As I understand it, I think a big part of the promise of your approach is that you are offering a structured way to confront your weaknesses. It’s daunting enough when you know them. Harder when you’re unclear what they are. And harder still if you have no idea what to do about them.
You start with unconscious incompetence (you don't know your weaknesses), then you move to the conscious incompetence (you know what your weakness is but don't know how to improve). Eventually you can become consciously competent (meaning, you improve on your weakness, but only with slow, patient effort -- like in editing), and over time you build unconscious competence (you can execute well on the pattern without thinking).
This helps me realize that the goal of my software is to help you through the whole arc (identify skills, show you exercises on how to improve, so it's eventually second nature). Thanks Roy.
I hadn’t made the connection to that model when I posted the comment, but it’s super obvious now that you point it out. Lots of tools don’t walk you through all the steps. Yours seems to hold that promise.
There is so much in this that I agree with - thank you for put it so clearly.
I have worked with writers for many years and it is so much easier to give 'starting' advice than how to 'keep going'. This is where the insight bias come in and the concept of disfluency (subject of my next book). Writing craft, or indeed any form of mastery is hard. Telling people to find their flow can actually do more damage as their expectations get challenged, they doubt their abilities and give up prematurely when it gets hard.
Maybe there is something in balancing flow-mode and puzzle-mode. It's worth trying to enter ideas in a way that feels natural and effortless, but eventually you get stuck, and at that point, you need to deconstruct what came out of your flow... but then if you stay in puzzle mode forever, that's a problem too.
I generally believe that all advice has an important principle of the opposite nature, and it's important to understand both of them together. Totally makes sense how over-emphasizing flow will make someone discouraged if they don't know it's only half of a process. Thanks Bec.
I loved your “How I Write” episode, Michael. I also really resonate with the idea of “productive friction” you outlined here - often times I find that coming up with the idea and bashing out the first draft is the funnest bit, whereas the rewrite and the refinement are much harder - harder in a good way.
Thanks Ines. There's definitely different energies in ideation and editing. I find it helpful to always have the ideation stream running, so even if I'm totally blocked and frustrated on an essay, there's at least part of the process that feels alive/inspiring.
On a whole different element of essay writing, I wonder about your physical research and writing process apropos organising your resources. I know you use AI to collect and cull but I wonder about the part of then setting up to sit down and compose. A particular app that then pulls in your AI? Pen and legal pads, sticky notes and scissors and tape?
Thanks for that link on friction KSC, will check it out.
I don't have a process for organizing research. Sometimes I have a massive outline doc, sometimes a Miro board, and sometimes paper/post-its. Anything works, as long as you can collect, cluster, and re-combine. What I find myself doing a lot is reviewing everything in one medium, and then creating a distilled version in another. This process helps me figure out the general material/sequence of a piece. When it comes to writing the draft itself, I usually do so from an outline without referring to the research at all. Once the draft is done, I'll look back through the different scattered silos to see if I've missed anything.
What I like about your approach is that you have patterns of values to go back to and reference—but you’re also dynamically driving forward and testing those assumptions with difficult questions.
Friction shouldn’t be seen as an obstacle but more a parachute. Jumping out of a plane (I’m told,) is exhilarating, but smashing into Earth at a 120mph, probably not so.
I just watched your “How I write” interview and I love the way you think. You are right up my street when it comes to analyzing prose. I do have a question, though: what did you find out about the author’s voice? Where does that land on your graph? Have you created any articles on this subject?
Good question Mike, I definitely need to write an essay that focuses on voice. It's one of the dimensions. Under voice there are 3 elements, each with 3 patterns: Spirit (Tone, Perspective, Subtext), Sound (Repetition, Rhythm, Rhyme), and Sight (Imagery, Words, Motif). Think of these as lenses you can use to analyze any particular voice. Each pattern is a question, not an answer, meaning that voice is the way someone tends to (consciously or unconsciously) deal with these patterns.
…congratulations on getting the product out there brother…so rad…also forgot to answer questions…but start from scratch every day…at least on something…our minds need at least tastes on novelty…or attempts to get there…
I’ve been subscribed for a while but it’s so great to see and hear what you actually sound like. This is the nerdiest way of thinking about writing I’ve had the pleasure of listening to. Thanks Michael.
Good point! There are some videos on my Substack, but there's listed in my Experiments tab and I don't blast them out via email. Maybe I should revisit video more frequently.
"There will always be 100x more beginners than practicing artists, and so it’s far more profitable to share 'how to start' than 'how to actually do the thing.'"
As I understand it, I think a big part of the promise of your approach is that you are offering a structured way to confront your weaknesses. It’s daunting enough when you know them. Harder when you’re unclear what they are. And harder still if you have no idea what to do about them.
This reminds me of the Four Stages of Competence model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence
You start with unconscious incompetence (you don't know your weaknesses), then you move to the conscious incompetence (you know what your weakness is but don't know how to improve). Eventually you can become consciously competent (meaning, you improve on your weakness, but only with slow, patient effort -- like in editing), and over time you build unconscious competence (you can execute well on the pattern without thinking).
This helps me realize that the goal of my software is to help you through the whole arc (identify skills, show you exercises on how to improve, so it's eventually second nature). Thanks Roy.
I hadn’t made the connection to that model when I posted the comment, but it’s super obvious now that you point it out. Lots of tools don’t walk you through all the steps. Yours seems to hold that promise.
There is so much in this that I agree with - thank you for put it so clearly.
I have worked with writers for many years and it is so much easier to give 'starting' advice than how to 'keep going'. This is where the insight bias come in and the concept of disfluency (subject of my next book). Writing craft, or indeed any form of mastery is hard. Telling people to find their flow can actually do more damage as their expectations get challenged, they doubt their abilities and give up prematurely when it gets hard.
Maybe there is something in balancing flow-mode and puzzle-mode. It's worth trying to enter ideas in a way that feels natural and effortless, but eventually you get stuck, and at that point, you need to deconstruct what came out of your flow... but then if you stay in puzzle mode forever, that's a problem too.
I generally believe that all advice has an important principle of the opposite nature, and it's important to understand both of them together. Totally makes sense how over-emphasizing flow will make someone discouraged if they don't know it's only half of a process. Thanks Bec.
I loved your “How I Write” episode, Michael. I also really resonate with the idea of “productive friction” you outlined here - often times I find that coming up with the idea and bashing out the first draft is the funnest bit, whereas the rewrite and the refinement are much harder - harder in a good way.
Thanks Ines. There's definitely different energies in ideation and editing. I find it helpful to always have the ideation stream running, so even if I'm totally blocked and frustrated on an essay, there's at least part of the process that feels alive/inspiring.
Thanks Michael Dean. I watched the video yesterday, taking notes, and finished reading today. Funny, this is the second discussion of 'friction' I read today. See https://open.substack.com/pub/kyla/p/the-most-valuable-commodity-in-the?r=4445c&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false. I actually enjoy the revision stage the most. The first draft always feels perilous to me, with all the questions and possibilities and, yes, doubt that I have any right to say anything about a topic.
On a whole different element of essay writing, I wonder about your physical research and writing process apropos organising your resources. I know you use AI to collect and cull but I wonder about the part of then setting up to sit down and compose. A particular app that then pulls in your AI? Pen and legal pads, sticky notes and scissors and tape?
Thanks for all you offer!
Thanks for that link on friction KSC, will check it out.
I don't have a process for organizing research. Sometimes I have a massive outline doc, sometimes a Miro board, and sometimes paper/post-its. Anything works, as long as you can collect, cluster, and re-combine. What I find myself doing a lot is reviewing everything in one medium, and then creating a distilled version in another. This process helps me figure out the general material/sequence of a piece. When it comes to writing the draft itself, I usually do so from an outline without referring to the research at all. Once the draft is done, I'll look back through the different scattered silos to see if I've missed anything.
What I like about your approach is that you have patterns of values to go back to and reference—but you’re also dynamically driving forward and testing those assumptions with difficult questions.
Friction shouldn’t be seen as an obstacle but more a parachute. Jumping out of a plane (I’m told,) is exhilarating, but smashing into Earth at a 120mph, probably not so.
I just watched your “How I write” interview and I love the way you think. You are right up my street when it comes to analyzing prose. I do have a question, though: what did you find out about the author’s voice? Where does that land on your graph? Have you created any articles on this subject?
Good question Mike, I definitely need to write an essay that focuses on voice. It's one of the dimensions. Under voice there are 3 elements, each with 3 patterns: Spirit (Tone, Perspective, Subtext), Sound (Repetition, Rhythm, Rhyme), and Sight (Imagery, Words, Motif). Think of these as lenses you can use to analyze any particular voice. Each pattern is a question, not an answer, meaning that voice is the way someone tends to (consciously or unconsciously) deal with these patterns.
…congratulations on getting the product out there brother…so rad…also forgot to answer questions…but start from scratch every day…at least on something…our minds need at least tastes on novelty…or attempts to get there…
Thanks - excited to have you try it. And I like that maxim (start something new every day).
I’ve been subscribed for a while but it’s so great to see and hear what you actually sound like. This is the nerdiest way of thinking about writing I’ve had the pleasure of listening to. Thanks Michael.
Good point! There are some videos on my Substack, but there's listed in my Experiments tab and I don't blast them out via email. Maybe I should revisit video more frequently.
"There will always be 100x more beginners than practicing artists, and so it’s far more profitable to share 'how to start' than 'how to actually do the thing.'"
Super insightful, thanks.
And I totally agree with all of q1
Writers supporting writers — let’s follow each other and grow. subscribe, and ill subscribe ANYONE!