“Write Drunk, Edit Sober” Is Bad Advice
goinswriter.com
goinswriter.com
Changing the interpretation of what someone said to fit your argument can be seen on the school playground and in Plato's Gorgias. It's not going away anytime soon.
Agreeing on an interpretation is the first step to conceiving an argument. Wrestling through this is a big part of having a discussion, and someone can always try to unfairly assume the interpretation that suits them, often the least charitable one.
However, if you go into the initial phase with a goal/structure in mind, you're going to be much closer to the final product after your first effort. Many, many writers use outlines/plans. Something that happens a lot in research is that articles are formulaic, they generally have the same sorts of content, so writing them actually becomes easier once familiarity with the structure is obtained.
I would say your approach could be useful for either an artistic format OR for someone who is severely writers' blocked. If you truly have no idea what to write, something is better than nothing. But generally speaking, having a plan/outline is very useful.
The only thing writers have in common is that they each have their own way of working.
Some plot meticulously, others don't plot at all. Some want to know where they're going, others prefer discovery and surprise.
Stephen King does not plot because he finds it boring. He does not want to know what's going to happen.
Here's Flannery O'Connor:
"When I started writing that story, I didn't know there was going to be a Ph.D. with a wooden leg in it. I merely found myself one morning writing a description of two women I knew something about, and before I realized it, I had equipped one of them with a daughter with a wooden leg. I brought in the Bible salesman, but I had no idea what I was going to do with him. I didn't know he was going to steal that wooden leg until ten or twelve lines before he did it, but when I found out that this was what was going to happen, I realized it was inevitable."
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/01/01/21/s...
https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/07/09/hacking-the-brain-sil...
This assertion is ridiculous; it could most certainly be a coincidence. I'd suggest the numerous locations around the world known for a period of drug experimentation that are not technology hot beds suggests it is.
Is it really worth sacrificing your health for? It doesn't even taste nice once you cut through the cultural programming to pretend otherwise.
Drinking poison that tastes like shit doesn't really happen without outside pressure. That's not true of every other preference and desire.
But keep lying to yourself, not my problem.
Citation needed. Maybe you just haven’t tried a good beer yet.
Your point seems really tied up in your own preferences and discounts other people’s experiences.
Or try quitting for six months and see how the body reacts to alcohol when reintroduced.
This post is about the author being against a thing that no one believes. It qualifies as a strawman, easily.
I can’t be the only person that did.
I'd never heard the advice before, but I'm pretty sure I'd have thought they were being literal, unless they also expanded upon the statement in a way that let me know it was a metaphor, not a literal statement.
There may be multiple effects, here: one, that there will always be people who like to drink and will latch on to any idiom that gives them a social excuse to do so. My ex, whose undergraduate degree was journalism, used to say this phrase in a HHOS (ha-ha, only serious) manner. In retrospect, she just liked drinking.
Another effect that comes to mind is that there will always be some small percentage of people who – for whatever reason – do not understand metaphors or jokes or subtext.
Finally, this phrase in particular seems likely to propagate on its own without being attached to the underlying wisdom that was originally intended.
(Of course, now that I think of it that way, it sure sounds like survivor bias... Exploring rather than exploiting is great if your exploration finds something!)
There is a definite use for getting mildly buzzed as part of the creative process. Alcohol makes it easier to turn off the part of your brain that demands perfection and get a lot of stuff that may not be great but can be fixed rather than slowly trying to make one perfect sentence after another. Weed is great for when you need to sit back and stare at the shape of your whole plot and figure out how to get from where you are to where you want to be; surprising and wonderful connections get made. Then you put it down, and sober you comes back and finds the good parts. Weed is also pretty useful for visual tasks; it makes it easier for me to sit there doing fiddly details on a drawing without really seeing time pass. Sometimes it also gives me a power-up to my visual cortex and I can start tracing what I see in my mind's eye instead of the longer route of constructing stuff, but I don’t do that much as it’s perilously close to the point where I am too high to function. And then there’s people who claim that regular microdoses of LSD have lots of benefits for both general braining and creativity. Never tried it myself but I can see it helping.
You don’t have to get completely hammered to get useful creative effects. You just have to hit the bottle or bong or whatever hard enough to have some effect. And sometimes you can get in the groove without any chemical aid; that’s great! But when you can’t, and there’s a deadline... there’s mind-altering chemicals. Use them responsibly.
Alcohol has a pretty negative effect on my work, though. I get sloppy and it's a terrible idea to play with sharp objects and permanent inks if you've been drinking anyway. Loosening up and being unafraid to make things I think might fail isn't something I really struggle with because my creative process is super iterative and experimental. That one Ira Glass quote made me realize the power of full-on wallowing in and relishing the ugly prototype stages of things, so I do a lot of that knowing that after a few different versions to work out the kinks and try some different approaches, I'll have something really good on my hands. I love putting a final sculpture beside the ugly prototype it began as and seeing how far it evolved, it's like looking at a baby picture beside a picture of the successful, well-adjusted adult the baby grew up to be. I can't help but take pride in both of them!
Then I'd see it sober and be like, "'Club me with your love truncheon'? I can't work with this. I can't ever even admit I wrote this. What the hell even is this."
When I'd read it in the morning, it just came across as me being a drunken asshole. I became fond of the Delete Post button.
I also only write sober now.
Personally, I've found that an occasional beer - and some music - while working on a piece of art (as an unwinding activity) can help me get into a zone and sometimes seems to help me think creatively. If you drink so much that you lose coordination or a sense of what is viable then clearly the effects are negative, but I don't think it's as black of white as the article suggests. I'd agree that if I was a professional artist (I'm not) who couldn't work unless they were stoned, this would be clearly undesirable.
Of course, there is a fine line between having a couple to calm down and getting drunk, when you don't get stuff done.
I've done this a few times to great success, but I attribute it more to allowing myself an evening off to rest and relax rather than any specific substance. I'm also talking about moderation not getting completely wasted.
> We would never say this of other crafts. You would never nod understandingly if a plumber came to your house, completely wasted, assuring you he’d return to clean up the mess when sober. That would be ridiculous.
We do say this about other crafts. Musicians notoriously get drunk or high when recording [0-1]. Lots of programmers report doing good work after a beer [2]. I myself find that speaking Spanish gets way easier when buzzed. And so on.
The point is to not overdo it.
[0] https://pitchfork.com/features/profile/9683-cosmic-neurotic-...
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20101228123251/http://www.comple...
It is very therapeutic and lots of creative ideas are stored away. Each year gets it's own text file and I write in ReStructured Text just in case one day I decide to make my journals public in PDF form or something. Not all entries are influenced by mood enhancing drugs.
I have been known to read what I wrote the night before and swipe some of the cooler ideas as a tweet or expand the idea as a full post on my public blog.
When I drink I don't usually find myself drawn to writing or coding.
I think the more inclusive version of this advise should be:
Write crazy, Edit sanely
Not to disparage the author but I see he is selling a book called: Real Artists Don’t Starve.
I haven’t read the book, I have to ask myself what if that was the approach taken by Van Gogh? What would his art look like? My guess is probably pre-Impressionist Manet.
Carl Sagan was a famous pot head who said something like re-evaluate the ideas that you come up when you high after you’ve come down.
I find the ideas can flow when I drink. I have heard other people say that that doesn’t happen for them.
There’s a great quote on the floor of the Guggenheim in New York: LET EACH MAN EXERCISE THE ART HE KNOWS
I think it’s really, find what works for you.
Alcohol, which lowers inhibitions for a lot of people, can help with that. That's not to say that everyone should, or even that anyone should all the time -- but it can be a productive tool, just like taking a walk, reading a book, or getting some sleep.
I think the larger point that the quippy aphorism is getting at is that one should approach creative work with a sense of openness and abandon, before tightening up and focusing on details. Entertain and explore the variety of "YES" before committing to the bounding "NO"
I am in my mid-thirties with 3 kids. Perhaps someday I'll have a granddaughter. It is unlikely that she will have a full picture of how I conducted my life at any stage. What a strange way to support the debunking of a quote. Also, I think his take is mostly wrong.
Writing and editing are two different worlds. The comparison with drunk/sober works. Write with abandon, let the spirits, daemons, or whatever out onto the page. Then go back, with clear, focused attention and sort that garbage out.
Not to say a glass of the hard stuff won't help the process along.
But it worked well for writers in the past, from Baudelaire and Artaud, to Hemingway (who did wrote drunk), Lowry, Thompson, Miller, Bukowski, Burroughs, and tons of others...
Of course if you want to merely tie sentences together in your Mac on some Starbucks and never stray into self-destruction or anything resembling an outside-the-mainstream experience, sure...
That said, drinking/drugs as an artistic pose can be even worse than no drinking/drugs at all.
Obviously not something to rely on or to make a regular part of your life, but hey, it's definitely a thing.
Write drunk - shitty first draft where you don't care.
Edit sober - reasonable editing done when you have a fresh pair of eyes.
Why on earth did the author take this advice literally?
I think this is just an intellectually dishonest blog post trying to get some easy clicks.
It does not mean anyone should emulate his lifestyle.
Bukowski describes his semi-fictional self Henry Chinaski as emotionally broken person, who medicates his pain with alcohol, horse racing and the like. He never actually glorifies this state of being, rather, he's brutally honest about who he is and how he behaves.
There can be poetry in damage, but it's tragic beauty, and it's the sort of beauty one should not try to emulate on purpose.