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>

I keep trying to encourage co-author to go into romance. Oddly, it's where he's most comfortable, creative, and...fluid I think is the word I'd use to describe it.

I just wonder how it would go over, having a man enter that playing field. Or am I ignorant? Are there any men writing in the genre?

Dear god. I need platitudes to get through the next two chapters. Tim isn't picking up his cell, and he's usually the one who will tell me I'm brilliant for 5 minutes so I can get through the worst.

Are there any men writing in the genre?

There are more than a few, Allyson-- several in collaboration, many on their own. Thing is, there are plenty of male authors who write romance, except it doesn't get called "romance." It gets called clever, sensitive, fiction. (Nicholas Sparks, Charles Martin) A lot of it's not even good romance (again-- see, Nicholas Sparks) but because it's written by men, gets a certain measure of respect and attention that the same book, if written by a woman, never would.

If his writing leans that way, he should certainly give it a try.

I like the computer better because I can get the words down closer to the rate that I think them. My handwriting is terrible, and I've printed everything handwritten for over ten years now, and I just can't move fast enough to be anything but frustrated.

Yes, "sensitive." Look, a man with feelings! It must be great!

Nicholas Sparks makes me feel like I'm walking across a theatre floor where a dozen sodas have been spilled.

Nicholas Sparks makes me feel like I'm walking across a theatre floor where a dozen sodas have been spilled.

When I was in San Francisco for the Romance Writers of America conference back in July, a couple of friends and I escaped to the nearby movie theatre to go see Dark Knight. During the previews, they were showing the trailer for Nights in Rodanthe and all of us leaned forward because hey, Diane Lane, Richard Gere, who can do a decent romantic leading man, beautiful setting, looked like a touching story... until they got the end of the trailer and the voiceover intoned, "Based on the bestselling novel by Nicholas Sparks."

Hand to God, all of us simultaneously slumped back in our seats with the most disgusted noises.