Get Everything Done

First, the background to my question. I'm very interested in collecting some answers to the question, though (as, I hope, other people who do a lot of writing will be), so please just skip the background and go straight to the question in the last two paragraphs if you want to don't want to spend time reading the background.

I'm an academic – a philosophy professor – and Autofocus has been working incredibly well for me in lots and lots of ways. One of the central parts of my work, and the part I care most about, is research. Given my field, this translates into doing lots of reading, thinking, and writing (along with various supporting activities like going to conferences, organising conferences, giving talks, corresponding with people, etc.). Autofocus has had an immediate and quite remarkable effect on the reading and thinking fronts: I've been doing more reading, in more areas; I've been feeling more engaged and (dare I say it) authentic as I go about my work; and I've been feeling more creative, and have noticed that new ideas are flowing more easily. All of that is wonderful. It's much less clear, however, that Autofocus is good for my writing – at least, if 'writing' is narrowly defined, so that it means sitting and typing away at a manuscript (as opposed to reading, thinking, and note-taking which is related to writing projects). In fact, I haven't gotten much of that done at all since I started with Autofocus three weeks ago. I've perservered and tried not to worry about it, partly to see whether things would change as I settle into Autofocus, and partly because I was open to the idea that I was discovering, through Autofocus, that other things are more important at the moment than work on the paper I'm in the process of revising. But at this point, I'm starting to get anxious about it....

There's been some discussion of writing and Autofocus elsewhere on the forum, and Mark has recommended experimenting with the idea of treating writing time as a scheduled activity, outside the purview of Autofocus (which, as he mentioned, is the approach the majority of productive writers take – there's lots of empirical evidence of this). I've been hoping that it would turn out that I'd be able to take a straight Autofocus approach to writing, however, because I feel such a sense of freedom and fluidity with Autofocus, and because it seems to remove resistance so effectively for so many things. But so far, no clear evidence that that's going to work. (When I have written, it's felt fluid and easy; but I haven't done much.) So here's the question....

Has anyone found that a "pure" Autofocus approach to writing has been successful? I'm aiming this at people for whom writing is a central part of their work. And I don't really have in mind writing memos and reports of a few pages – something I've had to do plenty of as a department chair in the past – but writing articles, papers, books (whether fiction or non-fiction)...that sort of thing.

Thanks. And it would be interesting to hear from (or hear updates from) people who've tried to handle writing with Autofocus unsuccessfully, too.

Martin,

It is important to me to write daily, though writing is not essential to my job. I have a number of tasks that I want to complete daily, or three times a week. My first stab at AF ended in failure because I could not effectively handle these recurrent tasks in my AF list. If I wrote "Write" in my list, was it the writing task for Monday or last Friday?

After my first flubbing of AF, I brushed myself off and determined that I would need to reinstate a list of recurrent daily tasks, as I had had with DIT and GTD. Writing is on my recurrent list.

I follow the AF rules with the addition that I can work on my recurrent list at any time throughout the day. My goal is to complete my recurrent list each day.

This means that I will write every day, though not necessarily at the same time each day.

I know that this flies in the face of some versions of AF, but I have found it to be a quite effective method.

I'm working on a screenplay and I have found it helpful to break my writing down into several tasks and to scatter the tasks throughout my lists.
So for instance --

"Write the car scene
Work on the love scene
Work on the transitional scene
Work on the outline
Do some thinking about the fight scene"
ETC.

Then I work as much as I want on any of these tasks. Usually I don't complete it at the first (or even the fifth) attempt, but I keep working, crossing off, and meeting my task again later. I also insert an all purpose "Do some work on the script" throughout my lists. That item is sort of like a free pass -- it enables me to work on ANY aspect of the script that I choose.
So far I've made a fair amount of progress in the few weeks that I've been doing this. And this has been during a time when other commitments have threatened to devour my time. So I'm finding Autofocus to be a nice way of approaching my writing.
One thing I would add -- I try to get to my writing first thing every day. That's important too.
best,
Steve

I've been finding that the benefit of AF to my writing is that it encourages me to do at least *something.* I gave a speech two shots with AF so that when it was time to really get serious and finish it, I felt I had at least already made a start (though in truth, I didn't use anything I wrote before). Because I was under deadline I had to forget my AF lists and just write. I've done that with other writing on deadline as well. I've tried having a set time to write, but it seems like that builds my resistance. I honestly think I would have gotten less writing done than with AF. Sometimes I think what we do is compare AF to the ideal scenario rather than actual practice. For example, if I compare my speech writing with AF to writing a half hour a day, AF comes up short. But how many times do I actually write half an hour a day? If scheduled writing makes you more productive, stick with it. If it builds resistance, stick with AF. I doubt you'll ignore any hard deadlines.

Thanks for the responses, and the suggestions. As I understand you all, at least two out of the three people who've responded are essentially answering 'no' to my question: moises because of the DIT-style daily recurring task list, and Mel because AF was abandoned when the deadline(s) approached.

Steve, you *seem* to be reporting success with a pure AF approach, and the way you're doing it makes sense, but even there I'm not sure if you're describing a pure Autofocus approach. On pure Autofocus, after all, one can't be at all sure that one is going to get to writing first thing every day (which is indeed a rule lots of writing experts swear by). Depending on where I left off last night, and what stands out, I might end up doing all sorts of other things first. I also wonder if, when you say that you've scattered various specific writing tasks throughout your lists, you've done something that deviates from the basic instructions. Did you deliberately arrange for the tasks to be scattered that way (rather than all on one or two pages, say), or did it just develop naturally that way? I can't see any guarantee that it will, in any case.

I also wonder whether your approach, Steve, would work for all stages of the writing process. I'm currently revising and editing something, and that's pretty much just a matter of going page-by-page from the beginning to the end doing some polishing, so it's harder to see what the tasks would be at this stage, other than "Do some editing/polishing of the X paper".

Anyway, thanks again for the responses. I'm currently thinking about experimenting with a variant of an approach Hannah suggested some time ago; I'll post on that if it works well.

I don't mean to suggest that there's something wrong with not taking a pure AF approach; I'm just curious about whether anyone's managed to write productively that way, because it's what I was hoping for.

I've been stuck on my writing for a while, and AF hasn't automatically dissolved my procrastination there. I've seen great progress in other areas, but still have a lot of resistance to doing any writing work. I suspect I'm going to have to dismiss a bunch of writing tasks soon, and that'll just depress me.

The jury is still out for me on this, but I will know in a few weeks.

I have done less composing since starting AF. On the other hand, on Monday I sent music off to a concert organiser five weeks early, due to lots of admin, typesetting and other important but not yet urgent things AF had me do.

With that done, AF does seem to be steering me to composing, and I lost track of time while doing it yesterday, which is good.

On the other hand, AF has led me to undertake a task which was not on my agenda originally at all, to prepare a talk. I think this is a positive development, but if so it takes AF beyond the realm of efficiency into the area of growth.

Laurence

I would definitely agree that AF goes beyond the realm of efficiency into the area of growth. Apart from just plain old getting stuff done, I have started to action areas I had previously only had on a dream/someday list. I had wanted to start writing a book for years, and had previously done a few chapters, but like a lot of things it just disappeared into the background with the day to day urgent having the louder voice.

In the few short weeks since starting AF that has not only resurfaced but I have also started action on it, in that I have made contact with someone in the publishing industry to seriously move that goal forward. Where it will lead I have no idea - but I'm enjoying the journey! :-)

Martin, in a sense, I think my approach to writing is still pure AF because I am using the common sense rule. I work on writing projects as they appear in my lists, but when the deadline looms, I continue working as necessary. One curious thing about writing with AF vs. DIT is you move lots of projects forward a little rather than working one project to completion at a time. That is where individual differences come into play. For me, having lots of projects progressing is enormously satisfying, where for others that divided focus could be positively nerve-wracking. The cool thing is you can control that by what you put on your list. I'm actually at the point where I am resisting adding projects because I know I'm at my limit if that makes sense. On the other hand, too few projects on a list may build more resistance. Best wishes with your writing!

I agree that Autofocus is a great way of bringing many projects forward by small steps -- and finding out that a stray idea is actually worth developing (or not) -- and keeping many projects alive. However, the drawbacks that people mention are ones that I have experienced too. I would add one thing that I have learned about my working methods. A writing project of any scope always demands a period of intense concentrated work. This can be days, weeks or months (or even years!). And if I look back on projects that I have completed -- or periods of great productivity -- I realize that the best way of working, for me, has always been to set some kind of daily goal. It could be a word quota, a page quota, or even a paragraph quota. It could be a time-goal, such as "three hours a day at my desk with nothing in front of me except my writing." And then to stay with this daily goal for a long period of time. So maybe the DIT method is better when it's time to settle in and do some heavy work on a single project.

Steve, I agree with what you just posted. Heavy work on a single project is the way to go. I usually work a certain amount of hours, unless I am under a deadline and then I just WORK! No mercy either. I think for me that I was hoping that AF or GTD or DIT or something would make it easier to write my stuff, but the best I can really say is that those Time Management systems do take care of the other stuff so I can be relatively sure I won't go down the tubes while I AM writing. Writing is hard. I am gifted but not all that much gifted. I have to work. And as someone said, I can write or I can dig ditches. I think I will write.

I have to agree when it comes to big writing projects. I was only able to finish my book by having a hard deadline and then counting back to the present to see how many pages a day needed to be written and when each subgoal had to be done. I often wrote well into the morning to get it done. All AF lists (had they existed then) would have been out the window. But I also can't work like that all the time.

Mel: Point taken about the common sense rule. It does sound like you're deviating from a pure AF approach elsewhere, though (not that there's anything wrong with that... :) ), if you're resisting adding projects to the list so that you don't get too scattered or overwhelmed (or whatever exactly it is). One of the original dos and don'ts is "Don't try to pre-edit what you put into the system".

Laurence: Your experience sounds similar to mine. I've read the "Studio 13" thread (was it?), and was encouraged by your early reports, but this update sounds more like my past few weeks: some really good forward movement on projects, but mostly due to lots of activity on fronts other than the "hard core" – writing, composing, etc. – so that doubts about entrusting that core work to a pure AF approach start to arise.

And Steve, Trish, and Mel: yes, I've often worked that way in the past, too, and with success. But scheduling hours and so on does tend to mean that I end up battling resistance on a regular basis, which is why I've been hoping for an AF writing miracle....

Writing IS battling resistance, so I don't think any miracle will help you get around that.

I think Steve just posted the bad news for us writers. I was hoping for a way around my resistance to writing too, but alas, I guess...it's up to me. At least I am not the Lone Ranger. And have tested AF and writing with a bunch of friendly other writers.

On a more inspiring note, someone once asked Tennessee Williams if he ever felt blocked as a writer. He replied, ‘Oh, yes, I’ve always been blocked as a writer but my desire to write has been so strong that it has always broken down the block and gone past it."

Martin, I was referring to resisting adding more backlogged projects. I don't think that deviates from the rules. In other words, if a new project comes up, it will absolutely get added to the list. I'm just not going through old notebooks looking for other maybe/someday projects as I know my list is pretty much maxed out. Hope that clarifies it.

Well, Mel, you rock it! You are my hero. Steve, you and I are in the same writerly boat however.

Trish, your praise isn't deserved. LOL But thank you.

Martin, what if you used BOTH approaches? Schedule writing time and if you resist your scheduled time, work on your AF list instead. It would be like using a same-day urgent list with an AF list and choosing which you'd rather do. I hope you will try it and let us know how it works for you!

Steve, and Trish: I remain a bit more optimistic about the possibility of removing resistance to writing (or, more realistically, perhaps, minimising it to negligible levels). Robert Boice, who did more in the way of careful empirical study of the issue than anyone else I've come across, certainly thought that writing need not involve a constant battle with resistance.

Mel: Yes, thanks, the comment about backlogged projects did clarify things for me. So maybe you're doing pure AF after all! I suppose that I was hoping, though, that AF might help with removing the need for so-called "binge" writing at deadline time (which, as Boice documents, tends to be counterproductive in the longer run). Re the twin approach idea: thanks for the suggestion. I strongly suspect I'd end up just working on my AF list most days of the week instead of doing scheduled writing, though, if I thought of my scheduled time that way. Maybe I'd be surprised; at the moment, though, I'm experimenting with a variant of an approach Hannah suggested (in a thread the title of which contains the phrase 'artists and similar creatures', or something close to that). But let us know if you try that approach and find it helpful.

Just a thought from a non (but aspiring!) writer - I've had issues with significant backlog items that had a Jan 31 deadline. Given that we have only been doing AF since 5 Jan, I am wondering if, as we get closer to a less deadline driven focus, whether some of the resistances/blocks will start to ease .................?

Just a thought .........

You misunderstand me. The resistance is good -- it's a necessary part of the equation -- like the resistance that water provides when you're swimming through it.

Steve: Perhaps we're using the word in two different ways. By 'resistance' I mean something close to this: an aversion to performing a task or engaging in an activity, and/or an impulse (possibly quite strong) to avoid it; and one which is associated with unpleasant feelings when one approaches the task in question. (This is how I meant it in the initial post on this thread, and throughout. I take it that this is more or less how Mark typically uses the term, too, incidentally, but maybe I'm wrong.) And so my point in my last comment was that I'm inclined to believe – partly on the basis of Boice's work – that resistance in that sense _isn't_ a necessary part of writing, or even a helpful or useful part of it, and that in fact one is better off without it, both as a writer and more generally (given that, the way I'm using the term, the feelings associated with resistance are, by definition, unpleasant).

If that is how you're using the term, then perhaps we just disagree.

Martin,

I agree with you that Boice's conclusions, backed by research, are worthy of quite serious consideration.

Two of his principles are "Avoid writing in binges," and "Write in small, regular amounts" (all references to page 79 of _Professors as Writers_). His work concludes that writing in binges leads to mood disorders. What I find of interest, and relevant to this forum, is the similarity between Boice's two principles and the AF-DIT little and often principle.

But I have found that "little" and "often" are relative notions. If my hands are getting very dried out by the cold weather here in the Northern Hemisphere, I might vow to put moisturizer on my hands often. In this instance, "often" might mean "at least three times a day." If I vow to implement a redesign on my website, working on it often might entail working on it at least a couple of times a week.

From day one, I found that I could not fit tasks into my AF list that I very much wanted to work on at least once a day. Part of the problem is that, although these tasks are not strictly time-specific, they tend to have more or less optimal time periods. So, I found it best to jump out of my AF sequence to fit these recurrent tasks into my day.

Another Boicean princple is "Write while you're fresh." That suggests another kind of time-sensitivity.

So, I end up with the ironic conclusion that the Boicean precepts on writing, which accord at a very deep level with the Forsterian Autofocus principle of little and often, are best implemented outside of the Autofocus system.

Or, you could do what I do, and redefine Autofocus, or call it "Autofocus*".

For me, Autofocus* is about having a calendar (also called "diary), a notebook list, and a recurrent list. Recurring time-specific items go on the calendar. One-off time-specific items go on the calendar. Other recurring daily items go on the recurrent list.

I don't bother putting lunch on my recurrent list. But I do it every day. The time I start lunch changes each day and the duration of my lunch changes as well. But, at some point each day, I step outside of my AF list and eat lunch.

My recurrent list works a lot like the index card technique that Mark suggested and then, apparently abandoned. My recurrent list is open before me throughout the day, alonside my AF list. At any time I can work off my AF page or my recurrent list.

The Boicean writer would, I believe, put a writing session on either the calendar or the recurrent list. I would not put it on the AF list because I have a lot less control over when I reach items on my AF list. (If I had to wait till I reached "lunch" on my AF list, I never would have stayed with AF.)

Thanks, moises – I think I agree with everything you say. If I give up on trying to write in a purely Autofocussed way, as I think I'm about to, I'll very probably put it on my calendar, and for first thing in the day, just as Boice would recommend (and as I've done for various stretches of time in the past). From experience, I think I'm much more likely to put the time in that way than if I had it on a recurrent daily tasks list.

The idea I'm toying with, in fact, is this: Schedule some time each morning for writing, but have my writing tasks on my AF list _too_, so that I have the option of doing more at other times of day if one of the writing tasks stands out. This isn't strictly Boicean, as I recall, because it opens up the possibility of that I might engage in some binge writing (as opposed to limiting myself to BDS's, and learning to stop); but I might try it anyway.

And yes, "little and often" is a flexible notion, as I understand Mark's way of using the phrase. Some time ago I asked a question on here about the functioning of the "little and often" principle in DIT, and in his reply Mark said that 4 hours a day could count as little and often if, say, you're a concert pianist thinking about practice. (I think it was 4 – this gets at the spirit of what Mark said, in any case.)

I can't even tell you guys how great it is to have you talking about writing. I am getting so much out of this. Thanks and keep it coming.

I'm not familiar with Boice. What's his definition of binge writing? Don't the recommendations vary with what kind of writer you are? Say novelist vs. freelance writer? Little and often may not work for a novelist (but seems to for some here), but might work much better for a freelance writer with many projects.

I notice that when I come to a writing project on my AF list, I tend to get sucked into it much longer than other tasks. I don't have a problem with this per se, but it does mean I won't get through the list as quickly.

What Trish said! This is awesome and I'm getting a lot out of it.

My DPhil thesis is my writing project, and it's a mere decade behind schedule, because I'm just brilliant at resisting.

And whilst I've made tons of progress on lots of other things, my "little and often" on my thesis gets less time less frequently than anything else on my AF list, though it's still moving forwards finally, thank goodness.

Interesting, too, about the connection between "binge writing" and "mood disorders" - binge writing (the "essay crisis") is exactly what undergraduates at Oxford do, because of their weekly tutorials but zero class time, and it has the highest rate of depression and anxiety amongst students of any university in Britain. I am not familiar with Boice but look forward to reading more.

Trish: Glad you're finding this useful. Me too.

Mel: Robert Boice was a psychologist at SUNY Stonybrook who did lots of research on and writing about writing. _Professors as Writers_ is a readily available (or was last time I checked), and it wouldn't be hard to generalise the central advice beyond the academic context (for those who are interested in that); _How Writers Journey to Comfort and Fluency_ contains a lot more, and is a bit different in its emphasis, but it's hard to get hold of and expensive (or was...). Similar in spirit to much of Boice, incidentally, is Paul Silvia's _How to Write a Lot_. That one's aimed at academics again, and in places at academic psychologists (which is not my field), but again would be easy to generalise in many respects. (And Silvia's a lot more fun to read!)

Binge writing involves spending lots of time not writing, whilst feeling anxious and guilty about it, and then (often in response to a deadline) writing a lot all at once, working very long hours, perhaps entering a state of "hypomania", getting exhausted and burned out, and then, partly as a result of being burned out, going back to not writing and feeling guilty and anxious. The contrast is with writing every day (or every work day) in a scheduled, consistent, and steady way.

And Boice's recommendations are supposed to apply to all sorts of writers. He emphasises what he calls "brief daily sessions", or BDS's, although 'brief' is a somewhat relative term, I think. There's a lot of evidence that the majority of productive fiction writers who write as a full-time job write in a regular, scheduled way for about 4 hours a day – but that's still a brief session compared with locking yourself in a room for three days.... And Boice and Silvia both put a lot of emphasis on the day that you can get a lot done in much less time per day, if you're writing regularly and adopting various other good habits.

little b: Funny you should say that: my undergraduate degree was at Oxford (as I'm guessing yours was), and I developed all the bad habits then – writing the tutorial paper in one go in the small hours the night before the tutorial.... I carried that approach over into grad school. It wasn't until I became faculty, with all the other demand that entails, that the bad habits really started to get me into trouble.

Mark: I don't know whether you know Boice, but your two recommendations are certainly in the same spirit. _Professors as Writers_ describes exercises designed to help you separate intial writing from editing; and Boice (in PAW) ,and Silvia both push the idea that some form of self-monitoring – keep a graph of how many words you've written per day, for example – has been shown to be a great aid to productivity. (The idea that one should make a point of separating intial writing and editing can be found in various places, though, as you may know – I'm thinking of Peter Elbow, for one.)

p.s. Apologies for any typos, etc. – got to rush off to an appointment.

Thanks Martin. That Boice book sounds really interesting (although it seems to cost a small fortune). I just ordered it through an interlibrary loan. Will report back.

Hi Steve: Yes, when I ordered it (I actually shelled out about $99) the situation was that they'd make copies individually for you when you ordered it – the only time I've come across such a thing. Hope you find something useful in it, in any case.

Thanks for the information! I could have used it when I was in graduate school for psychology and kept putting off writing my thesis. Because of doing AF, I've learned that one reason I procrastinate is fear that a task will be "too hard." That was definitely the case with doing my master's research. If only someone had helped me break it down into manageable steps, I could have lived without intense anxiety.

With my dissertation, I was married and my dh told me that I was REQUIRED to finish my dissertation pronto. I wrote almost 18 hours a day most days and finished in record time. I'm not recommending that as I probably do still suffer some form of mental illness as a result. LOL But I was better off getting OUT of the academic environment. It's definitely not my thing, but I do have great admiration and respect for my colleagues who continue to do research and write about it for our benefit.

As for writing without editing, I imagine that's the appeal of the NaNoWriMo approach to novel writing. I'm thinking of giving that a go this summer.

Re: Counting words every day. There is a general maxim in management circles: "You get what you measure." I've found this to be true in almost every area of life. If you want to lose weight, weigh yourself and measure portion size and calories consumed and exercise done. If you want to save money, keep track of your spending in Quicken or something. Etc.

Re: Daily writing effort. IIRC, Kurt Vonnegut used to get dressed in the morning in a suit and tie, pack a brown bag lunch, grab his briefcase and walk out the door, around back, down the path, to a small out building converted to an office. There he would write until 5:00pm (taking his lunch break of course ;-). Ray Bradbury's autobiography indicates that he forced himself to write a specific amount daily. To each his own, but the biographies of most writers indicate that they approached it like a job so as to get it done.

"You get what you measure."
That's great.

Some famous writers and their daily quotas:

John Updike -- Three pages every day (a little less than 1000 words)
Anthony Trollope -- 1000 words every day. If he finished writing a novel but still hadn't met his daily quota he would begin writing another novel.
Graham Greene. 500 words every day. He would stop writing in mid-sentence when he reached the 500th word.

"You get what you measure." That idea explains a lot about what is wrong with some corporations. If you measure only profit, they you will maximize profit at the expense of customer service, quality products, etc. To change that, a company needs to measure customer service, or warranted returns, etc.

In direct line with Mark's last comment, here is a quote from Hemingway about writing a novel:

"The best way is always to stop when you are going good and when you know what will happen next. If you do that every day when you are writing a novel you will never be stuck."

Re your copies of 'Professors as Writers' costing a small fortune.

It doesn't! Not in this current edition anyway.

I bought a copy from Amazon for £10.09 yesterday and it arrived this morning (yay for Prime membership). ISBN 091350713-X in case anyone else is interested. Cut and paste into the Amazon search function.

I will read this weekend (very short, 185 pages) and post comments.

A totally irelevant thought but it strikes me that if Graham Greene was so specific about exactly 500 words he must have spent an awful lot of his time counting ..........

Indeed, Graham Greene must have spent a considerable amount of time counting. His daily goal was to write exactly 500 words, not one word more or less.

It made me wonder how many more books he may have written had he had a word processor with word count - then I realised that it would have made no difference at all because he would still have written the ame amount! Duh! Guess he'd have saved some time tho' :-)

I always loved the Greene story "The Invisible Japanese Gentlemen" where the main focus of attention has nothing whatever to do with the action. After the above fascinating insights I now suspect it took him exactly four days to write.

Incidentally when I go to the Studio, I aim to arrive at 9am, I leave at 5pm pronto, and take lunch across the road 12:30 to 1:30. I find these habits help. I hope AF will live up to its name though lets remember we are in a beta test and if tweaks are needed to facilitate creative art so be it.

Mike (re Vonnegut): Martin Amis is another writer who goes to the office every day – a small apartment withing walking distance of his house. (At least, this was true a few years ago.)

Steve: What I love (and hate) about Trollope is that he had a full-time job at the post office, too, but wrote every day before going off to work.

Mark: Boice is big on stopping (and so is Jerry Mundis – anyone who's interested can Google him). That's one reason I liked that aspect of DIT (in the chapter on keeping going, I think – limits, etc.).

little b: I suspect Steve was referring to the other book of Boice's I mentioned, _How Writers Journey to Comfort and Fluency_, which is currently $106.95 in the US (on Amazon) – though available used for a mere $93.60.

All: I've been looking at Silvia's book (_How to Write a Lot_) again since I mentioned it above, and I should have made my recommendation more emphatic. It's even shorter than _Professors as Writers_, and much more fun to read. Boice and Silvia don't agree on everything, but there's a lot they have in common. Boice's discussion is denser (though not dense in that book), more academic in style, goes into more detail about the studies that have been done (some by him); and contains more in the way of structured recommendations for writing exercises (as opposed to general habits your surrounding writing). Silvia is more fun. I suppose I'd recommend looking at both. (And although they're both aimed at academic writers, they're both easy to generalise in many respects.)

The semi-colon in that post was meant to be a comma, and I repeated myself (about Silvia being fun). See how good I'm getting at separating writing and editing? I'm actually separating them into distinct posts....

Martin, what is your experience of Jerry Mundis? I've seen his web-site before and the cost seems excessive and Mr. Mundis has something of the use-car salesman about him. Yet people swear by his method.

Thanks for the clarification Martin.

Ah, expensive books, how I hate them. Knowledge is meant to be a gift.

Just finished reading 'Professors as Writers', useful and interesting though yielded no real revelations about getting down to it. I will post a review sometime this week but I am intrigued by some of the papers he mentions at the end and want to read those too (particularly the case studies about the students who can't finish their theses!)

On a tangent, my AF list scored a *major* hit today when I finally crossed off a domestic admin task I have had hanging over me for 6 months. I'm ashamed to say it took all of 50 minutes to sort out and resolve, start to finish. This is less time than I've spent over the past few months making repeated excuses to my neighbour as to why I hadn't done it. Doh!