How the river flows

If you've read this blog for even a short time, you probably know that I'm a big advocate of emotional and mental freedom during the first draft. Or, to put it more bluntly, having your muse stuff your inner critic in a trunk while you're crafting a first draft.

My agent, Nathan Bransford, posted a slightly different take on this today, and rather than taking issue with it, I actually know what he means. So I decided to see if I could differentiate between the inner voices of the picky critic (who should be ignored at this stage) and the useful editor (who may help).

"Nobody will want to read this stupid story."--critic

"That's boring."--critic

"Hmm, if they kiss here instead of there, it makes everything go in a totally different direction."--editor

"I brought them to the store, but now they have nothing to do here. It was more fun back at the party. Maybe I should go back there."--editor

"Don't say that--your husband/mother/daughter won't like it."--critic

"Is that even a word?"--critic

"Should she really tell him now that she's his mother?"--editor

In short, the critic is the second-guesser. The critic may be stifling your creativity by trying to please everyone you've ever known, or may be the one who makes you double-check your word choice and saves you from embarrassing misspellings. Regardless, all the critic's work can be saved for later drafts. Tying yourself in knots over those issues will just stall a first draft.

On the other hand, the editor raises questions about the direction of a story that can help keep it on track. Some people find it better to just keep writing on through the editor's doubts and questions; it's a matter of personal process. But I often find that if I take a little time to backtrack out of a scene that has led to a dead end, or if I think a bit about where the story needs to go next, I can keep the momentum of the book moving forward.