How Long Does It Take You to Write a Paragraph?

[Deliberate]

This is a very weird and vague soft question for people on the forum.  How long does it typically take you to write a paragraph of high quality content?  When I was an undergraduate, I had this perception that I could write at lightning speed and everything I had to say was medium to high quality.  Now I feel like it takes me an hour (literally) to write just a single paragraph that's high in quality and content (say a paragraph in a writing sample or even personal statement).

 

I suppose that's still good.  If one spent 5 hours a day on research, one could knock out at least a page or two.  If that's the case, one could have an entire book within a year.

[Loric]

Quality comes from revision, not the jotting down of basic ideas and structure. You're trying to do two distinct steps at the same and doing neither effectively.

Write first, revise later.

There is no wrong way to write, but there are certainly ineffective ways.

Qualifications: Published author who can write a book in roughly 90 days.

[MattDest]

Deliberate, it varies so wildly depending on what exactly I'm writing. For me, personal statements were sort of like writing marketing lingo about yourself. I had a job for a long time writing marketing copy so it was pretty easy for me. If I'm writing really technical philosophy that I'm sort of unsure about (or just need to be really careful about) it can take forever. 

[Deliberate]

Loric, do you mean one should write down a paragraph and then revise it (and many others) much later in time (as opposed to immediately agonizing over making it perfect)?

 

Can you break down in more detail what your process looks like?

[Table]

I agree with Matt. It varies a lot based on what I'm writing.

I've found the typical writing advice people give—"writing first, edit later," "just let it flow, worry about word choice later," "get your thoughts on paper as quickly as possible and then edit"—useful when I'm writing something like a personal statement or a non-technical bit of a paper. If it's something really technical that I'm not totally confident about, though, trying to let it flow would just give me junk. There's often not really much of an"it" to flow at that point. The reason writing these things takes me so long is because I do a lot of thinking & figuring things out while I'm doing it, and that works for me. 

Like you, I felt like writing came easier when I was younger. I think that's largely because I was less aware of all the nuance I now need to hold onto. As I get more and more experience, I expect it to feel easier again. I think this is just an awkward point in our philosophy-writing lives: we're aware of many details we used to be oblivious to, but not completely comfortable with them yet. 

[jamc8383]

It depends on how much work I've done on the front end (i.e.: synthesizing sources, processing material, outlining, note-taking, etc).  I tend to do a lot of prep work, so by the time I'm sitting down to write I can knock out a good five pages/day (double-spaced).  I would say that puts me at about 1.5 paragraphs/hr.  But, of course, I go back and review everything ad nauseam.

[Loric]

You don't just let it flow, there are 3 real steps.

 

Planning/Structure.

 

Word vomit.

 

Revision.

 

But thanks for downvoting me, because as an author and contributor of nonfiction works that are the top 10 in their genres I know nothing about how to write for deadlines nor  intelligently.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Loric

[purpleperson]

I agree with Matt. It varies a lot based on what I'm writing.

I've found the typical writing advice people give—"writing first, edit later," "just let it flow, worry about word choice later," "get your thoughts on paper as quickly as possible and then edit"—useful when I'm writing something like a personal statement or a non-technical bit of a paper. If it's something really technical that I'm not totally confident about, though, trying to let it flow would just give me junk. There's often not really much of an"it" to flow at that point. The reason writing these things takes me so long is because I do a lot of thinking & figuring things out while I'm doing it, and that works for me. 

Like you, I felt like writing came easier when I was younger. I think that's largely because I was less aware of all the nuance I now need to hold onto. As I get more and more experience, I expect it to feel easier again. I think this is just an awkward point in our philosophy-writing lives: we're aware of many details we used to be oblivious to, but not completely comfortable with them yet. 

 

Ditto the above for me.  Sometimes I don't even do the "let it flow" thing for personal statements and non-technical, non-nuanced texts.  But if I do ever "let it flow," it's for personal statements, my personal journal, non-nuanced writing, or otherwise "easy" writing.  That being said, if when I am writing something particularly analytical and argumentative with a lot of nuance, and I get stuck for too long, I will "let it flow" for a small patch of writing, and then go back and sharpen it.  Usually, though, writing with carefulness and meticulous-edit-as-I-go works for me for in that context just fine.  

 

To answer the OP's question, though it does vary for me depending on the content, I'd say on average, a typed double-spaced page would take me about an hour, assuming I"m focused the whole time and not checking other stuff, like email, Facebook, youtube, or grabbing a snack.   It's taken me longer at times, though, certainly.  

 

I'm glad to hear that other students take a long time to write a page, or a paragraph, too, because there was a time when I felt like it was just me.  I thought..."other people get this sh*t done so much quicker than I do."

 

I know some people who do just zip right through.  But I think they also don't write all that well.  They might write well enough and it's still quite smart.  But I've looked at the work of a particular person who just zips right through, and I found a lot of fault in the flow of the writing, (even varying sentence length, etc, transitions missing where needed, etc.), some logical inconsistencies, etc.  

 

One of my advisors (LOR writers), while complimenting me, told me that I write well and that that was important.  She said she's been advisor to a lot of students (or just had students in her classes) who were brilliant with ideas and theory but had a lot of trouble putting it on paper in a way that made the same sense that was in their mind.  So....take your time with your writing.  

Edited January 3, 2014 by purpleperson

[Table]

You don't just let it flow, there are 3 real steps.

 

Planning/Structure.

 

Word vomit.

 

Revision.

 

But thanks for downvoting me, because as an author and contributor of nonfiction works that are the top 10 in their genres I know nothing about how to write for deadlines nor  intelligently.

 

By "letting it flow," I'm taking about the second step, "word vomit." I can't imagine anyone here tries to write philosophy without planning and structuring it first. Like I said, if I'm working on technical stuff, the "word vomit" method does not work for me. 

I didn't downvote you. 

[GeoDUDE!]

It depends on the topic. IMO, writing the physical paragraph can easily be the the least time consuming part; often the thought behind the paragraph is what is time consuming. If it is something i think about often, I can write a page in less than an hour, of something I would consider quality. 

[Loric]

By "letting it flow," I'm taking about the second step, "word vomit." I can't imagine anyone here tries to write philosophy without planning and structuring it first. Like I said, if I'm working on technical stuff, the "word vomit" method does not work for me. 

I didn't downvote you. 

 

The word vomit method works for everyone, but you have to train yourself how to do it and how to revise properly. It's like training for anything, you don't just do and do it well, perfect, and without pain or mistakes. Don't believe me? Go run a 5k tomorrow with no training. See? You're sore, it didn't work out, and you think it's impossible.

 

But funnily enough if you train properly it's a breeze and you're looking to lower your time and move on to longer races.

 

I'm always surprised when someone in the humanities expects something which is an art form to be easy or require no practice. I expect that type of crap from engineers.

[DerpTastic]

I like the way purpleperson put it, especially about using the "let it flow" technique if you get stuck. I wouldn't worry so much about the time as the quality. No one reading your work will see how long it took you to write something, but they will judge it based on quality and content. 

 

Perhaps you are a slower writer, but the only advice I could give you is practice, and maybe more planning/structure ahead of time. It really depends on what you're writing. I'm quite a terrible writer myself, so I can't really give quality advice here.

 

Also, I wouldn't get worked up over trying to match what others say for how long it takes to write a paragraph, page, or book. Half the time you're going to get a vague response, like, "I can run a race in 30 minutes". How long was the race? What kind of race? 

 

Good luck!

[m-ttl]

Amusingly, if you just ignore the last (usually biting) comments that Loric makes...they're right in a few ways. Put aside the digs about engineers and boasts about publishing. Don't bring nuance into your first draft -- you'll peter out, slow yourself down, and take twice as long. 

 

A first draft needs to be just that. A draft. A textual (extensive) outline. My first drafts are very messy because I don't try to expand every single idea in the first go-through. I often put source texts in brackets, as well as notes, idea threads, etc. Writing the concepts and general ideas down quickly doesn't mean you don't go back and edit extensively. Obviously I don't cover philosophy, but applying heavier theory can be more technical for me (Art historians do use philosophical theory when helpful to our analysis). 

 

I think this is really dependent on how much work you are willing to put into editing. I usually go through 5-6 drafts on shorter papers and thus don't feel worried about the quality (or time needed) for the first one as much. If you're interested in getting looser with your initial drafts the nanowrimo ideas/book might be helpful in explaining how you manage to just write without editing too much at first. 

Edited January 4, 2014 by m-ttl

[Table]

The word vomit method works for everyone, but you have to train yourself how to do it and how to revise properly. It's like training for anything, you don't just do and do it well, perfect, and without pain or mistakes. Don't believe me? Go run a 5k tomorrow with no training. See? You're sore, it didn't work out, and you think it's impossible.

 

But funnily enough if you train properly it's a breeze and you're looking to lower your time and move on to longer races.

 

I'm always surprised when someone in the humanities expects something which is an art form to be easy or require no practice. I expect that type of crap from engineers.

 

I didn't say it doesn't work for me. I said it doesn't work for me for a particular kind of writing. A lot of my work is pretty technical and formal, and what works best for me there is to take my time while writing my first draft.

This is the case for a number of reasons. Big ones: Mistakes here do not stick out in the way mistakes in less technical writing stick out. I find the places I'm inclined to go very slowly on are places where I do really need to tread carefully. If I just slap something on the paper, I lose these instincts. That does not help me.

 

Do you really think mathematicians, etc. should be using the word vomit method for their papers? That would be bizarre. "Word vomit" works when you're primarily working in natural language, because your brain is very good at producing natural language quickly and without regard to detail. I don't see any reason to expect it to work when you're dealing with a lot of formalization and technical language that you're not yet completely fluent in. 

 

Don't bring nuance into your first draft -- you'll peter out, slow yourself down, and take twice as long. 

 

What I'm writing about often turns on the nuance, so not bringing it in would not work.

 

Obviously I don't cover philosophy, but applying heavier theory can be more technical for me (Art historians do use philosophical theory when helpful to our analysis). 

 

I really don't think art historians use philosophical theory in a way that's anywhere near as technical and detail-oriented as some of the work that gets done in philosophy. That's not a bad thing, but it's a reason to be cautious about applying your experiences here.

 

 

I think this is really dependent on how much work you are willing to put into editing. I usually go through 5-6 drafts on shorter papers and thus don't feel worried about the quality (or time needed) for the first one as much. If you're interested in getting looser with your initial drafts the nanowrimo ideas/book might be helpful in explaining how you manage to just write without editing too much at first. 

 

I appreciate that you're trying to help, but I really do not get why you are convinced that I must be wrong about this method not working for me when I'm doing technical writing that you (apparently) do not have experience with. Great, this method works for you. It also works for me for many types of writing, like I said.

It also does not work for me for another type of writing. It also has never worked for you for that type of writing, because you don't do it.

[Loric]

I am so sorry, i was mistaken. You have a completely new and unique situation which I, nor anyone else, will be able to understand, comprehend or lend advice to.

 

What you're doing is obviously working and you should continue down that path because the results are obviously stellar. You should never seek the advice of others. What you are doing is perfect and you should be awarded for your awesomeness. We can all bask in your light and just thank the heavens above for being allowed a slight glance into the glory that is your existence.

[Philhopeful]

This is a very weird and vague soft question for people on the forum.  How long does it typically take you to write a paragraph of high quality content?  When I was an undergraduate, I had this perception that I could write at lightning speed and everything I had to say was medium to high quality.  Now I feel like it takes me an hour (literally) to write just a single paragraph that's high in quality and content (say a paragraph in a writing sample or even personal statement).

 

I suppose that's still good.  If one spent 5 hours a day on research, one could knock out at least a page or two.  If that's the case, one could have an entire book within a year.

 

I've definitely experienced a similar slowing down of writing. I tend to think though that it mostly just has to do with the increased level of rigour. None of the things I used to write quickly were anywhere near the same level of sophistication as my current technical writing.

 

With regards to the people advocating for word vomiting--I think you're missing the reason why the work is taking so long. Its because it takes a long time to parse things through and make sure you're saying what you want to be saying. Word vomit approaches are great if you have writers block, are having trouble getting started, or need to get the whole thing on paper to figure out what you want to do with the structure. When it comes to a concise technical argumentative move however, theres no replacement for the slow process of writing it out accurately. In my experience, when you word vomit a technical paragraph, you never get to revise because in revision you have to throw the whole dang thing out and rewrite it from scratch slowly and carefully.

[Loric]

Yes, of course, years of training and experience by great literary masters who have tackled some of the most complex arguments and thoughts before and during our time were not aware of your unique situation and the manner in which it must be treated like the perfect snowflake one of a kind which it is.

[Loric]

I feel this might be pertinent to your interests:

[heliogabalus]

There are different ways of writing, of course. Creative stuff I write the quickest and edit a ton. Academic stuff, I've gotten to the point where I can write it pretty smoothly after figuring out the structure, but then I stillgo back and edit a ton. With translation, which I imagine is the most like technical writing, I end up going through it very, very slowly. I still have to edit a lot, but the tonnage is less than the other two.

[Ryura]

Yes, of course, years of training and experience by great literary masters who have tackled some of the most complex arguments and thoughts before and during our time were not aware of your unique situation and the manner in which it must be treated like the perfect snowflake one of a kind which it is.

Really - you think all the great literary masters agree with you? Such confidence.

 

A few thoughts on word vomiting:

First, it doesn't preclude the nuance and precision needed to do great philosophy. I know this because, as is well known, Kripke word vomited the entirety of Naming and Necessity, which is full of analytic nuance and precision.

Second, I find that word vomiting can help me to trace a thought down avenues I previously hadn't taken it. That is, just "letting it flow" allows my thought to go in a bunch of different directions and see new possibilities for it. Of course, almost inevitably, the word vomited paragraph(s) will be entirely erased and replaced with a more carefully written argument. But nevertheless, the word vomit can help on the first try to see new ideas.

Third, it usually takes me about an hour and a half to write a well written double spaced page for topics I'm not terribly familiar with. For topics that I am familiar with, e.g. Heidegger or Kierkegaard or the epistemology of disagreement, I can write a good page in about half of that time.

[Loric]

I don't think all great literary masters think anything..

 

I do think (god forbid, I've had an independent unapproved thought on this forum) that writing is an art form of its own that requires certain learned skills and practice. The basics of which are being ignored and justified by saying "it's different."

 

No, the construction of words into sentences that can be understood by others to effectively convey a point is not something that is different because it's philosophy. The terminology may be different but the same basic rules remain. Go outside with your philosophy in hand and try to defy the laws of gravity if you really think things can be so divorced.

 

They're not. It's basic English and people are trying to justify adding more dreck into the lexicon, and worse, lamenting about the time and agony it takes to do so while shunning all logic which compels them to consider writing as a learned skill (one which most people do not possess with proficiency).

 

So no, let's instead kowtow to a viewpoint that doesn't extend any further than the ends of their own noses. Keep swaddling the babe on toxic thought and see how much of a fully formed and informed person that brings about. A great experiment! Problem is, it's already been done countless times before and we know the result.

 

Too bad the papers don't appreciate peer reviewed confirmation of results, eh? They want new research. Maybe if we do it this time while standing toward the wind - there you can piss and tell me it's raining. Perhaps I'll believe it this time.

[Loric]

Really - you think all the great literary masters agree with you? Such confidence.

 

 

And just because you brought it up.

 

Since when is confidence something to be so ashamed of? What are you? British? (It's a joke, you wont get it, but the British find American pride and personal pride as a conceptual whole to be distasteful.)

 

"oh no! the confidence! anything but the confidence!"

 

Hand wringing nonsense. Really, if these are the rules for decorum around these parts they're counterproductive and absurd. If you want to learn, fine. If you want to debate - have at it. If you want other people not to mention something "confidently" which goes against your own preconceived notions (which have no bearing in fact) then I'll have none of it.

 

What, is the idea that you may need to rethink your stance on something going to shake your walls to the very foundation? Are you so fragile?

 

Man up.

[Ryura]

I don't think all great literary masters think anything..

 

I do think (god forbid, I've had an independent unapproved thought on this forum) that writing is an art form of its own that requires certain learned skills and practice. The basics of which are being ignored and justified by saying "it's different."

 

No, the construction of words into sentences that can be understood by others to effectively convey a point is not something that is different because it's philosophy. The terminology may be different but the same basic rules remain. Go outside with your philosophy in hand and try to defy the laws of gravity if you really think things can be so divorced.

 

They're not. It's basic English and people are trying to justify adding more dreck into the lexicon, and worse, lamenting about the time and agony it takes to do so while shunning all logic which compels them to consider writing as a learned skill (one which most people do not possess with proficiency).

 

So no, let's instead kowtow to a viewpoint that doesn't extend any further than the ends of their own noses. Keep swaddling the babe on toxic thought and see how much of a fully formed and informed person that brings about. A great experiment! Problem is, it's already been done countless times before and we know the result.

 

Too bad the papers don't appreciate peer reviewed confirmation of results, eh? They want new research. Maybe if we do it this time while standing toward the wind - there you can piss and tell me it's raining. Perhaps I'll believe it this time.

I don't think anyone here is denying that writing is an art form. In fact, since most people have acknowledged that their writing today is much different than it has been in the past, everyone appears to be in agreement with you that writing skills can and must be learned. What is in question is how, exactly, excellent writing looks in practice. You've stated one idea - a three step process that most of us have agreed we use for non-philosophical writing. Then we've responded with our experience when trying to write philosophically. But all you've done is say that our experiences are invalid because philosophical writing couldn't possibly be different. Indeed, you do so despite Table's rather illuminating example of mathematics as an area where your method clearly doesn't apply. Did you ever consider that, perhaps, you may be the one who doesn't want people to mention things that go against your own preconceived notions?

 

P.S. Statements like "man up" are probably not going to help your credibility on these forums.

Edited January 4, 2014 by TAGraves

[Table]

In my experience, when you word vomit a technical paragraph, you never get to revise because in revision you have to throw the whole dang thing out and rewrite it from scratch slowly and carefully.

 

My experience is the same. The editing goes just more slowly than getting it right the first time would have.

 

A few thoughts on word vomiting:

First, it doesn't preclude the nuance and precision needed to do great philosophy. I know this because, as is well known, Kripke word vomited the entirety of Naming and Necessity, which is full of analytic nuance and precision.

Second, I find that word vomiting can help me to trace a thought down avenues I previously hadn't taken it. That is, just "letting it flow" allows my thought to go in a bunch of different directions and see new possibilities for it. Of course, almost inevitably, the word vomited paragraph(s) will be entirely erased and replaced with a more carefully written argument. But nevertheless, the word vomit can help on the first try to see new ideas.

 

These are good points. I imagine that as we get more "fluent" with this stuff we'll be able to let it flow more. 

I think I do something similar to what you're talking about in your second point. I often think through technical points by writing down my first thoughts, paying close attention to the technical details but not worrying about whether the point will end up being a good one. Like you said, this helps me feel out the possibilities and I often find it easier to work out thoughts through writing. I wouldn't really be seeing the possibilities if I wasn't being careful about the technical stuff, though.

edit: I wanted to add that I do a huge amount of my thinking on paper—basically whenever I'm gathering thoughts about a topic I'm writing things down. I have a terrible habit of always wanting to handwrite things. I think the slower flow helps me think things through and just feels more satisfying. I also think it's a bad habit to get into, unfortunately. I'm often reaching for paper and pencil when it would be much faster to just type the damn thing up.

Edited January 4, 2014 by Table

[Table]

I'd also be really interested to hear other people's strategies for philosophy brainstorming (or whatever you want to call it). One thing I've found that really works for me when I'm having trouble gathering my thoughts about a piece of an argument is to just read some other philosophy paper. Some random word of phrase often seems to trigger a new perspective. I often put a troublesome paper aside to do reading for another class and some vaguely related comment will make my thoughts just fall into place.