Blogflog - Of Typewriters, Computers, & Bitching

[blogfloggery.livejournal.com]

Link: Of Typewriters, Computers, & Bitching
Disclaimer: This blog entry is verbatim, as originally posted on LKH's blog. Copyright belongs to Ma Petite Enterprises.

First, my website at http://www.laurellkhamilton.org is finally updated and a bit more user friendly for us and all of you. The Anita Blake books, and the Merry Gentry books are now in order of publication, for all who have asked. Second, I’ve answered some of the questions that were prompted by my latest blog.

A lot of people have been bitching that I do page count, rather than word count on my daily writing quota. First, why should you even care one way or the other? Second, I think everyone forgets that I’m 51, which means when I wrote my first short stories at age 17 it was on a manual typewriter. There was no word-processor to show me my word count at the bottom of my page. If I wanted a word count I had to do it the old fashioned way by counting average lines per page and then estimating words/characters per line, and then adding your pages in, and by the end of a writing session I wasn’t up to the math. I did it before I sent a story out to a magazine and put the word count at the top of the story as was professional format at the time, but my daily writing quota was pages, not words, because the math seemed laborious after my brain was fried from actually writing, or I’d had a really good writing session and my brian was euphoric with endorphins and I was too happy to do math. Math at the end of a day of wonderful creativity seemed like punishment to me, and still does. (Sorry all you math lovers, but it’s not my cup of happiness. )

But that’s why I do page count, instead of word count for my daily writing quota. Most writers form habits early on and if it works most writers, and artists, are loath to change it. I think we’re all a little superstitious as if changing one small thing will somehow make the magic go away. I know it sounds silly, but if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, and setting myself 4 pages a day works better for me than saying I owe myself four thousand words before I can take a break, or quit for the day.

And onto my typing speed – I posted my typing speed in a bid to help some of the beginning writers feel better about not hitting my page count on my best days when I can do 20-40 pages in 6-8 hours. That’s counting only the pages I kept, not the ones that didn’t work. The pages that are completely unsatisfactory as I type are usually just toggled lower down on the page so that all my rough drafts have this enormous garbage section at the end of manuscript file of writing ideas, plot twists, or character breakthroughs that just didn’t work. I don’t delete it, because sometimes I find the scene really did work and I need it. If I deleted the “garbage” at the end of the day I’d have to rewrite the scene. (This was learned the hard way early on when I switched from typewriter to computer. It’s too damn easy to delete on a computer screen, at least with typed pages the pages are still in your office to dig through.) I wouldn’t type 200 words a minute on a standard typing test, because that’s not me writing my own fresh words. I have no idea how fast I type when copying, or taking dictation, because why would I bother copying someone else’s words, or take dictation from anyone, but my own imagination? But using my own writing as the speed test on the online tests it did come out to 200 wpm, and that is subtracting for mistakes. I spent years with computer buffers unable to keep up with my typing speed. The blinking cursor would sit at the end of the line beeping and complaining at me, and I would have to wait until the text on screen spilled out what I’d just typed, and then I could continue on, until I out typed the buffer again, and again, and . . . I love how fast computers are now, and that they don’t complain with noise that I’m typing faster than they prefer. (The picture attached to this blog is me today with my very first typewriter. We found it as we sorted through things recently. I’d totally forgotten where it was. Thanks to my Aunt Juanita, who loaned me the machine when I was in high school. Without her kindness I couldn’t have sent stories in for publication. I owe her a typewriter, but I’m keeping this one out of sentiment. )

And, yes, I actually have had writers with long standing and lovely careers of their own ask me how I produce so much in one writing session. (Writers are like all career people, we talk to each other. We share tricks of the trade, and talk shop, even those of us who are all bestsellers.) Most writers find that 2-4 hours is the maximum usable time for them to be writing, or trying to write. If they stay longer, it gains them nothing and makes it even harder for them to write the next day. On some glorious muse-driven days I can get 10-20 pages done in 2 hours, but usually it takes me 4-6 hours to do 4-8 pages. I’ve timed it and the first two hours of my writing is usually not very productive for pages to be kept at the end of the day, which are the only pages that go into my daily page count. I actually get the lion’s share of my pages done in the last 2-3 hours of the 5-8 hour session. I’ve tried to skip that first unfruitful 2 hours, by shortening my writing sessions to only 4 hours, but my process needs that 2 hour window of noodling at the keyboard, staring off into space, and basically banging my head against the computer, before something breaks free and the words flow. I hate that my writing process works this way, because it means that if I can’t get a huge block of uninterrupted time to write that my productivity suffers, a lot.

Now, once I hit the groove of a book then things change. Sitting down at the computer means words come immediately. The words flow and it’s all I can do to type fast enough to keep up with my thoughts, but that doesn’t happen until between 150-250 pages into a book. For the those first pages its more brute force than muse-driven, but I’ve learned without that force at the beginning of a novel I’m never going to get to the happy, dancing muses at the end.

Comments

[lliira (from livejournal.com)]

She's actually gotten backlash bad enough that she noticed and wrote a long post whining about how we're all "bitching."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Today is a good day.

[rodentfanatic.livejournal.com]

I am now very convinced she reads Lashouts.

THIS PLEASES ME

[guardians-song.livejournal.com]

Dear LKH:

BEHINDTHENAME.COM
BEHINDTHENAME.COM
BEHINDTHENAME.COM

IT WILL BE VERY HELPFUL
YOU WILL HAVE NAMES FOR ALL YOUR CHARACTERS THROUGH 2050
AND IT'S FREE
CHECK IT OUT

---

More seriously, this is glorious. She actually responds to posts?! Quick, someone suggest their favorite were-animal that hasn't shown up yet! I vote for the werebooby!

[dwg.livejournal.com]

I'm still hanging out for a beautiful albino werecrow that needs Anita to be Poe to their murder.

[guardians-song.livejournal.com]

No, no, clearly HE would be the Poe. She would be the Lenore, and then there would be a lot of wankity-wank about how Lenore was a real werecrow who of course wasn't as awesome as Anita, and...

...But I suspect this book will more focused on Anita's were-hyena status, by which I mean she's FINALLY going to sprout a metaphysical dick. Okay, she IS a metaphysical dick, but you know what I mean.

If she gets Nathaniel (metaphysically!) preggers, I'm going to laugh my ass off.

[dagonista.livejournal.com]

Okay, I actually want a real, non-LKH wankfest story about were-ravens with Poes and Lenores. NOW.

[dwg.livejournal.com]

I would laugh so hard at all these things, especially if she comes around to a weird bad porn fanfic place all on her lonesome -- countdown to self-lubing ass-wombs?

[morbane.livejournal.com]

YES.

[wanderingworlds.livejournal.com]

Werehedgehog! Weremole! I NEED THESE IN MY LIFE

[apep727.livejournal.com]

Werehedgehogs have already been done, and in porn-form. LKH could not possibly approach the glorious hilarity of that book.

[jessica collett (from livejournal.com)]

I'm copyrighting werebudgies. Got to defend them from those who would use them poorly.

[suzycat.livejournal.com]

I want a tribe of were Flemish Giants.

[suzycat.livejournal.com]

YASS.

[dwg.livejournal.com]

There were literally only two comments on the last blog on her site that pointed out the typing speed being implausible. Apparently this now constitutes "a lot." (Also one of them has a reply of "keep your ugliness to yourself" from a fan.) I still feel like every time she brings up her 200wpm, the only reasonable response is [citation needed].

I have no idea how fast I type when copying, or taking dictation, because why would I bother copying someone else’s words, or take dictation from anyone, but my own imagination?

HOW LUXURIANT.

I don't think it's unusual for older computers to have struggled to keep up with fast typists? My mother had that problem with the Win95 computer and she works at about 80wpm.

[lliira (from livejournal.com)]

I remember having that problem back in the day too, and I only get in the 80 wpm range when "copying." (LKH is such a snot.) I am definitely not that fast when writing my own stuff. It was common, not the special snowflake thing LKH pretends it is.

[dwg.livejournal.com]

Neither's learning to type on a typewriter; I didn't learn until late in high school (97/98?) and on an electric typewriter. I still have a manual typewriter but I can't use it very often because the force needed to pound the keys hurts my hands. It wasn't until we got the internet that I learned how to properly touch type with any speed thanks to instant messaging.

Now I'm going to go shake my cane at youths on my lawn and reminisce about when dinosaurs roamed the earth.

[nialla]

I had a job back in the early 90s that partly involved using a system that used 12" floppy discs (seriously). It was for orders and invoices at a food manufacturer, and I had to learn the concepts because they were going to switch to something new, but I had to understand the old first. I didn't do it often, but even in my first session, I would get enough entries in that I would fill the buffer, then take a break while it caught up.

The online typing tests I've used require you to type the text they provide, not your own, so I'm definitely boggling over that point. [citation needed] indeed. I type in the 80+ range and I'm only a few years younger than LKH, and the highest I've personally seen from anyone is 120 wpm.

It might be theoretically possible to hit 200 wpm if she's counting "Typing out word vomit that makes no sense." ;)

[dwg.livejournal.com]

I REMEMBER THOSE COMPUTERS! With the green-only display and dot-matrix printer too. (I still have my Win95 computer, it still works, I still have a shelf full of 3.5" floppies full of archives and I had a lot of fun transferring all of that to a single USB.)

Yeah, I've never seen a typing test where you can provide your own text so I have no idea how LKH is measuring her speed. Every single test -- online and off -- has provided their own text not just for how fast you are but also how accurate. I'm at 60wpm and could probably push myself to 70 or 80 if I've had enough coffee, but my accuracy goes straight to hell. I'd rather be slower and coherent.

Though really, you'd think that typing at that speed for any sustained amount of time would aggravate her arm? Not sure if it's RSI or an actual injury, but if she needs to have her arm iced during a signing, maintaining that kind of typing speed has got to hurt.

[nialla]

When I was in high school, our screens were green, orange (often referred to as amber), and white (more of a gray really) on black. Still had those when I started working at a non-profit. It was actually easier on the eyes if you were just typing, as long as the brightness wasn't on high.

I have a vague memory of LKH using a Dvorak keyboard. Once you adjust to it, it's supposed to increase your speed and reduce RSIs. Wikipedia lists record speed on that is 212 wpm, which was by the The Guinness Book of World Records record holder for English language typist, Barbara Blackburn. So if LKH has got the speed she's claiming, someone contact Guinness. ;)

I can understand needing ice during autograph sessions though. The more we're using keyboards, the less we're exercising the muscles needed to hold a pen. My cursive handwriting was never pretty, but it was legible. I'm so far out of practice now that when I have to hand write, I print, with only my signature in cursive. Though it's not "readable", but it's my legal signature now.

[starrysnafu.livejournal.com]

If she was just taking her hands and smashing them on the keys for a few hours, would it really be that different from what she produces?

(In other words, I think a typing speed of 200wpm would neatly explain the poor quality of most of the writing. That, and copy-pasting character descriptions rather than typing them out probably saves a lot on the overall WPM being produced for the document. But she's probably just a liar liar pants on fire.)

[dwg.livejournal.com]

Ehhhh I think there's more to it than that, since she's previously said she doesn't re-read what she's written or edits as she goes along. That, to me, totally explains the repetitive conversations and slabs of text within pages of each other.

She may well be able to reach 200wpm, but I sincerely doubt that it's at a sustained rate and I have a lot of skepticism over her accuracy.

[viridian5.livejournal.com]

Maybe she counts commas as words?

[txvoodoo.livejournal.com]

If she can write/type so fast, why is she always late delivering product?

[dwg.livejournal.com]

INDEED.

[apep727.livejournal.com]

First, 'page' isn't a solid unit of measurement anymore. Big font + big margins + double spacing = low words per page. I can say I wrote 10 pages today, but if that's only 50 words per page, that's only 500 words. Doesn't sound quite as impressive, does it?

Also, most word processors have a handy "word count" tool, so figuring out your actual word count is pretty damn easy. Which tells me that LKH is just lazy and would rather whine about it than take the extra three seconds to figure that kind of thing out.

Second, still not buying that "200 wpm" claim. I don't care if 90% of it is garbage, that's still several thousand words she's claiming to produce, which contradicts her apparent inability to reach a deadline anymore. If she's getting that much writing done, why is she constantly turning in first drafts for publication, and late ones at that?

Third, I can't help but think that she'd be able to skip those first few hours of non-productivity if she bothered to plan or outline beforehand. I wouldn't be surprised if those first two hours or so are spent trying to figure out what to write next, which she should already know.

Finally, I'm not at all surprised that it takes 150-250 pages for her to get into a groove. That would explain all the repetition and whatnot.

[lliira (from livejournal.com)]

Yeah, two hours of nonproductivity every day before she can get things going sounds... weird. I don't even make outlines most of the time, but I have a plan of where I'm going overall and a distinct idea of what the next couple of scenes are going to be. I've certainly had days where I stare at the screen and nothing happens, but usually fifteen minutes or so is enough to get going. I'd say whatever works for her, everyone's different, but it doesn't work for her -- her writing is terrible and she complains about it constantly.

[zombiegoat.livejournal.com]

The original rule of thumb is that one page of typing on the average equals 250 words of text. Doing 10 pages would therefore be 2,500, a decent day's output for any writer.

But using my own writing as the speed test on the online tests it did come out to 200 wpm, and that is subtracting for mistakes.

This is where I call bullshit. An adjusted rate of 200 WPM? That's very rare air, and I would have to actually seen this done in order to reverse my stance. I go about 45 WPM, most office gigs require 30-60 WPM and high-end typists generally clock in at about 80-120 WPM. Practice does bring mastery, true, and she's certain;y banged out enough words in her day... but 200 WPM, accurately? I just flat-out don't believe her.

[world-dancer.livejournal.com]

I find 200 wpm to be utterly ridiculous.

But I don't blame her for keeping a page count. It doesn't even have to do with her being old. Just she's allowed to set her goals in whatever way keeps her motivated.

The problem I see is the lack of editing after the word vomit of 40 pages in a day.

[kisstheground.livejournal.com]

... well OF COURSE you can score 200 wpm if it's "fresh words" from your head. i can type asldkjfsa/ asfyciwp al;odmco alsdinj and get 400wpm! that doesn't mean dickety squat, and she knows it too.

[wanderingworlds.livejournal.com]

Thank you. That bit made me chuckle and I needed it.

[plastraa.livejournal.com]

re: "dickety squat"

I lolled!

[dagonista.livejournal.com]

all my rough drafts books have this enormous garbage section at the end of manuscript file of writing ideas, plot twists, or character breakthroughs throughout.

There, fixed that for her.

[fangedsekhmet.livejournal.com]

Holy carp! She's channelling me from yesterday's comments *checks into a nunnery and never speaks of it again*

[mystickiwi.livejournal.com]

OK, I kinda get the "not used to word count/old habits die hard" thing, but her page count would take on so much more validity if she'd share her font type/size and margins.

[apep727.livejournal.com]

That's what I said! Got the answer for you (thanks, dwg!):

12 pt. TNR, 1" margins, double spaced. So, roughly 250 per page.

[rodentfanatic.livejournal.com]

So if her absolute best is 40 pages a day, that's 10,000 words. Not too shabby at all (at least by my standards; I'd just like to be doing 1,000 a day, personally, but that's because I'm a beginner). She says her usual is 4-8 pages over 4-6 hours so that's...1,000 to 2,000 over 4-6 hours. Which is distinctly less impressive; even I can do that, and writing is neither my job nor something that, if I am to be honest, that dedicated to yet.

[lliira (from livejournal.com)]

I don't think word counts are good measurements of a writer's ability. 1,000 words a day is good for anyone, I don't care how seasoned they are. 500 is good. 100 is good (though editing as you go along would be very necessary.) 10,000 a day? Sorry, I have problems believing anyone could sustain that who wasn't a total hack.

That LKH constantly brags about the amount she writes is a total hack move. Valuing wordcount rather than quality is the mark of an assembly-line writer, not a good writer. It's hilarious because she brags about how high her output is when it isn't all that high, which means she even fails at being a true-blue hack.

[subtle-shades.livejournal.com]

I can write 10,000 words in a day and, provided I know where I'm going with the writing, it's not that difficult. And I'm not a "total hack."

I don't think that I could do it for months and months at a time though.

[lliira (from livejournal.com)]

That's why I said "sustain." I've written 10,000 words some days too. It was totally addictive for me, in all the bad ways, so I have a knee-jerk reaction to holding that up as a goal.

I was really thinking about it in the context of LKH -- as far as I've been able to tell, except for vacations, she writes every single day, no days off. She seems to feel terrible about herself when she doesn't reach that massive goal, and I've seen many other people do the same. Happening to write 10,000 words and going, huh, that's neat, is different from trying to force yourself to do that literally every day of the week and hating yourself when you can't, like she does. I think all her braggadocio about this is a cover for a deep self-hatred that she doesn't produce more.

[subtle-shades.livejournal.com]

Ah! I misunderstood what you were driving at!

Sorry!

(And I totally agree that 10K days are very... absorbed. As in, I'm absorbed in what I'm doing and don't notice quite a few things.)

Mmmm... I think that that makes sense, as silly as it seems at first blush for someone to constantly hold themselves up to their best work day and say (to themselves) that it should be their average work day. Except maybe it's not hatred for not producing more (Anita doesn't rant about it, after all,) so much as guilt for not working harder/producing more.

Although, to be honest, she could benefit from taking advantage of her actual/slower pace to write in small chunks and then working to hone that bit before moving onto the next bit. I've no doubt that she types frantically at her books some days, but it's more like spinning her wheels (and getting her plot stuck in the mud) rather than getting anywhere. And, since she has to know that she's not going to edit later, she really needs to edit as she goes along.

[magdalen77.livejournal.com]

The worst part is LaLa claims that she edits as she goes. It's one of the excuses she uses for submitting only one draft of her manuscript. She's just so awesome that her allegedly self- edited first draft is better than a lesser author's final draft.

[sinanju.livejournal.com]

Robert B. Parker wrote 1,000 words a day. And then he was done. He produced at least two novels a year that way. You don't have to be a super-speed typist or spend hours and hours in front of your computer to be a successful novelist.

You CAN be really fast, or spend long hours in your writing chair everyday, and some writers do. But that's got nothing to do with how good a writer you are (or in LKH's case, aren't).

On the other hand, I have no problem with her using pages/day instead of words/day to track her progress. I actually agree with her that it doesn't matter what metric you use in that regard; if it works for you, that's all that really matters.

[lliira (from livejournal.com)]

Yeah, I think the pages vs. words thing is a red herring. The problem is with her thinking amount of output is what matters and completely ignoring quality of output. And not bothering to edit.

I don't track the amount I've written at all. Doing so gives me writer's block immediately.

[rodentfanatic.livejournal.com]

I don't track the amount I've written at all. Doing so gives me writer's block immediately.

I may start having to try this!

(Also I appreciate everyone who said 1,000 was nothing to sneeze at; I had somehow gotten the idea it was a pretty basic output to try for daily, and I've been epically failing at it lately. This made me feel better!)

[alondra-del-sol.livejournal.com]

I like how she can't admit that she might have been mistaken, but she is, once again, literally bitching at the readership.