1) Building a system is much better than setting goals
"Goals are about the results you want to achieve. Systems are about the processes that lead to those results." Goals are fine, but how many people stop running after their (half)marathon? I know at least three. So you should "fix the inputs and the outputs will fix themselves." This will make you play the game (=process/system) and "your commitment to the process will determine your progress."
----------------
It is an interesting addition to the "goal" thinking, and it closely relates to creating an identity (also saying "I am a writer" instead (or on top of?) of saying you will write 1h per week. I wonder what do you think?
Yes, I agree that goal setting in itself isn't enough. Like Jim Carrey said, you can't visualize and then go eat a sandwich... (lol - love that line.)
Systems certainly help you reach goals. For writing, that means deciding what your end goal is (e.g. write for yourself, try to get published, or simply try to get better as a writer, etc.), defining milestone goals, and then creating a schedule to help you reach those goals. Once you have completed a milestone goal (say, entering a writing contest), then you have to define a new milestone goal.
And yes, totally agree that creating an identity is very helpful!
There are no cut-and-dried easy answers here -- like you say at the end of your post, there is no "recipe". At least, not one single recipe that will work for everyone. Which is part of what this Substack is all about: looking at the issues, exploring possible solutions, and finding the solutions that work best for you. There are so many angles to look at, so many possible paths to take to writing. Setting goals are important, but it's only one piece of the puzzle.
Basically, call it a system or a goal: you need to make sure you are consistent and then just build on it. I love Saunders' shit-hill analogy:
---
To put it another way: having gone about as high up Hemingway Mountain as I could go, having realized that even at my best I could only ever hope to be an acolyte up there, resolving never again to commit the sin of being imitative, I stumbled back down into the valley and came upon a little shit-hill labeled "Saunders Mountain."
"Hmm," I thought. "It's so little. And it's a shit-hill."
Then again, that was my name on it.
This is a big moment for any artist (this moment of combined triumph and disappointment), when we have to decide whether to accept a work of art that we have to admit we weren't in control of as we made it and of which we're not entirely sure we approve. It is less, less than we wanted it to be, and yet it's more, too-it's small and a bit pathetic, judged against the work of the great masters, but there it is, all ours.
What we have to do at that point, I think, is go over, sheepishly but boldly, and stand on our shit-hill, and hope it will grow.
Yes, sounds very much like comparing your first draft to the final draft of the great masters... very counter-productive!
Another way to put it is: worry about being the best "you" you can be, and let others worry about any comparisons to Hemingway, etc.
It's almost guaranteed thought that for any published writer, there will be some out there who like your book but don't like Hemingway. We can't all be world-renowned, but we will have our readers. Those are the people we need to focus on.
Thanks for this, Graham.
I found an interesting idea recently Atomic Habits, namely that instead of thinking in goals, we should define systems that produce particular results, here, directly from my post (https://eightyfour.substack.com/p/james-clear-atomic-habits-takeaways?s=w):
1) Building a system is much better than setting goals
"Goals are about the results you want to achieve. Systems are about the processes that lead to those results." Goals are fine, but how many people stop running after their (half)marathon? I know at least three. So you should "fix the inputs and the outputs will fix themselves." This will make you play the game (=process/system) and "your commitment to the process will determine your progress."
----------------
It is an interesting addition to the "goal" thinking, and it closely relates to creating an identity (also saying "I am a writer" instead (or on top of?) of saying you will write 1h per week. I wonder what do you think?
Hi Igor,
Glad to hear you liked the post!
Yes, I agree that goal setting in itself isn't enough. Like Jim Carrey said, you can't visualize and then go eat a sandwich... (lol - love that line.)
Systems certainly help you reach goals. For writing, that means deciding what your end goal is (e.g. write for yourself, try to get published, or simply try to get better as a writer, etc.), defining milestone goals, and then creating a schedule to help you reach those goals. Once you have completed a milestone goal (say, entering a writing contest), then you have to define a new milestone goal.
And yes, totally agree that creating an identity is very helpful!
There are no cut-and-dried easy answers here -- like you say at the end of your post, there is no "recipe". At least, not one single recipe that will work for everyone. Which is part of what this Substack is all about: looking at the issues, exploring possible solutions, and finding the solutions that work best for you. There are so many angles to look at, so many possible paths to take to writing. Setting goals are important, but it's only one piece of the puzzle.
Thanks for the great insights!
Basically, call it a system or a goal: you need to make sure you are consistent and then just build on it. I love Saunders' shit-hill analogy:
---
To put it another way: having gone about as high up Hemingway Mountain as I could go, having realized that even at my best I could only ever hope to be an acolyte up there, resolving never again to commit the sin of being imitative, I stumbled back down into the valley and came upon a little shit-hill labeled "Saunders Mountain."
"Hmm," I thought. "It's so little. And it's a shit-hill."
Then again, that was my name on it.
This is a big moment for any artist (this moment of combined triumph and disappointment), when we have to decide whether to accept a work of art that we have to admit we weren't in control of as we made it and of which we're not entirely sure we approve. It is less, less than we wanted it to be, and yet it's more, too-it's small and a bit pathetic, judged against the work of the great masters, but there it is, all ours.
What we have to do at that point, I think, is go over, sheepishly but boldly, and stand on our shit-hill, and hope it will grow.
---
Yes, sounds very much like comparing your first draft to the final draft of the great masters... very counter-productive!
Another way to put it is: worry about being the best "you" you can be, and let others worry about any comparisons to Hemingway, etc.
It's almost guaranteed thought that for any published writer, there will be some out there who like your book but don't like Hemingway. We can't all be world-renowned, but we will have our readers. Those are the people we need to focus on.
~Graham
Sure! You cannot please everyone, a hard lesson as well :)
What a super insightful post Graham! And I love the title. Well done!!
Thanks Peggy! Glad you liked it!