How the **** did they cope?

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

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~

Garpy said:

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!!!

Click to expand...

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.

Garpy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Garpy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Garpy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Garpy said:

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.

Click to expand...

Inevitably? I think you're overstating your case.

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.

Coping

Garpy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Editors

Barb said:

because publishers expect you do to the big work yourself.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

KTC said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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."

Garpy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

The reason why I like computers is that I write slow and sloppy. 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.

victoriastrauss said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

victoriastrauss said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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!

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

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.

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!

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.

Zane Curtis said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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!