equestriatola wrote:
So, I take it I have to write it 'segementally' speaking, right? I like doing things all at once.
Ironically, in my attempt to provide writing advice, I did not express myself clearly or well. So bare that in mind with any advice I might give... It's entirely possible I have no idea what I'm talking about.
What I was trying to say is that SOME writers work well by breaking a story down into manageable chunks, but this certainly isn't the only way to write. Like you, I generally write things all in one sitting. For that reason, I tend to prefer fairly short stories.
But I can get away with this method of writing because I don't do it professionally nor do I have aspirations of being a successful writer. A professional writer must be able to write even when they are not in the mood. They must be able to find the story and find a way to express it well.
Any kind of good writing requires taste, intelligence and creativity. But To be successful as a professional writer, you also need skills in time management and the discipline to work every day. To write longer pieces; novels, longs stories, non-fiction books, in depth articles etc, it is useful (I suspect necessary) to divide the story into blocks that can each be tackled as a single piece.
That way you can write a longer piece and yet break it up into segments that you can write all at once. It would be difficult to write an entire novel in a single sitting, but by breaking it up into chapters, and perhaps breaking those chapters into smaller conceptual blocks, you can write an entire segment all at once and yet eventually build that into a longer piece.
If you have any familiarity with programming, it's a bit like writing a subroutine. It's a smaller part of a larger program that just does one small thing. By using subroutines in a program, you don't have to keep the logic and all the variables that make up the entire program in your head all at once... All you have to worry about is what is going on in that one small part of the program.
The analogy doesn't hold up that well when applied to telling stories, but hopefully you get the point. You can focus on one set of characters for a while to the exclusion of anything else in the story. You'll have to make sure there are no inconsistencies, but that's another side of the job of the writer.
Currently I am reading "Our Mutual Friend" by Charles Dickens. My understanding is that he mapped out the relationships between characters and the structure of the story before he set out writing it. But when he writes a scene, he seems to be so deeply focused on that scene that I can seem like it's own isolated story until it later links up with the rest of the book. He knew what the scene had to do for the rest of the story so he was able to set aside any worries about how it would all connect together and he was able to focus only on that scene.
That doesn't fully cover what I planned to write here, but I've been interrupted so often while writing this that I might was well just post it now...
_________________
Never let the weeds get higher than the garden,
Always keep a sapphire in your mind.
(Tom Waits "Get Behind the Mule")