I need to add the writers-readers group at Library Thing to my list of "groups not to read less they make me very annoyed."

There's a thread on pen and paper vs. computers for writing, and some people are insisting that "serious" writing can only occur with pen and paper because computers encourage lazy thinking and bad writing and you can't possibly rethink your prose to its inspired perfection unless you rewrite every word and judge its fitness before putting it down.

Typewriters are sort of allowed because you have to consider every word.

There are other obnoxious snobs, too. They annoy me.

But I am a little curious as to whether there is a higher purity/purpose reason to write on paper rather than a screen. I disbelieve, because I'm fully capable of reading text on a screen, frowning, and juggling the words until they work.

For some people, it works better that way. For others, not. I'd advise letting it go (and clicking the handy little red "x" on the LibraryThing thread, which makes the letting go oh so much easier).

I think you're right. I should just read the Holmes group and call it good. And the Buffistas.

I have heard that over and over. I'm taken some writing seminars in which they urged you to use pen and paper because it was more "organic." I have written everything directly onto a keyboard since I was 15 and the keyboard was a portable manual Smith-Corona. My brain runs directly to my touch-typing fingers. Writing by hand, on the other hand, seems hugely labor intensive and it feels like I'm putting more labor into moving the pen than writing.

It does seem to help some people approach their work differently. The rest are right there with the scribes who complained that they did better work stamping cuneiform into wet clay rather than dipping a pen in ink.

For me, it depends on how many words it needs to be. Something only a page or so, I'll do on the computer. For 10-15 page research papers, I always handwrote those. Unless it was 3am in the morning and due at 10am the next day. Then, it all got done on the computer, since I obviously didn't care what grade I got. Part of it, I think, is that I don't have a printer. I like to lay out the pages I have so far so I can scan them all at the same time. For whatever reason, I see the gaps in logic, etc. better that way and I edit better. If I could print out each page as I wrote it, I'd probably do it all on computer.

So, it's actually more my editing process that requires hard copy to perform. The actual writing can be done on the computer. Long story, now short.

There's a thread on pen and paper vs. computers for writing, and some people are insisting that "serious" writing can only occur with pen and paper because computers encourage lazy thinking and bad writing and you can't possibly rethink your prose to its inspired perfection unless you rewrite every word and judge its fitness before putting it down.

BWAH!

::chokes, wheezes, laughs some more::

And how many manuscripts have these folks completed? Or, excuse me... works?

You know, it's what works best for the writer. Period. Nothing else. There have been times I've had a hard time with the screen and I go back to pen and paper (and I have a HUGE stash of journals and pens for this reason) because the physical act of writing frees something up in me and I can get the bare bones of what I want to say without stressing over every single word or turn of phrase.

I know people who adore writing on AlphaSmarts because they can only see three or four lines at a time, therefore the temptation to go back and edit endlessly is curbed. I can't use one of those because I have to see the entire screen/sheet of paper.

Some people dictate, then transcribe.

There are as many "right" ways to approach the craft as there are people who do it.

I usually have to go to paper at least once to edit.

I didn't handwrite my papers in part because the professors had this silly notion that they needed to be able to read the papers. To the horror of my mother, who writes with perfect Palmer script and was a drafter, I have terrible handwriting.

Poetry and lyrics on paper, essays/LJ entries/letters on computer. I don't know why, other than possibly the correlation of poetry going in my journal and essays being typed as a kid. It's really all about whatever works, you know?

I'm thinking the divide is more than a little age-based. Well, not age, but "writing's reputation" based. People from a certain school of thought probably picture writing in terms of being curled up in a nook/garret/cafe with a notebook and a drink of choice. To them, "writer" equals "person with pen/pencil being artistic." I've seen people on the writer-reader board get abusive when others try to define "writer" as anything other than "artist worthy of having their work last through the ages". (That's not all hyperbole, the guy was actively abusing someone for thinking they could call themselves a writer, as if they could dare to place themselves in the company of Shakespeare, Dante, Tolstoy, etc.)

"Writer" seems to be one of those few avocations with an inherent assumption of class. Something you have to be worthy of. People of pretension get downright squirlly if you hint that their august selves may rub metaphorical shoulders with the like of, shudder, Stephen King, drat his successful, award-winning soul. (We won't go into the pervasiveness of successful being the enemy of "art" in the creative world.)

So back to paper versus computer. Writers invested in an image of themslves as Writer don't seem to like associating with something as modern, utilitarian, and egalitarian as computers. They cling to the romance of pen and paper (romance is another word tossed about by Writers and those who comment on them).

I do write differently on paper than on screen. As one might assume, I am much more long-winded on screen. But I don't believe my words are better chosen on paper, just differently chosen. Maybe if we can teach Writers how to touch-type so that their thoughts and their fingers move at the same speed, they'll change their minds.

Though if they type the way my husband does, hunting down each letter at a time, I don't see how that's different from "sketching each letter one at a time, choosing each word with care."

(romance is another word tossed about by Writers and those who comment on them).

And yet, ask them about "romance" as in writing it, and watch their dainty little selves shudder. The irony is, going to a romance genre conference, and no one will put down another genre, whereas go to a multi-genre conference and the attendees, be they aspiring or publishing professionals, have no qualms about slagging on romance, as a genre.

I still remember attending a multi-genre conference where I was seated at a luncheon beside a very earnest girl-- I'd noticed her throughout the weekend: sensible haircut, small pearl earrings, the same gray, pinstriped suit every day of the conference, just slightly different button down shirts in shades of black, white, and gray on each day.

Me? I think of writing as being a creative field as well as a professional one, so I have fun with what I wear. I think that day I was wearing a floral dress and my hair was up in a ponytail—very 50s retro vibe to it. Anyhow, here we were, seated with several older men at the table. Earnest Young Woman (EYW) began asking everyone at the table what they wrote. Almost uniformly, the men were writing military histories or oddly enough, poetry. Not a one of them had a clue how the publishing industry worked, which was one reason they were there, so props to them. EYW then said, "Well, after all the workshops and seminars this weekend, I'm having a bit of a hard time classifying what I write, but if I had to say, I'd put it as mainstream fiction with literary leanings." That's when she turned to me and asked what I wrote.

I answered, "Romantic women's fiction." I swear, she scooted her chair a few inches away from me as if she thought I was going to give her romance cooties or something. She said to the table at large, "Well, you know, I think I'd like to be shelved where readers will find me," with this wink, wink, nudge, nudge tone to her voice, implying that of course, real readers wouldn't be caught dead in the romance section.

I shrugged and said "Well, with romance accounting for over fifty percent of the mass-market fiction share, I dare say readers will be able to find me. With so many novels flooding the market right now, I think that ups my chances that a reader will discover my work than someone writing mainstream fiction with literary leanings."

That's when one of the military history guys leaned across the table and said, "Over fifty percent?" and after I nodded said, "Damn, I think I'm writing in the wrong genre."

I normally don't get that snooty about genre classification—personally, I think they're a monumental pain in the ass—but at the same I don't much care for anyone casting aspersions on my abilities as a writer when all I'm doing is the same thing writers have done throughout the ages, which is write what I love.

< /steps off soapbox>