Personal Preference
There is a myth in creative writing circles that writing a novel by hand is somehow a good way to write a novel. I get why people think this, but here’s why I think it’s a load of rubbish: first you have to write it all down, then you have to transfer it all to a computer. That wouldn’t be too bad in itself but what I used to find (back when I attempted this to see how good an idea it was, at around about the same time that I thought a red bum bag looked quite fashionable and cool) was that I would then discover much of what I had written was complete and utter crap. So I would change it again. All that added lots of time to an already time-consuming debacle.
Let’s get real: if given the choice, do you really think that Mark Twain would have opted to write his books on a typewriter instead of an incredible computer gadget that could make his life easier? I think you catch my drift. It’s purely romantic nonsense to say that writing a book on paper first is the better idea. OK, it keeps you actively writing as nature intended, but really, is it worth the hassle?
There is only one exception to the rule, as far as I can see, and that is time. If you really want to get away from your computer and the internet then by all means write it down on paper. That’s the way some novelists still work, and it seems to work for them. I guess it’s all personal preference, really. Oh, and if you have someone to transcribe it all down then that helps a bit too…
