Well, I don't understand that the overwhelming can't do anything. Most don't try, and the way I write is very, very common. The millions that took years to write? That's just not true. First, there are not millions of books that took years to write, and even most that did take years were usually written pretty darned fast, but with long breaks between writing sessions. A book a year is pretty darned slow.
You keep saying you don't know any writers who can do this, that, or the other, which means to me that you need to study the writing methods and habits of far more selling writers. Nothing I've said is new, unusual, or the least bit uncommon.
Start with Shakespeare, who write many of his longest plays in two weeks with a quill, and follow the classic writers all the way through the 1ays9th century. Most wrote extremely fast, and extremely long.
Now, I personally know only one writer who wrote a 90,000 word, publishable novel in under two weeks, (Though I, the Jury, was also written in nine days, but while I talked to Mickey Spillane a couple of times, I didn't really know him) I also know nine days is hardly a record.
The majority of writers can do exactly what I do, many better, as fast as I do it, and faster, and a great many do. These notions are not mine. I took them from many, many writers and simply do as they do.
But the writers do have to believe E. L. Doctorow when he says, "Planning to write is not writing. Outlining, researching, talking to people about what you're doing, none of that is writing. Writing is writing."
And they have to believe that first drafts never, ever have to be crap, no matter who says otherwise, and going in believing you will have a lousy first draft and will have to do revisions is why you'll have a lousy first draft and will need revisions.
All I do is follow Heinlein's Rule For Writing. Just as many, many writers did long before he coined the rules, and as many writers still do.
It's not magic, it's just sitting down and writng. I think while writing, not before. I plan while writing, not before.
As for distance, who first thought of this, anyway? Where did it originate? Doesn't anyone ever challenge the need for distance? Just because some writers sit their work aside for six week does not mean it's automatically helpful. Especially if all the second draft needs is minor editing and a little bit of polish. It strikes me as one of those things, like first drafts are going to be crap, that's believed only because so many say it's true.
I know it didn't originate with all the writers of the past and present who never had time to sit a novel aside for six weeks. Or six days. When an editor says "I need it in four week," you give it to him in four weeks, and you're probably giving him a better novel than if he said "I need it in two years."
Really, all I do is follow Heinlein's Rules to the letter. No magic, nothing unusual, and I suspect nothing any other writer can't do, if they want to try.
