"You cannot begin writting too early"

I have written many things that would probably never see the daylight (never be published). They are in varying states of disarray. Many were written not for myself, but for others, whether for my bosses or my professors. But today, I feel that while those works did not come to fruition, the writing I did seem to be really for myself.

I can write faster and with greater ease today than I could while writing those stuff in the past. Could it be possible that those rejected works were foundations upon which my current works stand?

I'm now reading an AMAZING book called "Writing Up Qualitative Research" (3rd Edition) by Harry E. Wolcott.

"Writing is not only a great way to discover what we are thinking, it is also a way to uncover lacunae in our knowledge or our thinking. Unfortunately, that means we must be prepared to catch ourselves red-handed whenever we seem not to be thinking at all. The fact should not escape us that when the writing is not going well, our still-nebulous thoughts cannot yet be expressed in words." (p. 19)

"Writing is a way to access that personal fund of information - and misinformation." (p. 21)

Here I have shifted focus to what I am currently writing, my thesis. I have started writing again. And whenever I am unsure about something I have written... I highlight it in yellow. It sits uncomfortably there. And it forces me to return to check out my assumptions and the basis upon which I wrote those sentences and to change those parts till they fit in with what I'm saying.

About two years ago, I learned a systematic method of doing a literature review. It involved a lot of reading. A year ago, I was so immersed into this reading and trying to synthesize everything I have read into a coherent whole. I found it extremely difficult to synthesize, as my reading transverses many fields, many nations and many styles. I have since given that up. I have stopped reading. And stopped obsessing about knowing enough before I can write. Fair enough, that method was good for a start and exposed me to (almost) everything there was to patriotism. But as for today, I find my reading most strategic and effective, when I begin writing. I agree with Wolcott who says:

"Not surprisingly, I regard my most effective reading as the reading I do while I am engaged in fieldwork and/or preparing a manuscript. Writing gives purpose and focus to searching for new sources and reviewing old ones. It provides pegs on which to hang relevant ideas and a basis for deciding what to retain, what to let go." (p. 18)

Another I learned through writing of manuscripts, was that my real difficulty, while initially was in producing text, but thereafter was really in reducing text. I tend to write too much. I was forced to confront this when the editor raised this issue that there was much text to cut. That episode taught me not to develop an attachment to what I write or how I think, but to be ever read to re-structure and edit, so that what I write would be interesting and easy to understand for a reader. I learned that what I want to say must align with what others want to read. So I also agree when Wolcott says:

"The major problem in writing up descriptively oriented research is not to get but to get rid of data! With writing comes the always painful task of winnowing material to a manageable length, communicating an essence rather than compiling the bulky catalog that would provide further evidence of one's painstaking thoroughness.  The greater one's commitment to letting informants offer their own interpretation of meanings and events - the emic emphasis, as it is referred to in anthropological circles - the greater the proclivity to provide lengthy accounts that dampen the enthusiasm not only of readers but of potential publishers as well. The lengthier the study, the more costly to produce it, and, correspondingly, the greater the risk of it does not attract a wide readership."