I have a very distinctive way of writing books, even though every time I write one, I think it’s the only sensible way to do it. For years I’ve encouraged my students to do it this way when they write their dissertations, and I’ve talked to friends and colleagues about it, subtly (well, sometimes not so subtly) suggesting they do it. And so far, after writing books for over thirty years, I’ve not convinced a single person to do it this way!
I’m sure that’s because everyone has to do it their own way. You really have to be in your own comfort zone when writing a book, you have to feel it’s the best way for you. And that’s because no matter how you do it, it’s really hard. My wife is now working fervently on her next book, a study of Shakespeare’s late tragedies in light of a philosophical tradition (which comes out of a certain reading of Wittgenstein) called Ordinary Language Philosophy, and just about every day she exclaims, “It’s HARD to write a book!!”
So everyone has to do it their own way. It’s true, virtually everyone starts the same way. They figure out basically what the book is going to be about and then they start reading massively, everything of relevance (and usually a lot of things that turn out not to be relevant).
My next step, once the reading is done, is what I’ve tried to convince others of trying, but their minds just don’t …
To see what I have to say next, you’ll need to belong to the blog. Why not join? Your membership fee will go to charity, and you will do yourself and the rest of the world a huge favor that will be entered forever in the annals of history.
Bart, can you tell us a little bit more about your wife’s writings, please. Are they strictly for the academic or would a mere layman enjoy reading them also? Can you give some titles please! Thank you.
They are strictly academic, and at a very high level. If you want to give one a go, try Shakespeare and the Grammar of Forgiveness. (Her name: Sarah Beckwith)
Completely fascinating to me.
Really interesting. I suspect that people often want to postpone the hard thinking that creating such an outline requires. It’s a kind of procrastination. I’ve written very long pieces but never a book other than my dissertation–which I simply viewed as five or six related long papers. There’s also a kind of cultural prejudice in the writing world against that sort of strategic, structured planning, a prejudice that is fueled by notions of “creativity” and “organic development.” Such notions are clearly not justified for someone like you. I would think that actually building the sentences is the fun part!
Dan
Wow! I can say it has worked very well for you.
You and J. K. Rowling are kindred spirits. And I must say the mapping out process worked out pretty well for her as well–she only earned A BILLION DOLLARS. (I know that’s not your main concern, but it is your publishers’).
It may not be my main concern, but I’d be happy to embrace it as a secondary one. 🙂
How may reams of paper did your outlines take up when you wrote Forgery and Counterforgery? Just recently finished it… slower reading than your trade books, but, as usual, great!
Ah, great question. Now THAT was a lot of work. By far the most work I’ve ever done on a book.
Your method is pretty much the way I wrote my one and only book (an ebook) on the history of U.S. manned spaceflight in the 20th century. It grew from a single volume 350 page book to a two volume opus (57 chapters, 1438 pages) with more than 500 photos and illustrations and about 600 cited references. Enjoyed every minute of that nearly 4 year project.
Actually, this is exactly how I write (and how I think in general, to be honest). The only problem is that I tend to fall down the rabbit hole, so I spend the vast majority of my time re-working my outlines in order to fit in all the knew information I’m digging up. That’s why it takes me years to write anything. It’s the major problem with being a completist.
Yeah, it’s hard!
Sounds smart, but I have my own good solid method for writing non-fiction (articles): I write the article through in one sitting and it’s perfect as is. Then I ask my wife to review it and she starts reorganizing the flow of everything. After about ten bouts back and forth I end up with a good final article.
For fiction, I know where my characters are at beginning and where I want them to be at end. Then I let them go and they go their own way, ignoring my lead. But having the known end result, they eventually come back to where I wanted them and I have a great book. My wife doesn’t review my fiction books, fortunately, or I’d still be on my first one.
Isn’t that the way Stephen King writes?
Bart.
If I ever write a book, I promise I’ll use your method. 🙂 In the meantime, do you have any hot tips on how to learn German quickly?! How long did it take you to reach a decent standard?
Ich brauche help!!
If you’re teaching yourself, and you want simply to be able to *read* it (not speak it) ABSOLUTELY the best way is to work through the book German for Reading edited by Carl Sandburg and one other person. Fantastic.
John R Wendel is the other author. Karl C. Sandburg (not THE Carl Sandburg). Hefty book, > 500 pages.
Right! Thanks Fantastic book.
I picked up the French for Reading and it is a completely different methodology for learning a language–incredibly fast but pays no homage to pronunciation or rhythm, and in fact seems to focus more on understanding the entire sentence.
If you want to learn conversational German go to Amazon and get a used copy of a high school level textbook teachers edition (Komm Mit! is a good one). Then subscribe to a German TV service that has Nickelodeon. The shows are horrible, but there is more dialogue in a 20-minute iCarly episode than in an entire Hollywood production.
Meiner Meinung du hast ja schon Fahigkeiten. . .you’ll be able to progress quickly.
“Ich brauche HILFE!”
The logic of German verbs is quite similar to the English verbs.
I think what also helps you succeed in writing trade books so effectively is that you are an agnostic. It frees your mind intellectually to pursue the research objectively , without first funneling it through the restricting filter of fundamentalism. Fundamentalist scholars tend to bring their theology first and then use their research selectively to support only those facts that do not contradict their theology .
I can’t imagine writing a book while my husband is also writing a book. I’m sure i would be on one side of the house with him on the other 🙂 And maybe meet for dinner at the end of day.
Good luck to your wife and her upcoming book . I’m already looking forward to reading the one you just finished.
p.s. you should both take a nice long vacation together , after your books are competed, to get to know one another again. (just kidding, smile )
Oh, and love your approach to writing, if you don’t mind, I’ll borrow a few of those ideas.
Yup, we write on opposite sides of teh house. Then take a walk, have drinks, cook, have dinner, read novels — and get up and do it again. Lovely.
Lovely indeed. Taking a walk, having a few drinks, and all the other cute things you do together. ( Gee, that didn’t sound very scholarly ) My husband and I will start writing tonight . 🙂
How do we know that the whore of babylon is ancient rome
Because we are told that it is the city that is ruling the world and it is situated on “seven hills.” It’s the famous “seven hills of Rome.”
My late mother was a successful author of about a dozen Harlequin Regency romance novels.
She told me her technique for writing. She would sit herself in a closed room and STAY there for as long as it took her to crank out four pages of double-spaced prose on her typewriter. She would not leave the room, regardless of time, until she had done that.
SHEESH! That sounds like REAL TORTURE to me!
CS Forester was the author of the Horatio Hornblower novels. I once read remarks he made about his technique. Basically, he did what my late mother did, and additionally in his case, he did it in a windowless room. to eliminate outside distractions.
if Jesus claimed he was divine, it seemed very strange indeed that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all failed to say anything about it.” Reinterpreted p.141
Jesus Himself told Satan that no one should be worshipped and served except God (Matthew 4:10 and Luke 4:8). Yet…
The disciples of Jesus, after Jesus walked on water, worshipped Him in Mt 14:33. None of the disciples ever heard Jesus say this was wrong.
God sent the wise men to worship Jesus in Matthew 2:2, and we should worship too.
From a leper Jesus accepted worship in Mt 8:2.
Against this, Luke wrote that Paul and Barnabas refused worship of themselves in Acts 14:11-16.
Jesus would send His angels in Mt 13:41, which are the angels of God (Luke 12:8-9; 15:10). If good angels only follow God, and Jesus would send His angels, this implies that Jesus is God.
The women at the tomb worshipped Jesus, clasping his feet, in Matthew 28:9. Nobody should accept worship except God.
Jesus said he would judge the world (Mt 24:31-46, 25:31-3; Jn 5:21-22, 27). Yet it is God will judge the world (Ps 50:1-6; Joel 3:12; Dt 32:35). This indicates that Jesus is God.
In Luke 7:48-50, Jesus also told the woman who anointed His feet “Your sins are forgiven.” Those who sat with Him said, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”
Only God can forgive sins, and Jesus forgave sins against God, showing that He was God in Matthew 9:2-6; Mark 2:5-12, and Luke 5:20-23. Jesus first said to the paralytic “Son, your sins are forgiven you.” The scribes said Jesus was speaking blasphemy, because no on can forgive sins but God alone. Jesus did not contradict their statement. He merely asked a question: “Why do you reason about these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise, take up your bed and walk? But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins’ – He said to the paralytic, ‘I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.’ And immediately the paralytic rose up and did that!”
Now someone might reason that perhaps Jesus was merely pronouncing God’s forgiveness, rather than forgiving sins against God on His own authority. However, note that Jesus said “But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”. So Jesus said it was He who had the power, and he was not just announcing that the Father forgave. Now,
a) Only God had the authority to forgive sins.
b) Jesus had the authority to forgive sins.
So, what conclusion are we supposed to draw?
After Jesus rose from the dead, the disciples worshipped Him in Lk 24:52; Mt 28:17.
(However, to give you all the facts, Mt 28:17 and Lk 24:52 have textual variants that say “worshipped” instead of “worshipped him”.)
Luke writes that as Stephen was dying he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” (Acts 7:59-60). Why pray to Jesus, if Jesus is not God?
A few suggestions to consider when claiming that the synoptics fail to mention Jesus was God.
Great post! I love to write about history, I have a blog through WordPress where I write about European Royalty so I enjoy reading about your creative process and particularly about outlining. I’m working on my own book (I have a publisher willing to read my manuscript) I will try some of your methods.
2 questions.
1. After you’ve done all your reading, how do you find a way to make a similar point in your writing that another author made in their writing without plagiarizing and saying it the exact same way they did?
2. Off topic. As you teach your students the material, how do you handle those students with an evangelical or fundamentalist background that refuse to accept your findings?
1. Two authors *never* state teh same point in the same words. It never happens. 2. I think I’ll add that to my mailbag list! I don’t insist on students agreeing with me, only that they use historical methods to reach historical conclusions, and in my class do history, not theology.
What was the roman empire’s relationship with other countries like? did it have alliances?
It had kinds of peace treaties, often broken. The frontiers were often a problem, especially in the 3rd century CE and following.
I can’t imagine your mastering a subject like “the afterlife” at all. And though I’ve followed your writing process (although not as onoerously) I have written a few books also with a clear sense of organization and outcome before I start. My question: why do you feel driven to keep writing books? Readers know your point of view–they know your bias. They know what they’re going to get when they buy your books. Have you ever wondered what drives you to continue writing? Do you see “one more book” as the ultimate clincher?? Irrefutable evidence? Of what?
I’m a little confused by your question. I *think* the assumption underlying it (tell me if I’m wrong) is that you’re thinking that the reason I write books is in order to tell people my biases? That’s not at all why I write. I write in order to convey scholarship on important topics. Every topic I deal with is different, so the point is never simply to repeat my biases. It’s to give information on that topic. My book Misquoting Jesus has nothing to do with my book God’s Problem; and neither has anything to do with The Triumph of Christianity; which has almost nothing to do with my current book on the Afterlife.
I’ve read some of your books because of their “scholarship on important topics.” As I told someone recently, I’d rather read Christian research done by someone who doesn’t believe than by a besotted “believer” who is only concluding what they want to believe or what they have been taught. What I found in “Misquoting Jesus” was a former Christian who had just discovered he had been snookered by Bible literalists. And that anger does creep in around the edges of your excellent research. And of course the snarkiness in my comment is a challenge …. why not investigate the Christian believing that is separate from, while hidden within, the denominational scaffolding?? Or do you see the scaffolding as all that it is?
I’m afraid I don’t know what you mean! I almost never think of Christians in connection with what denominations they happen to belong to. I’m more interested in what people actually say and whether it can be evaluated or not. (Make sense?)
Research always has a point where determinations have to be made–the focus and direction of the written work. Like history, by its very nature, the collating and writing and emphasis can’t be divorced from point of view.
I’m still not sure what you mean. If you mean that someone who is Lutheran will necessarily have a different interpretation from someone who is Presbyterian, or Methododist, or Greek Orthodox, or whatever, I”m not sure I agree.
The system of points, subpoints, sub-subpoints, etc. you use is very familiar to me. I had the unique experience of taking all my grammar and composition courses from the same professor as my father did. We both graduated from the same small college, as you might imagine, but 20 years apart. The professor was tough and highly respected. We were required to develop an outline for everything we wrote, starting with Roman numerals as your points do. He expected our outlines to be very logically constructed.
It’s a good system. I always felt it gave me a unique advantage over freeform writers. However, I did not follow that system when writing my memoirs, so to speak (the closest I ever came to writing a book). [https://didit.live] I wanted to just tell my story without suppressing the flow. Question: Do you start blog posts with an outline?
Nah, no time for that. I just start writing on the blog posts, and hope it doesn’t take more than 20-25 minutes….
Brilliant and Logical outlining – one thing that I find helpful in your approach is the ability to map out interdependencies and interrelationship of ideas throughout the book. I bring this up b/c many times when reading, let’s say right now “Stamped from the beginning” – I take paragraph by paragraph and find it helpful to outline the book capturing the writers’ thoughts and ideas.
Off topic: The Bible has been thrown around lately in regard to the immigration situation. Based on your study of the New Testament and early Christianity, what do you think the early Christians would say about the illegal immigration situation? Or is it one of those, depends on who you ask type questions?
They would say it is evil.
Question: Do you ever review your previous debates if a relevant issue to the book your writing has come up? I know it wouldn’t be considered a primary or secondary source, but just curious.
Do you mean to see what the other person said? No, no need. I don’t think I’ve had a debate yet when a person has argued something I haven’t thought of and known about before. (I don’t mean this to be arrogant, it’s just that if you study something full time for 40 years….)
Dr. Ehrman, Here in the forum, I notice you always put two spaces between each sentence. Is this something your editors enforce? Are those two spaces between each sentence in all of your manuscripts?
It’s how I learned to write: two spaces after a full stop, to help distinguish it from a half stop. And I continue to think it’s the only right way!!!
Thank you for sharing your process. I may just follow your method. I enjoyed sentence diagramming as well.
???? BTW, do you use Scrivener?
Nope! Use nada, just a word processor.
Your wife has my admiration: criticism of Shakesperean tragedies is hard even though they are wonderful to read. Wittgenstein is 10x more difficult and somewhat less of a pleasure to read. The two together; almost impossible for those with a normal-sized brain (like me) to comprehend. Good luck with her project.
Yes, and Stanley Cavell, her real hero, who sadly died three days ago, an interpreter of Wittgenstein (among many other things), is even harder!
I have to say something about Tricia’s comment above. I noticed she got some thumbs down even though she didn’t actually say anything disrespectful. I give her a thumbs up. She asked a legitimate question, even though it was a bit challenging. In response to that challenge, Dr. Ehrman questioned if she was alluding to his biases. In her defense, I will say that she also mentioned his points of view. In his defense, I’ll say he’s a big boy and he handled it wisely.
I just want to say this. Growing up in a certain setting, I used to hear remarks I considered questionable but I didn’t have the freedom to refute. In this blog, as long as respect is in order, we have that freedom. So, kudos to Tricia for asking the question and kudos to Dr. Ehrman for making this all possible. On a last note, nothing would make me happier than receiving a record number of thumbs down for this post. 🙂
Bart,
Could you share your experience about how you organize your notes? You’ve said that you review each and every book and article you’ve read and taken notes on certain topic of your interest. I wonder if you use some kind of software to orginize your notes? How do you organize them in case of some note has different concepts in it at a time, i.e. both ‘afterlife’, ‘sayings’ and ‘miracle’? Do you use any tagging system? How do you search within your notes? One of main problems I encounter is the difficulty to relate some note to certain category when it has various, sometimes vaguely related, concepts in it. Any word of advice?
Nope, no software. I simply organize them by the name of article/book. I review each file systematically only after I’ve written a solid outline of what the book will cover. Then as I review the files, one at a time, I plug in what is relevant here and there as appropriate in the outlines, and add points/subpoints when I come across something that is relevant but not already in the outline.
I had a college English professor, a tyrant really, who demanded an outline for every paper, which she reviewed in advance and marked unmercilessly for redundancy, vagueness, etc. HATED it. And today, I make hard outlines for practically every document I write…which admittedly is only clinical papers for surgical processes. Today I can point directly to that Professor as having changed my life for the better. I cannot imagine another way to write.
Ah, a tough lesson to learn, but so valuable once you’ve got it!
For anyone interested there is cherrytree. It’s a hierarchical note taking software, free and open source. It has tons of features. I don’t think it’s available for Macs though.
https://www.giuspen.com/cherrytree/
Hi Dr. Ehrman
Just a quick follow up question. Has the way you conduct your research changed over the years ? I can imagine when you were in college there were virtually no computers or internet. , That you had to actually go into a library, use their card catalog and find the book you needed .
So much has changed since then and the internet has almost unlimited information at your finger tips. Do you use the internet for the majority of your research ? Or do you rely mainly on holding the research material in your hands, maybe while sitting in your favorite chair ? Perhaps a combination of both ?
Oh dear, you are clearly not my age!! Yes, indeed, card catalogues were my *life*. And I do kind of miss them, even though it is obviously so much better now. But also much more iffy and frought. I generally don’t trust Internet sites for important information. Anyone — leading expert or lazy dunce — can post anything on the internet. So you have to be very, very careful. Almost all of my serious research involves peer-reviewed books and articles, that is, scholarship that has been approved by other leading experts as being factually correct.
No, we are much closer in our beliefs in the development of early Christianity than our actual ages 🙂
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.
Your approach is much like the one a faculty friend, history prof, suggested to me when I was beginning my dissertation, before the days of word processors, when the IBM Selectric was cutting edge technology. Filling in the outline, I would read, finding something worth keeping, I would make a bibliographic citation card and file it in my bibliography folder. Then I would make a note, only one or two sentences per 8.5 x 5.5 (half sheet) page, put the outline marker at the top and the citation marker at the bottom, along with the citation page number. I would file this in the folder for its section of the outline. I continued making brief notes until I felt that each section was adequately researched.
Creating a rough draft. For each outline section, I would spread the notes on the floor, select an order, add personal comments and transitions, clip the “draft stack” together, and return it to its folder. After all folders were processed into “draft stacks,” I would read through the stacks until I was satisfied with the contents. After that, I would simply type the draft stacks sequentially to create the final paper.
Most efficient method I know of for writing formal documents. I tried it years later using a computer, and could not improve on printing the notes and spreading them on the floor or table for assembling a first draft. It was a toss-up between re-keying and finding the original notes for copy and paste.
It is *so* hard to write a book! (But ah, yes, the Selectric. Absolutely top of the line, every scholar’s dream-machine)
Dr, Ehrman, can you explain a little how you go about choosing a title for your trade books ? Is it a collaborative effort between you and your agent or publisher ? Can it be a difficult process where the title can change as the book progresses . And if so,, can you give just a couple examples when you had decided on a title ( could you name the original title ) and changed the title to the book that finally appeared at our local book store ?
Now that’s a great question. I’ve dealt with it on the blog before, but think I will re-post it in response soon!
Great, thank you 🙂