Shitty First Drafts

First, I will begin with the most boring part of the assignment. The Summary. (I find the summary portion of any assignment to be very boring because it makes me feel like the professor doesn't trust that I actually read the assigned material. Regardless, it is required, and well.....damn o.k enough beating around the bush. Here we go.)

Anne LaMott, the brilliance behind this essay, begins by explaining that not every writer sits down and simply let's fascinating words and sentences fall from his/her pen. LaMott fully explains (and annoyingly re-iterates) that behind many literary masterpieces, there are many "shitty first drafts". LaMott explains to the reader that even thought the first draft may be "shitty", beautiful things can come from shit (like pretty flowers, and by pretty flowers I mean momentary sparks of genius). "Just get it all down on paper, because there may be something great in those six crazy pages........" the "down" draft as LaMott puts it. Amazing things may come out of this down draft. Next, is the "up" draft, where you fix things up. In this phase, LaMott explains that the writer refines the "down" draft to more conveniently convey his or her message to the reader. After the "up" draft comes the "dental" draft, or final checkup. This is the last stop before the writer finds out whether or not he/she is getting a paycheck this week, or directions to the nearest bar/loan office/bank ( I do not encourage theft). Towards the end of the essay, LaMott describes some of the voices in her head that scream at her when she is trying to write. (I (possibly) fully understand why LaMott would include these insights with her readers). LaMott is trying to explain to her readers that everyone has trouble writing. Everyone has trouble writing first drafts and getting started on pieces of work. She also lets the reader know that many writers (including herself) have trouble being confident in their work, either when it is just beginning to take form, or when it is hitting the professors/chiefs/President's desk. She explains that writers should block out insecurities they might have about their work. The writer also suggests that she has a friend(s) that enjoy shooting mice that are trapped in a jar...............In the head.


And now, a few questions that will (should hopefully) be addressed in the following paragraph.

1. How does LaMott's version of the writing process further clarify the ideas for adult writers? (Hah, I think I copied this question down wrong when it was on the board.)

2. Anything new or different here?

3. Does it change how you feel about the process, and/or your own ability to write.


Let's begin


Well, to start off, I enjoyed this essay up to about the third paragraph. The first two paragraphs of the essay shed light on an issue that I have thought about ever since I started reading great literary works. I used to think that writers such as Twain, Vonnegut, and Kerouac were born with a gift that few others had. The gift to sit and let their thoughts flow so free and smooth, that there was no need for a second draft. LaMott's essay informed me that even the great writers had rough draft ( I still don't believe that they were shitty, but I believe they had rough drafts none the less). Regardless, the point LaMott is trying to get across is that the writing process consists of stages. This is nothing new to me. I have been learning about the writing stages since I was in fifth grade. I understand that in order to produce a good piece of work, you should go through a rough draft, a second draft, third draft....etc, and finally a final draft. I really didn't like the terms LaMott used to describe the various drafts. "Down" draft, "Up" draft, "Dental" draft, (Back draft haha, I'm an Idiot.) C'mon LaMott, I'm not an Idiot (coincidence or irony? you decide.) You could have just said rough draft, and second, third, and fourth draft, and final draft. For Pete's sake, I am terrified of the dentist. To conclude, ( and please forgive me for my rambling.) this does not change the way I feel about the process, or my ability to write. The writing process, as programmed into my brain since the days of monkeybars, is the same then, as it was now, as it will always be. LaMott simply explained the writing process to me through her own perspective. I personally think LaMott's perspective is very boring (Except for the part about Burroughs being inside of her head.) and I believe that she filling the right shoes when all she did was write restaurant reviews. She probably wrote for the Wisconsin Chronicle (no offense intended to Wisconsinites) and I am glad that I never read any of her reviews.

P.S. If William S. Burroughs is inside of your head Mrs. LaMott, please listen to him. Although you may not understand half of the things he says, (because I sure know that I don't understand much of what he is saying.) listen to him, he might tell you the secrets of becoming a successful exterminator.