all those writers in store windows in the seventies and eighties?

ChaosTitan said:

Dear lord, I hope not. There wasn't a word in there about taking time to edit, or have someone else edit the story.

Maybe DWS thinks he can get away with posting a first draft for public consumption, but the vast majority of writers can't.

Click to expand...

DWS once posted on his revision policy and technique. I can't find it right now, but iirc he doesn't do many passes. Either he revises as he goes or he preplans it or something. I really wish I can find that post because he talks about how different people edit.

Anyway, he's upfront about the fact that how he writes doesn't work for everyone, but it works for him, and that is key. Find what works for you.

So, no it's not first draft. He just has a different writing/editing technique than many others do.

ETA: I found the link, I think: http://www.deanwesleysmith.com/?p=4477 and to quote from it:

Cyclers.

Click to expand...

This is often a one draft writer, but the draft is cycled through a number of times. I fit right here. I start and go for a ways until I bog down, then cycle back and run at the place I stopped, often tweaking and fixing as I go until I get up to speed and keep typing new until I bog down again. When I get to the end I have a first reader read it, fix the mistakes they catch, and mail. This method is a little easier for newer writers because they naturally stay in creative voice more often. The difficulty they have with this method is not touching it after they are done. Trust in your own craft and voice comes from a lot of years of writing and success.

Click to expand...

Jodi

mscelina said:

God, I hope not. This to me is the equivalent of self-publishing your NaNoWriMo on December 1. Dean Wesley Smith's NaNo might be incrementally better than everyone else's, but in the end it is what it is: an unedited manuscript masquerading as a finished product.

Click to expand...

I wasn't sure entirely what you meant by the last part. Do you mean producing raw content and publishing it? Or do you mean someone else has to edit it or it is rough draft quality?

I have read how-to books or material put out by commercially published writers like Erin Brockovich. I think Sheila Viehl is another. Anyway, they tend to not use many drafts/passes, and many state they don't have the time to. Many continuously revise as they go. So, when a writer takes only one draft, that doesn't mean that is rough draft quality necessarily. It might mean they have a different technique.

Jodi

DWS is a long-time pro. I fully expected that the story would be good or better, and it was entertaining. I'd never read a Poker Boy story before. The idea of reading about a poker player seemed uninteresting to me. I didn't know he was a superhero and the story could be peopled with Gods and cursing, flashing cherubs.

It does seem a shame to me that it has so many little niggling errors--missed commas, missed hyphens, repeated words in close proximity, missing words, the occasional odd phrase--when it surely would be so easy for him to not leave those in with just a little time. But he's the guy raking it in with his self-published stories, so I guess I can just shut up now.

By the way:

Poker Boy wants nothing more then to be left alone in a good game of poker

Had that been the first line of a blurb on Amazon by some random SPer, like it was the first line of his post, I wouldn't have even read the sample. I know DWS knows the difference between then and than, but it's such a common thing that writers who can't really write end up doing. I would have rolled my eyes and clicked away. What does that say about me?

I guess I just shouldn't give a crap.

Having said that, DWS' quickly written (and to be honest, still in need of a solid proofread) story is better than about 99% of self-published stuff out there, at least the ones I've sampled. The problem is that so many people who can't write very well rush things out, too.

Shelley

I've written, edited, and put into submission 3k word short stories in an evening's time, maybe even less than 6 hours. Not sure why that seems like such an usually short timeframe.

First, Dean isn't bragging or slumming it. He's writing at his normal speed, doing his normal editing pass for inconsistencies and typos, and having his normal first reader (Kris Rusch) look over it (not counted in his time) and point out any major problems before publishing it.

This is all part of the challenge he set for himself at the beginning of the year. 100 short stories in a year written directly for e-book publication. There are 30ish such stories already, and each is free until the next is finished and replaces it and each is done on the clock to show how much time was spent.

You really should spend more time reading his site, particularly the Myths part. There is sure to be something there you won't agree with, but overall it's eye-opening and has a ring of truth (accepting there is always some individual bias.) He talks about numerous writers that work at similar speeds, with similar draft cycles, and minimal editing compared to how novices have rewriting drilled into them until the point they think anything else is wrong and can only result in bad writing. But it's not wrong for many pros--perhaps "most" if you ask Dean--but let's just stick to many.

And he talks about teaching novices at workshops and finding that 95%+ of them produced better stories in their first drafts written at the workshop than in the "polished" stories they brought with them--they were actively diminishing their stories in the rewriting process because they didn't know what they were doing beyond blindly following advice that you must rewrite.

There is no shortage of pros that do substantial rewriting too but they're the ones we hear about all the time. Hearing the other side is pretty fascinating.

During the Golden Age of Pulps writers performed this trick all the time. Some of them were good, some of them were bad, but all of them were published.