Watch novel grow

[AstralisLux]

I'm curious if any writer has ever placed their writing on the web AS they write it. I realize the risks they have but I'm sure someone has done it for the benefit of art and education.

I'd prefer at least a one-book published author.

[Jamesaritchie]

I can't see much reason why a published novelist would ever do this?

I suppose it might be a good teaching tool for new writers who followed along, but probably not as much of one as many would think. It might have some benefit, though my guess is it would be a curiousity more than anythingm and I'm not at all sure what the published writer would get out of it except lost time and a probably lost novel.

Saving the versions of a novel and posting them in order after the novel has been published and had the sales rush taken off would do new writers just as much good, and without the need to post it as you write.

Art certainly doesn't seem a logical reason. Amateur writers do this fairly often, and I haven't seen where art fit into the process.

[veingloree]

I have posted chapters as I write to a private online group. But not to a public internet area.

[AstralisLux]

You don't think published writers do this because of loss of profit?

Did Warhol paint Campbell's soup cans and display them for the curiousity of others or for art?

If no one does this, that's fine. Authors have to pay the rent. And I guess they don't want to show their art until it's finished. I think it would be a good idea to show a work in progress, though.

[macalicious731]

I don't know of any cases where published authors would do this (unless in a writing group like vein mentioned) but I do know a couple of people who like to write fanfiction. They tend to put up chapters immediately as they write. :shrug

[LiamJackson]

Part of this stems from the fact that most publishers see no benefit in purchasing a work, printing and distributing the work, when it's already been available for free via the net.

[maestrowork]

I would see someone like Stephen King, who is mega-successful and doesn't need another book to buy another yacht, would do something like that as an experiment or education. And I'm sure if it's successful they'll package it and stick a great marketing ploy to it -- "Follow King and See How He Writes a Best Selling Novel."

(I think I just give King an idea... where's my consultation fees?)

[prosemonkey]

Actually, I heard from a reliable source that dave eggers is doing this... check it out. Seems kinda pointless to me, though. Like putting chrome rims on a horse cart. Writing is not a flash activity, nor one that could possibly be enjoyed in real-time.

[cluelessspicycinnamon]

I started a ya novel once on teenopendiary.com....it's actually still there. I did it that way so I could see if people would believe me and all the things I was writing about. I am a teenager, obviously, but the situations and things were made up. But so far, that novel is just sitting around not doing much. In general, though, I wouldn't recommend posting work online, unless at a private group or something like Critique Circle.

[Jamesaritchie]

But what would be the point of doing this? If the novel is art it will still be art when it's published. If the aim is to help new writers, they'll be helped just as much and probably more if this process is done after the novel is published and they can quickly compare every stage of the novel.

I don't know what all Andy Warhol did, but mostly I think he scammed a lot of people into thinking soup cans were art. And he made money off everything he did. He never did a thing without money in mind.

And I don't think art is something you plan. And if you have to call something art, it usually isn't.

I suspect this process owuld be much like chess as a spectator sport.

But primarily, I just see no point whatever in posting a novel as you write it.

[AstralisLux]

There would be many reasons to do this. For writers, understanding the craft: education. For awareness. Understanding the artist (that's what authors are) on a deeper level. Reading the first drafts of famous works can give massive insight in the intention of the artist. It's also the reason that we X-Ray paintings to see how the master made his strokes, what was overpainted, styles, colors, etc... There's so much that can be gained, IMO.

This actually would work great in real-time because people like Stephen King and Anne Rice write novels at a quick pace (one-year?). If marketed correctly, the work would be analyzed as it's created, a message board for critics to discuss. Edits would be a great section to explore.

I think it could be marketed and believe contrary to some here who don't think it adds any value for the readers, critics, or the artist. But, if it hasn't been done before, others believe it doesn't add any value or they haven't thought of it yet.

[prosemonkey]

I agree with you to a degree, AstralisLux, so maybe this is just a matter of personal taste. Somehow-- and I hate to admit this-- the idea offends my sensibilities. But you are right, in that it would be a valuable learning expereince. when they were making Kid A, a member of a band called Radiohead put a journal out that marked his thoughts on their creative process- he talked in depth about the songs, how they were going, which ones were frustrating, how the band was getting along, etc. I found it very helpful to hear all this, hear someone speak so openly about his creative process-- but somehow, I am still glad the unfinished songs were not posted for me to hear. That would have been like having your mom tell you what you were going to get for christmas on december 2nd. There's something to be said for the magic of it all...

[Jamesaritchie]

But all the reasons you give could be accomplished just as easily after the novel has been published. It could even be done easier and better after the novel has been published.

One novel a year is average, not terribly prolific. But even at that rate, I still think it would be much like watching grass grow, if done in real time. Both Rice and King actually write far faster than the release schedule of their novels, and you probably wouldn't like seeing their first drafts nearly as much as you think, and you'd probably learn almost nothing from them except how well these two writers do the job first time through.

As for novelists being artists, okay, if you say so. It's a tag I'd rather not have placed on me until long after I'm dead and can't object, but okay.

But have you ever watched artists on PBS? There's a reason they almost always do paintings that can be done in half an hour. Do a painting that takes three weeks and viewers eyes glaze over and they flip the channel in search of something more exciting. . .like a city council meeting.

Better, I think, to do this after the novel has been published when all the drafts and changes could be posted in quick order. It would give just as much insight, would teach just as much craft, and do without boring most people to death. I don't think this has been done by a professional writer, but it's been done by bazillions of amateur writers.

I don't think X-raying the paintings of old masters is a fair comparison. They painted over other paintings, and aren't around to talk to. Writers don't type over old manuscripts very often. If you want to see the first drafts of a writer's novels, many are available hither and yon.

Lawrence Block even sells manuscripts on EBay. So do some other writers.

I've seen the first drafts of a number of pro writers over the years, and as often as not, the only real difference between first draft and published novel is some tightening and just a bit of polish. On occasion, there's no difference at all, or the difference is whatever the editor does to it after the writer hands it in.

In fact, I think I've seen more new writers discouraged by looking at first drafts than I've seen new writers encouraged. The main conclusion, the discouraging conclusion, many draw from looking at a first draft is often how well the pro writer writes, and how well the novel turns out first time through.

I'm sure there are some pro writers who turn out bad first drafts, but I haven't personally seen one. Generally speaking, if you write well, you write well. I could name at least two highly acclaimed pro writers who write only one draft. One of them, acclaimed for how literary his writing is, doesn't change a line of his first drafts. What you see in first draft is what the reader gets in published novel form.

For this to have any benefit, I think you'd have to find a writer whose first draft is radically different from his final draft. Even then the insight would apply to only that one writer. Writing is always writer specific. What you learn by watching one seldom applies to another. And likely doesn't apply to the new writers reading it at all.

Even then I think it's unnecessary. There's nothing you could see with a novel written in real time that you can't see after the fact, if the writer saves the various draft stages, and a great many do.

I also think you might be getting into quantum mechanics here. Quantum theory tells us the very act of looking at something changes it, so we can never see anything as it really is. By watching the writer write the novel in real time, you're changing the process, changing the way the writer does his job. You will also probably change his thinking process, everything. He knows he's being watched, and this can't help but make changes.

It might be an interesting experiment, but I doubt it would ever be a realistic one.

Many writers, probably most, do save all the drafts of their novels, and I think this gives a much more realistic picture of the writer at work than watching him write in real time would. Many writers also keep daily blogs of novels in progress.

Analyzed as it's created, message boards to discuss it? Sounds like prime reasons not to do it, to me. That's the last thing I can imagine a writer wanting, and the last thing any novel needs. This, in fact, is precisely why I think a writer would be nuts to go through this.

[SRHowen]

I had a novel published by the on-line zine I work for in serial form as I wrote it. It played out over 2 years and I wrote it one chapter a month over that time period. (just before 9/11 it had close to 50,000 followers every month)

I am now re-keying the entire thing for print publication. But as I read over it--it is not so different than the one that went on-line. The main difference is this version will be twice as long.

BTW: JamesR--what do you consider first draft? What your agent sees? (mine has me put draft one in the slug line--then draft two and so on, if we make any changes) Or do you consider draft one to be the first one the writer types the end on.

Shawn

[cluelessspicycinnamon]

Megan McCafferty had a serial on Twist magazine's website for about two years, which was the premise for her novel, Sloppy Firsts, and its sequel, Second Helpings. For those interested, a third book will be published next year.

[AstralisLux]

Drafts are good to read - that would satisfy my desire to see the creative process in action all the way through the finished product.

Concerning the painters on PBS, what you see painted on the show may very well be the 10th time the painter painted the painting. I have a colleague who worked at the PBS affiliate where Bob Ross (happy little trees) recorded his shows. I told her how I'd love to have a Bob Ross original because I grew up watching him. She said they're a dime a dozen (before he died, at least) because he painted the same picture many times (I'm thinking she said 10 times) before he actually recorded himself painting the final painting - that's how he could paint it so fast. Other artists on PBS probably follow this routine.

So, if you want greater insight to Bob Ross' paintings, watching his show will only give a glimpse. I'd also want to see his drafts.

Serials wouldn't be the same idea because they are timed releases of the final work - not drafts.

I think it would be fascinating to read a journal of an author's thoughts as he writes and also to see the drafts. I wouldn't think it's boring.

[vstrauss]

>>If marketed correctly, the work would be analyzed as it's created, a message board for critics to discuss. Edits would be a great section to explore.<<

For me, this would be one of the more significant reasons not to do this. I love it when readers write to me about my books, even if it's because they hated something and felt they had to tell me why. I have no desire to have random people making those kinds of comments while I'm actually writing. (Nor, possibly, to get peeved at me because I didn't incorporate their criticism or insight into the final version.)

I also don't want anyone (other than my trusted second readers, only one of whom sees the ms. before it's finished) reading the various drafts. Until I feel I've finalized a book, I don't want to give it to readers.

Also, if people were given the chance to read a novel as it was being created, what reason would they have to buy the book once it came out? The loss of income that might result is far less important than the other possible consequence of diminished sales: getting the boot from your publisher.

- Victoria

[Jamesaritchie]

I use the standard definition of first draft, meaning the first copy of the manuscript, the first time you write the words down. Some writers edit and rewrite as they go, so really don't emerge with a first draft, but most I've known do.

And some writers, such as Robert B. Parker, apparently sell their first drafts. It's said he writes five pages per day, and the first time he writes those pages they are in the same form they'll be in the published novel. I've done this with one novel and a few short stories, but I don't recommend it.

My agent doesn't see my first draft. No one alive sees anythng except my final, polished draft. That's the draft I send to my agent, and the draft she sends to the editor.

There have been rare times when my agent will make a suggestion or two, but not very often. I can't remember the last time I made a change because my agent thought I should, though I take her suggestions seriously. BUt she just doesn't make many suggestions. None, most of the time. In fact, I can't remember the last time my agent suggested a change.

Editors will sometimes want something changed, and these suggestions I do listen to very closely. More often than not, however, editorial changes are for length.

[AstralisLux]

There have been rare times when my agent will make a suggestion or two, but not very often. I can't remember the last time I made a change because my agent thought I should, though I take her suggestions seriously.

You take her advice seriously but never make the changes? :lol

[DanALewis]

"I can't remember the last time I made a change because my agent thought I should"

[Jamesaritchie]

I do take my agent's suggestions seriously, meaning when she makes one I look closely at the novel and think long and hard about whether or not she's right.

And as I said, she doesn't make suggestions very often. Almost never. Even when I don't make the changes, and I never have, I still keep them in mind, and if the editor suggests the same change I think doubly hard about making it, and usually do.

But as much as I respect my agent, she's very, very good at selling novels and getting the best advances and contracts for them, she isn't a writer and she isn't an editor. This doesn't mean she can't have good suggestions, but it does mean the final decision is always mine.

I've been very lucky where editors are concerned. I've never had an editor ask for any rewriting changes in a novel.

I did have an editor ask me to change the ending of a short story. I took one look at her suggested ending and made the change immediately. Hers was good, mine was bad.

And I once write a 30,000 word novella, but the editor had decided to stop publishing novellas and asked me if it could be cut down to short story length. All the way down to 2,500 words, if I remember correctly.

I didn't see a way to cut it that far, but I did write a 2,500 word short story that had the same basic plot and protagonist, and she bought it.

But I don't submit stories I don't think are as good as I can make them. I threw away one complete novel because I knew it wasn't up to standards. That hurt, but it ws the right thing to do.

[SFEley]

Maestrowork wrote:
I would see someone like Stephen King, who is mega-successful and doesn't need another book to buy another yacht, would do something like that as an experiment or education. And I'm sure if it's successful they'll package it and stick a great marketing ploy to it -- "Follow King and See How He Writes a Best Selling Novel."
Stephen King did do it. A few years ago he wrote a novel serially, The Plant, on the Web. It wasn't an experiment for teaching, though; it was an experiment in e-publishing. He posted chapters and asked readers to donate money if they liked it. By his reckoning, the experiment failed, and he never finished the book.

BTW, I'm lost on the original point. What was it we were supposed to have learned from King doing this?


Have Fun,
- Steve Eley

[AstralisLux]

Serials are not drafts. King could not go back and delete the first two installments if he found they didn't work later on. I do not see serials as the same as 'looking over the shoulder' of the author.

I'll try to find some drafts of some works that I like.

Also, reading the letters between Max Perkins and Scott Fitzgerald has given me insight into his writing. For some people here this obviously has no value for them. For me, it does and to the other people who bought his letters.

[Jamesaritchie]

King didn't do it, either. He sold The Plant as an e-book, but he didn't write it online, and didn;t let anyone see the first drafts. He finsihed and polished each part of the serial, and only then did he put it online for sale. Not the same thing at all we're talking about here.

As for insight into writers, I've spent my life studying every facet of writing and literature. Whether collections of letters, autobiographies, talking to them in person, being friends with them, writing for them, reading their first drafts, buying their fiction, you name it.

But this isn't how it's done, and would be no more help, and probably less, than many other ways of gaining insight.

And in the end, the only real insight there is lies in reading the finished book of the writer. That's what it's supposed to be about.

I also doubt any of this would help beginning writers. Everyone is always looking for a trick, for a secret, for insight. There is no insight on talent. The only insight there is is this: if you want to be a writer, you write. If you have talent and dedication, you'll succeed. If you lack talent and dedication, you'll fail.

As James Baldwin said, "If you are going to be a writer, nothing I can say will hurt you. If you aren't going to be a writer, nothing I can say will help you."

[James D Macdonald]

I believe that Orson Scott Card used to post his draft chapters as they were being written over on his Hatrack River site.

[Flawed Creation]

while what you propose sounds very interesting, Astralis, there's another drawback bvesides the lack of money.

it would ruin people's ability to enjoy the finished product.

after reading the evolving novel, I wouldn't touch the actual release.

i'd already know what hjappened, there'd be no suspense, and everything would remind me of the poor first draft. i would much rather read the finished product.

in general i find that a bad version of anything ruins a good one.

most of my friends agree that most movie adaptations of books are infewrior to the books. yet, if they see the movie first, my they just can't suffer through the book.