does a greater effort equal betterork????

and then there was silence. The cicadas creak on the mudflats and the river is at peace. Croak

yes i think greater effort equals greater work ... and greater effort over a sustained period leads to even better work ... and years and years of effort lead to things worth reading ... things that will endure ... that is not to say there isnt value in the immediate ... the emotional ... the therapeutic ... but the things that stay with the reader are the things that have been worked on ... and worked on ... writing is a craft that has to be learned ....

doesn't it work differently for different people? it has to depend on how you work doesn't it. sometimes i spend ages on stuff and it's crap and sometimes it takes no time and it's crap.........errrr everything i write is crap though so there you go!!

Couldn't have put it better meself, Fish (even if I'd tried)! Er...you got a complex, Mortal, or what?

I'm a complex mortal.

Can writing be considered work if you're putting down to paper what you experienced? Kind of like a visit to the police station and your just filling out a report on what happened. Not hard. Not technical really. Just writing. It's like the dream I had last night where I found myself covered in cherries and a mass of people (suspect abctales writers) were snapping them all up from me! The dirty dogs! When I woke up there was only one cherry left. Isn't it sad that the abctales staff allows the theft of cherries from people's private dreams? Maybe they are the ones who stole my cherries! Dogs! Cowards! Thieves! I shall have my revenge! Sir Folgers

Betterork? Come on Cassie you need to make a greater effort!

i'm way to simple to have a complex! wait....................................no can't think of anything clever to say no suprises then bye!

Ummm, something called inspiration??

Sometimes, it is possible to 'overwrite' something and lose the original beauty. Also, some pieces are more spontaneous than others; they almost write themselves. Writing is an uneven game, scarily unpredictable.

Can I just say, I don't know whether Missi just didn't complete the field, or whether the new subject header for the thread is deliberate, but I like it. Maybe we should have a whole new thread with that as the title. How about on this thread, the next poster picks a subject and we go with that until the next person uses "You must supply a subject" as the title header, then move onto something else. Conclusion on the actual original question (though I've posted a lot on this thread, I never addressed the real point) - sometimes writing improves with polish, sometimes energy can carry a good idea. I don't like On the Road myself, but it is an acknowledged classic and Kerouac wrote it on speed in about three weeks. Equally, Ulysses took James Joyce years and he often spent days on a single sentence. Horses for courses. All of the stuff of mine that I've liked has taken a lot of time, but the stuff that the official face of abc likes has been knocked out very quickly - sometimes within an hour of having the idea.

One word: subjectivity (or is it objectivity?)

Dang typing!!!!!!

Everthing I do is deliberate Andrew.

No question about it, some of what I think of as my best work comes out in one long slippery trail and there it is. I might change a comma or a capital letter but it comes out fully formed like automatic writing or a human baby etc. However, some very strong work needs careful piecing together, especially longer poems. If you are going to cross reference ideas or metaphors, have internal rhymes, repeating motifs etc. then you can't just whip up the ABC dialogue box and start to ramble about colours, sight and sounds, lifting metaphors from Bridget Jones et al, something which we are all guilty of when we TRY to write as opposed to being INSPIREd to write. I am working on a very long haiku sequence at the moment of which thirty stanzas just poured out, 5-7-5 to a man, one after another over approx 90 mins one sunday night. They have hardly been changed. Finishing what I started however is a mucvh tougher job. Like wallpapering a room one must hide the join and keep the pattern uniform. Its as much craft as art, as we troublesome, scribblesome sweaters know keep writing cassie. My advice would be compose first, post later, then at klaest you will feel you have earned your cherries stevo

this I doubt

Cassiopeia I found that the same thing happened with my essays. Those that I started at eleven at night and handed in at nine in the morning got really good marks. The essays that I wrote over three or four weeks were crap. Perhaps I should have spent less time on my dissertation.

Sorry you have a problem penny, I am in no doubt!

I can't really comment, as I'm not familiar with the concept of great effort.

Very few of my poems take longer than 20 mins to write - it is usually around five. I think that just picking up the pen and writing what comes is often how you REALLY capture emotion in a piece - too much thinking about something can ruin it. Jen

Sorry, I have to disagree with this 'five minutes scribble then put the kettle on' theory of literature, esp poetry. I think if you sat down TS Eliot or Coleridge or Elizabeth Bishop (despite all being dead, natch,) and asked them how many of their stunning, mind-bendingly wonderful poems they wrote in 'around five' minutes we would get a short and derisive answer. Poetry is an excercise of the creative intellect. It involves so much thought, so much of the mind as well as the heart that we 'just let it happen' at our peril as writers. You must always edit, surely, no matter how chuffed you are with the first draft? Coleridge (what a guy) said that whilst all creative literature is 'words in their best order', poetry is 'the BESTwords in their BESTorder.' Unless our minds are fruit machines we can't rely on chance to get those words in their best order but need to prune, snip, swap, relocate and generally boil down the words until something marvellous occurs. It is not enough to say, oh look, all the lines rhyme and it only took me five minutes. Surely unless what you have written CANNOT BE SAID IN ANY OTHER WAY, with any other words, then it is not finished? I'm sure that we all write something down quickly and think, wow, that's really purely expressed, I don't want to touch it, but I personally would never consider a piece finished in a sitting. It is only when I come back to it hours or days later and re-read as a reader, not a writer, that I think, "hmmn, that's a cliche, that's an overstatement, that's good, that's crap"etc. and really start to reduce the stock and make it into soup, as it were. No one ever created art in five minutes (unless you count abstract expressionism, which kind of ruins my point). Sorry to rant but there is no shame in working hard and making the best of your talent, something which admittedly there is plenty of on this site. stevie bach

I'm a lazy bastard so I don't do anything that takes any effort. I gave up painting to avoid cleaning the brushes. Seriously, with painting in particularly, I found that I could tell whether or not a painting was going to be successful within a few brush strokes. These days I even get someone to wind my wool for me.

God, this is a whopping thread; so I probably lost the point halfway through. But.. most of the above comments - and there's a stimulating range of opinions - seem to concentrate on poetry. Sure, most of the output in the poetry section could well have been knocked out very rapidly indeed - and much of it obviously was, for whatever reason. Sometimes it conveys immediacy and drama, and maybe the results aren't quite what the writer planned.. but that's another personal reaction. Some of mine was dashed off, too, but only to see what sort of reaction it received! All the stuff I really like took ages to polish to my satisfaction. This doesn't make it better than anyone else's, of course, it's just my way of working. I prefer "traditional" (or "real" rhyming and scanning poetry) - anyway, and I defy any smart*rse to churn that out complete and perfect in one sitting! But, as regards prose - surely, no-one would assume that their first hurried draft is the best they can do? If you can't come back to a first draft and wince before hacking it to pieces, then you need to be more critical. Is it, therefore, ever finished? No. I've lost count of the drafts of some pieces, and given the chance I'd modify virtually everything I've put on the site on a weekly basis. For obvious reasons, however, anything cherried remains untouched!

Stevo, your comments are very erudite; the way in which you assemble your comments mark you out as a writer who is both disciplined and passionate. I stand by my belief that you can overwrite a piece but I do also believe in editing. You can trim the fat, as you mention, slicing off those panting cliches that seemed so witty and original at four o'clock in the morning. You can consult the thesaurus and cut down on the verbage, shuffle sentences and shorten paragraphs. I write initially as a stream of consciousness exercise but I would never show anyone this original effort, just as I would never run naked down the street (there are too many tender, easily revolted people out there). Some of those pieces need very little work but the majority need a literary kick up the posterior. I sweat (sorry, glow), I rant and I cry sometimes but at the end of each day, writing has been a contrary mix of pain and pleasure. Also, you have to remember that the more you write, the best you should get at honing your craft. So the ultimate answer must be yes, more effort does produce a better result. Eventually.

stevo is right, obviously, and the evidence is in some of his own poetry, e.g. Glint. on the other hand, there is a certain pleasure and satisfaction in knocking out poems quickly. in terms of simple enjoyment of a hobby, this may even be the best way of going about it. but I doubt whether it often results in the exceptional work that can be produced by the endeavour that Stevo so well describes. easier said than done, of course.

Well I seem to be at odds with most of the comment on this thread, but mainly with steve. He may have stated his case emphatically but in spite of what robert says he isn't obviously right at all, what he says is his opinion and it may be right for him but not necessarily for anybody else. I can't think of anything that CANNOT BE SAID IN ANY OTHER WAY, so does that mean that nothing is ever finished? Of course not, and to suggest otherwise is rubbish. He may feel the need to spend lots of time polishing what he has written and I don't criticise that or his end product but the writing process isn't set in stone of his or anybody else's making. There are people out there (of which I hasten to add, I am not one) who have a gift for putting things together effortlessly and in any case if the individual writer says his work is finished then it is FINISHED! If others don't like it, think it is crap or what ever I suggest they don't read it but to impose one's own criteria on others is arrogant to say the least. As I have said before, one man's crap is another man's feast, we are all different and have the right to be considered as such, not good or bad by one man's judgement whoever he is. I am now heading for the bunker before the barrage that I usually seem to attract for saying what I think.

Stop causing trouble, Missi. You can't say what you think. Unless of course you are one of the lucky few who can. Now shut it, Mississippi

Just off to the kitchen to make a bollocknaise! fancy being in it spag?

Add abit on minceissippi and I'll be in it.

anyone can say what they think spag, so please tell. can you put things together effortlessly? is there more than one way of saying the same thing, or does it actually matter what words you use to say it? do you ever think that there might be a better word, or is every word perfect as soon as it leaves your pen? is it arrogance when soemone says that they have to work really hard to make a piece of writing as good as they can get it?

Hi Robert. 'Twas just a joke for Mississippi. Everyone can say what they think of course. I wouldn't deny anyone that. Robert, I am afraid all of those questions can't be answered by me. I am illiterate and have an IQ of 50 so I'll let everyone else answer those questions.

I don't say what I think for it would offend people.

I can't be a 'people', he doesn't mind offending me! and I am a sensitive soul with a higher IQ than him!

I don't think even Johnny Vegas naked could offend Mississippi. Everyone has a higher IQ than me. If You are sensitive then that makes me a wuss. Oops I am one already.

johnny vegas? did i miss something? there's 8 of those balloons on the 2nd floor spag, deal with'em if you want your 'wages' !

the best writing - be it poetry or prose - looks effortless to the reader who may then assume that it was written effortlessly. I have to disagree with you mississippi. Nothing is ever finished. It can always be improved. A great poet's remark about this was covered in another thread but I'm buggered if I can think where and of whom it was at this late hour. I suspect that the more years of successful writing you have behind you may enable you to knock out reasonable quality 'stuff' in five to twenty minutes but that does not mean it cannot be improved upon. I often write and think 'terrific' . the next day I re-read and realise it's tosh. I can spend hour upon hour working at a piece to make it more succinct only to realise after posting that it may have needed a few more more weeks! I think it is often obvious when a piece has been written quickly whether cherried or not. Usually the piece in question does not bear scrutiny and is pretty much standard cliched crap. With regard to the original point of the thread ..... getting a cherry does not mean your piece is 'good' it simple means your work was liked by an editor. thats all. it does not mean you are heading for stardom nor does it reflect the amount of work you have put in. witness the recent 'stories' posted by CPA ( I feature in one ....whoopee - fame at last (only because he/she failed to understand my remark)) that are pasting and copying from the forums with a few odd remarks thrown in. some have been cherrypicked. is this greater effort? does it make better rork? is this what the site is now about? if I copy and paste the hundreds of posts I have made in these forums under various but obviously me guises into a 'story' will I get cherried and live life in luxurious fruit forever? sorry.... have to go..... Parki's on the phone

ah, spag-jokes for mississippi. that self-styled pricker of pomposity whose function is to accuse as arrogant any contributor who dare be serious about their writing, and who regrettably has the intellect to foment a thousand numb contributions from the witless. i’ll leave you to it.

robert, I am not a self-styled anything, have no problem with serious writers and certainly wouldn't be prepared to accept your judgement on who is, or is not witless. What I actually said was, it is arrogant to impose ones own criteria on others, this wasn't directed at any one in particular although if the cap fits.... stormy whilst i respect your right to disagree with whomever you wish I say that if an author decides their work is finished it is indeed FINISHED and neither you nor anybody else has the right to say different. You may think it could be improved but that is only your opinion, and that is worth no more or less than the authors, the author must still have the last word on his/her own work. On the point of the worth of the cherries, and I don't disagree with you on this point, if they mean so little why do users keep on about them as if they are the writers version of an oscar?

sorry would have replied earlier but some low life just pissed thru my letter box......... out of breath ........ didn't find the elusive knobhead ....... I had not realised that posting here would create such rapid responses! It was probably the same turd that left his eponymous mark in my driveway last year. Mississippi, the original point was that work created in a short space of time was cherried. my point was the this does not necessarily mean it was good or finished. I don't know why users keep on about them either. Perhaps they think it is the whitbread committee who authorise such fruit? ask CPA. he/she has a tomato thing going with ed 73 at the moment. pip pip

I think that the ultimate irony is the very earnest efforts that have been ploughed into this thread, to argue the point. I think that it demonstrates that we all work hard to say what we mean and take time to choose our words/phrases/insults carefully. Even if a piece does take a few minutes, it has not appeared from a vaccum. The writer/poet has been sharpening his skills and wasting much paper/toner on a lifetime of penmanship. Also the thoughts concerning that piece may have been marinading in the mind for more time than he/she realises. The 'effort' can mean brainwork too, not simply the actual writing. Hard work = result. My darn mother was right all along.

I like taking ages, polishing to my staisfaction too Roy. I don't seem to get much writing done, however. Joking apart, well said. There is too much self-ego massaging which goes on and a damn sight too much slapdashery, what? Col. Coque

And I have to disagree with you, stormy - you say that 'Nothing is ever finished', and (my opinion, of course) I consider this to be wrong. Sometimes yes, I do just write down a poem straight off - I use poetry as a way to 'get it all out' of my system - I never just sit down to write and think 'Today I will write a poem' - there is always something that makes me pick up the pen and actually write the feelings down. Of course, I edit more often than not, jiggling words around etc, but I do this as I write, and very rarely make adjustments after those five-twenty minutes of writing the poem. This is because I consider it to be finished. For me, poetry is about capturing the moment, capturing how I am feeling at that very minute - and therefore any adjustments after that are irrelevant to the poem. Are you implying, steve bach and stormy, that my way of writing is therefore inferior to yours or other writers' and also that I put less effort into my work? The amount of effort put into work does not equal the amount of time - a gradual effort over a few weeks may be the same amount of effort as a short, concentrated burst over ten minutes. My novel, now that's another matter - this I am revising and shuffling about and correcting, although still here I do not like to change much more than punctuation and add or remove the odd paragraph. The idea that my writing is inferior to others because of the style in which I write is (yes, I agree with you, mississippi) arrogant, and I also find this way of thinking rather narrow - I would like to remind you that every single person writes differently and whether you like it or not as a reader is, of course, only an opinion and not a measure of worth. I write for myself, I enjoy what I write and so do others - I enjoy the whole process - thinking of the words to write down, the actual process of transferring them from brain to page, and then reading through, correcting, re-reading and, ultimately, enjoying the finished piece. My writing is an expression of what I was feeling and how I was thinking at the time - if, in a year, or five, or ten, I re-read my work and find it to be not quite as good as I could then make it, it does not make me want to change it - because it is the reflection of how I was at the time at which it was written - and I consider this to be the most precious thing of all. Jennifer

Nobody said inferior. How prickly you are! Mississipi's barbs were rather poisonous too. I just feel that if we wish to use poetry as a linguistic confessional, to 'capture the moment' then there are dictophones and suchlike, but preparing a written work of art, as men and women have been doing for years, is a serious business. I didn't want to come across as pompous. I'm just like everyone else tapping away at my keyboard. It goes without saying that anyone can write anything they like anyway they like. If art is not free then what is? The problem comes when people swagger about cherries and go on about how they hardly made an effort on a piece but, 'oh look, it's poem of the weekend'. It just seems a little flippant to me. Good point about CPA's joke prose. His Ted and Silvia satire was wry enough but it is shocking that these cut-and-paste nightmares were cherried and things we guys have spent hours/days/weeks on get left by the wayside. the moral is to take your cherries with a pinch of salt, as disgusting as that may sound stevie the bach

It wasn't my intention to be 'poisonous' Steve but you do come across as a bit pompous and judgemental, and perhaps I am a bit reactionary at times. That said, I still insist that your sweeping statements about what is and isn't finished and how it's not possible to create in a moment of inspiration is only your opinion and isn't on the tablet. I also believe you use the term 'work of art' too freely and by so doing devalue it's meaning.

Now look here Roy, leave god out of it, I've just had all the trouble I need with MYB on another thread! That's a crafty little defensive move you made, 'only to see what sort of reaction', I'm sure there's a standard move in chess described in much the same way. Al my writing is first hurried drafts, probably explains why I get in so much trouble. P.S. My cherry remains untouched too! Well for the last few months anyway.

Certainly it's jusyt my opinion. Point taken, this is a message board after all, not the Royal Society. In what sense do I use the term 'work of art' too freely? Obviously whole books have been written by professors of Aesthetics as to what 'Art' is, but i have always felt it to be something (whether a painting, poem, somg, animated cartoon) created using the intelligence which is suppoed to communicate to another person or persons. Usually this is by being both beautiful and intelligent but it can be in other ways too. I don't think by referring to a conciously created stream of language or 'poem' as a work of art I was "using the term 'work of art' to freely". I think it is generally agreed that poetry is an art form, isn't it?

I would certainly agree with you Steve that poetry can be an art form but not ALL poetry automatically falls within my own definition of the term. Some of it, to me at any rate, is the complete opposite of art. In it's broadest meaning it's quite acceptable for any one, for example a plumber or motor mechanic, to describe their work done to the highest standard, as art. I think the term 'work of art' has connotations of classicism to a lot of people and to use it too freely somehow detracts from that elevated meaning. Perhaps I was nit-picking but I got the impression that you were suggesting that all poetry is art when it can actually range from art to rubbish depending on the individuals point of view. I think I should get out more, I'm becoming a navel gazer!

PS: 1 of course it is possible to create a moment of inspiration. Look at Jazz. Pure art pouring forth at the moment, gone in the next. I have written poems like this, they just come out fully formed and I change maybe the last line, but not often and this is not the only way 2 I did not make any 'sweeping statements' about when a poem is finished. Two other people made those remarks and had their own private debate. If you consider the readers' response as a creative act (which many literary theorists do) then a poem is re-written every time it is read and can never truly 'mean what the writer says. lets not all fall out about this. I'm sorry if I sounded like a curmugeonly sixty-year old don. I am in fact a winsome 28 year old infant teacher. stevie bach

we definitely afree, RE: all poetry is not art. I suppose all we can say that only successful art is art, if you follow my drift, which sounds like a tautology, but what I mean is that an old sring of words chopped into verses is not necessarily 'art'. It onnly becomes art when the writers' creativity causes those words to trancend something and to communicate - when the reader goes 'f*cking hell, wow!' Can a good bit of pipe fitting be art? Or is it just high craft? Plato gets really hot under the toga about this. It's like when people describe a Miachael Owen goal as 'sheer poetry, like ballet' etc. Do we really mean the same as when we talk about Brian Patten or Emily Dickinson, and, to carryyour point to its logical and very pertinant conclusion, is all of these poets work art. Might Emily or Brian have laid the odd sticky turd now and then, or is it the writers' INTENTION to create art whichh counts. Look at Cherrypickeranonymous' stupid hoaxes for verification. I think we kind of agree cheers steve

Yeah I can see it's not worth starting a war, and in any case I'm fresh out of arrows. If I appear to be a 57yr. old curmudgeon it's because I am!