I had to write a weekly technology column for a number of years. The best method I found was to prepare a outline of the content you are going to write as a series of questions. For my column I used 5 questions in a logical progression. Example question might be "Why is this technology important to small businesses?"
Once I defined the questions, I wrote in sprints without correcting grammar or spelling to answer each of the questions. Sprints were a few minutes, not more than 5.
When I answered all of the questions I would go back and remove the questions and edit for flow and add references and supporting facts. Last would be a grammar check, but I relied on my editor to review that given that I was often writing on deadline.
I produced more than 200 articles of 800-1000 words. Week over week even when I had writers block or no desire to write at all.
By framing your speech as a series of key questions to be answered, your presentation feels more like a real "conversation," rather than just dumping some encyclopedic information in a textbook-like order.
I'm basing a new business (Hostwriting, hostwriting.com) off of this method, but I combine it with other people asking and ordering the questions. I also like to have people verbally answer questions as a preliminary first draft.
I choose the topic, did enough research to paint the narrative I had in my head, but a lot of the role of a columnist is opinion based on personal experience and expertise.
I once watched an obscure online course by some Canadian lawyer with a similar method for writing books that way. Wasn't by any chance your inspiration?
From the recording it looked like a rip from a video tape straight out of the 80s. To be honest I found it in the early 2000s on a now defunct torrent tracker when already all sales pages had gone and only some scam reports still existed. Had a super fluffy title something like 'write a book in 21 days guaranteed' but I gave it a chance because I was curious. It was actually just like OP described, only applied for non-fiction books. The author was really all about hacking an expert-looking book in the shortest time possible - without calling it hacking. The process started by reading the top 10 books in your field, then develop 25 core questions, fill each question with 5 sub questions, use a timer of 5 minutes to write against the clock the answer to that question. The idea was to get into a writing flow and stop reflecting while putting out as much text as possible. He sold the idea by the good old pareto logic, suggesting that by reading the top 10 books you already know more than 80% of the people interested in the topic, making the book good enough to be seen as the expert. In the end he suggested threwing out 10% of the worst paragraphs, then editing it all together and done is the book.
Sounds like the same method I’m using from the same source. He also recommended expert interviews, preparing the questions for experts in the field and setting up calls to get their answers. It’s a great technique in my opinion, but I never tried to write a book using it. It definitely helped my column writing.
Totally forgot about that! But yes, that was him! I still have issues coming up with topics and the right questions. It is really hard to overcome that self-criticism. What is your way to overcome this?
In my own experiences, the key to writing essays quickly and expertly is just writing a lot of essays and consciously trying to hone your craft. Writing is a complex skill that takes lots of time and attention in little incremental steps, and the further you go the faster/better you get.
It's more than just practice though. It's also momentum. I find that the more I write, the more my brain passively seeks more material to write, and so I get faster at generating ideas and putting them on paper. This happens with programming too - the more I do, the faster I get at coming up with ideas and prototyping them. Same with sports, gaming, really everything that combines skill and creativity. I get more creative by just doing it more.
Certainly there's real technique to writing quickly, but I've always found that my own biggest barrier was having something meaningful to say, and the fastest way to get into a rhythm of actually coming up with meaningful things to say was to just start putting words down in the first place. Which leads to the paradox: you become prolific by trying to be prolific.
I personally have found the article pretty informative as I can relate to the topic very well. Takes me enormous amount of energy to write something that's more than a few random sentences together. There is a well-known fear of public speaking and in my case it's more like a fear of public writing.
Still looking for an efficient way to break thoughts down into pieces and that's one way to approach it.
You're not alone. Public speaking is no problem for me, as it cuts out the middle man, or, the medium.
Another comment points to the typos in this article in devaluing the author, while I secretly admire him for letting them slide. My threshold for typos is small, don't get me wrong, but enough years of unfinished essays behind me and I'll seek to learn from these masters (of efficiency, if nothing else).
For a self-writing timed exam essay, structure more simply:
- Thing because reasons 1, 2, and 3.
- Thing because Reason 1. Reason 1 elaborated. Supporting examples.
- Thing because Reason 2. Reason 2 elaborated. Supporting examples.
- Thing because Reason 3. Reason 3 elaborated. Supporting examples.
- From reasons 1, 2, and 3, the thing.
Paint by these numbers against the clock:
- Divide time available by 5, e.g., 50 minute period, 5 intervals of 10 minutes.
- Tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em: Spend first 10 minutes thinking about the topic and write a thesis statement based on three persuasive reasons you can support with examples from what you remember about the topic. (10 mins)
- Tell 'em (x3): Spend each of the next 10 minute blocks writing a paragraph connecting that part, elaborating on the reason, then providing as many supporting examples as you can fit in the ten minutes. (3 x 10 mins)
- Tell 'em what you told 'em: Write a compelling conclusion based on the reasons. Spend any leftover time proof-reading. (10 mins)
4. Clearly structure your sentences, paragraphs, and larger semantic units (essay, short story, etc.).
5. Edit extensively.
6. Be kind to your reader: concise and clear will always be better than wordy and vague.
7. Vary your word use, sentence length, phrase structure, and in general, rhythm. A mumbling monotone is difficult to comprehend. Read your drafts out loud just to make sure you have FLOW.
8. Don't be a pompous ass. I am very smart, is not a great way to start. Avoid being cute, pretentious, precious, ponderous, and otherwise fake. Develop your voice, which is how you sound to other people.
Excellent article but I think it is missing one point, and why I think joewee in his comment is more right.
Argument, Explanation, Definition, Description
are not the only types of articles or essays. What's missing from the list is "Story". Story is something that is entertaining to read because it first creates some expectations, perhaps in the wrong direction on purpose like a good detective story. Then resolves the issues preferably in a non-obvious way.
Therefore I believe joewee is right, it is best to structure your article based on a set of questions which should pique the interest of the reader.
Prolific, be definition, speaks to volume and not quality? How does proof-reading contradict?
I would say that his lack of quality (dropped T on The ;] Yes I saw them too ) is perhaps supportive of his ability to be prolific "[...]make your first draft, your final draft."
I understand that you are saying that quality of edit indicates quality of thought or insight to you.
I thought they was saying there's a jarring disconnect between bragging about your writing ability in a sloppily-edited essay. I don't think it's hard to understand their point, is it? I think you were being gratuitously pedantic.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
Well, there is Muphry's law.[0] Which I notice you - but hopefully not I :-) - have here fallen afoul of. Although you wrote in defence of bad proofreading; maybe there's another law for that.
There's an 80/20 to everything. I think that style is more preference so you can focus on getting your thoughts out without getting distracted. I think a detailed outline does the same thing.
Absolutely, couldn't agree more. Especially with his immodest tone. Well, there seem to be more errors getting through now people seem to rely on basic spell checkers e.g. 'he' and 'lightening' aren't caught. I often see such spelling mistakes in the kind of publications I never used to.
The whole style feels crude and inelegant, but the content seems useful. I don't think you are going to write carelessly like the author by following his advice, so the harm is limited.
> A drop in the level of the uterus during the last weeks of pregnancy as the head of the fetus engages in the pelvis.
The word lightening can also mean 1) to make something lighter or 2) the transfer of crude oil to a relatively larger tanker from a smaller in order to enter a port.
Once I defined the questions, I wrote in sprints without correcting grammar or spelling to answer each of the questions. Sprints were a few minutes, not more than 5.
When I answered all of the questions I would go back and remove the questions and edit for flow and add references and supporting facts. Last would be a grammar check, but I relied on my editor to review that given that I was often writing on deadline.
I produced more than 200 articles of 800-1000 words. Week over week even when I had writers block or no desire to write at all.