Of Paper, Pencil and The Paris Review

I’m still a paper and pencil man when it comes to first drafts. Sometimes I’ll sit down at the computer and start writing something I’ve been thinking about, but mostly it goes in the notebook initially, and more often than not it’s written in pencil. My hand-writing is appalling – you may wish to add to that! – which often makes the copying up onto the computer a creative activity rather than just a chore.

But even in my best Marion Richardson, which was always shaky, what goes down in pencil doesn’t always come up in type. In fact, I’ve noticed on several occasions recently, that rather than simply copying up a manuscript, I’ve re-written the story, starting almost from scratch. It’s as if that pencil version was in some way the series of events, or the memory of them, and that the typing has become, not so much a re-telling, as the original telling, and has been inspired, or prompted by the notebook tale.

I’m not advocating such a process, merely noticing that it’s one I use, and began to use without intending to, or even noticing that I had! When I worked with ‘creative writing’ students – which is all I am, after all – I used to tell them that no particular process was important in itself, but only in so much as it was the one that worked for them. It was reading The Paris Review interviews, collected in a four volume selection more than a decade ago and published in paperback by Picador, edited by Philip Gourevitch, which brought me to that point of view. Over the four volumes you get a glimpse of the thinking behind poetry, plays, and prose fiction both long and short, by fifty or so writers you are likely to have heard of, if not read.

It’s a while since I’ve read them as an item in their own right, but I dip in from time to time, looking for half remembered quotes that will reassure me I’m on the right track – often when someone whose opinion I value has suggested that I’m not! They are a good and varied read, but from this writer’s point of view their greatest, and most useful attribute is that they give voice to someone famous (or ostensibly successful, whatever you think that means), who is promoting exactly what you want to do. And, if you’re trying to do something quite different, you’re likely to find someone else, equally well known, who used to do just that too!

Of course, you might be one of those writers who doesn’t need the encouragement of precursors – and there are some examples in there of that as well.  

Do you have something to say? Submit to The Write Life.

About the contributor

Related Articles

The Next Step by Clare Morris

In the first of an occasional series, Clare Morris discusses how we develop our craft as writers and introduces pieces by Margaret Kiernan and Mark Bayliss.

Getting A Grip

That old knife of my mother’s was like a story. She’d had it for years: donkey’s years. I can’t remember a time when she didn’t have...

Imperfect by Ysella Sims

Writer and poet, Ysella Sims explains why imperfection is a fertile gift

1 COMMENT

More Like This

Poetry, What It Is And How It Works.

Any definition of poetry is based on some or all of its important characteristics. What is poetry? The question "What is poetry" has become more difficult...

How To Submit Your Work To Literary Magazines

Denise O'Hagan explores the process of submitting work to literary journals.

So Near, So Far (an introduction to Eliza Lynn Linton) -by Mike Smith

Mike Smith on Eliza Lynn Linton who was the first female salaried journalist in Britain, and the author of over 20 novels.

Touched By Whales by Gail Harrington

Travel writer, Gail Harrington weaves her way through a host of memories and explains the wonder of wanderlust

‘Throwing Shots’ by Robert Taylor

Robert Taylor discusses the twin forces of good copy and careful editing and recalls his 'finest moment as a copywriter'