The Weekend Writer: What We Talk About When We Talk About Shitty First Drafts

Over the years that I have been an active writer, sometimes interacting with

other writers and industry people, sometimes studying craft, I've seen a lot of what I guess could be called "bandwagoning." Somehow an idea gets floated out into the void, and suddenly huge numbers of people jump on the bandwagon and will...not...get...off. Something must happen between the point when the idea comes up and the point when everyone clutches it to their collective bosom, but I have no idea what it is.

A few examples: 

• YA fiction must include romance. Nothing else happens between the ages of twelve and twenty. I first heard this twenty plus years ago.
• The freaking hero's journey. Is it really the model for all writing or just the same model for the same cliched stories?
• The whole pantser vs. plotter thing. Again, cliche much? Meaningless cliche? Don't get me started.
• Give your main characters something they want, then keep it from then. Does it seem to anyone else that a lot of traditional writing advice involves teaching how to create formula work?

Which brings me to the shitty first draft.

The Point Is, Don't Expect Much of a First Draft

When Anne Lamott coined the phrase "shitty first draft" in Bird by Bird, she seems to have essentially meant that first drafts aren't good. "All good writers write them. This is how they end up with good second drafts and terrific third drafts." (I would argue that hoping for a terrific third draft is overly optimistic.) "Almost all good writing begins with terrible first efforts. You need to start somewhere. Start by getting something -- anything -- down on paper."

Now, it's been many years since I read Bird by Bird, but I think what Lamott was talking about here was eliminating the need to be perfect right away. The desire to create perfect prose can be paralyzing and stop work. Later in the section on shitty first drafts, she writes about her own process, involving writing a shitty first draft of an opening paragraph and going on to more shitty first draft work that she later, over time, cut and revised. 

While she describes her process, she doesn't describe the one and only process for achieving a shitty first draft. And even within the process she describes, she doesn't cover things like how writers might generate the thoughts and work necessary in order to have the material to create the shitty first draft. Her point, I think, is the end result. A shitty first draft.

What Has "Shitty First Drafts" Become?

What I see happening with the "shitty first drafts" line is a shift from "all first drafts are shitty, get over it" to "write it all out, everything, everywhere, all at once," which has become a cliche that is as paralyzing as believing you have to get it perfect on your first shot. It's also unhelpful, because it doesn't address how to write it all out all at once. 

Your most highly skilled plotters might be able to manage this, but my understanding is that most of them do quite a bit of plot planning before they begin to write. (I once read about a writer who spent three months plotting before he would start writing.) They are not getting just anything down on paper. For organic writers, who have trouble isolating plot from story and can't plan those events out first so they have to work with all story elements at once, getting just anything down is mystifying. (Organic writers. Nobody writes by the seat of their pants.)

A Shitty First Draft Is An End, Not A Process

I started thinking about this recently after reading No silos, no hidden truths, and no shitty first drafts: A Q&A with Nicole Graev Lipson by Asya Parton at The Brevity Blog. When asked about shitty first drafts and revision, Lipson said (among other things), "I've never been able to take that approach...I cannot go on to the next paragraph until the one I'm working on is doing the work it needs to do...It's like polishing a stone. When it's ready, I move on."

I've often thought of writing as like chipping away at a block of marble, trying to carve something out of it. Polishing is involved. Because I'm part of an engineering family, I also think of it in terms of a building. The beginning of a work is the foundation. If I discover a third of a way through the project that the foundation isn't right and won't bear the weight of the story, I have to go back and fix the characters or the voice or the plot. How can I possibly go on? Whatever needs to be fixed ends up generating the material for the rest of the story. What is there to write, if I haven't fixed the foundational problems? Even with this blog post, I kept going back and tinkering to change the foundational work as I was working. As Lipson said in her Brevity Blog interview, "...the writing shapes my thinking." In my case, at least, my new thinking then shapes my writing.

Of course, particularly with longer work I still end up with a shitty first draft. But that shitty first draft is a product, not a process.