Here is some Tina Fey writing wisdom that showed up in the March 14, 2011 issue of The New Yorker. In the article, Tina Fey talks about the lessons she learned from working as a writer in late night television (i.e. Saturday Night Live) and the things she learned from producer Lorne Michaels. One of these lessons is something that might interest writers, poets, playwrights, artists, composers, and creative types in any medium. That is: “the show doesn’t go on because it’s ready; it goes on because it’s eleven-thirty.”
She goes on to say:
This is something Lorne has said often about “Saturday Night Live,” but it’s a great lesson in not being too precious about your writing. You have to try your hardest to be at the top of your game and improve every joke until the last possible second, but then you have to let it go.
You can’t be that kid standing at the top of the waterslide, overthinking it. You have to go down the chute. (And I’m from a generation in which a lot of people died on waterslides, so this was an important lesson for me to learn.) You have to let people see what you wrote. It will never be perfect, but perfect is overrated. Perfect is boring on live television.
So what do you think of the Tina Fey writing wisdom? Is there something in your life that you are overthinking? Are you that kid standing at the top of the waterslide ready to go down the chute? I’d love to hear from you.
P.S. I’m an ex-shrink who writes award-winning novels. Check out my books here.
“the show doesn’t go on because it’s ready; it goes on because it’s eleven-thirty.†Oh my, that is a really great line. Thanks! Over-polishing my writing has never been an issue of mine, but that line speaks to much more than writing.
From my lovely email subscribers:
“This is just something I am learning Susan. It was a nice validation story and offers me another boost of writing confidence.. I love Tina Fey she is soo talented! One of my biggest realizations about my writing is I must stop judging what I write with such critical mind. I was so bad that I was my biggest writer’s block!
L.”
and:
“I overthink just about everything. It’s been a life long habit and I am trying to let this go especially when it involves writing poetry. I put my thoughts on paper and close the journal. Coming back to it, or not, is my choice. This is my way of not over thinking. Sometimes I will look at a journal and see a poem I have written, and not remember it at all. Sometimes I hate it and other times I am proud of my work and will edit and revise and then be satisfied with it.
This poetry writing is new to me but I am loving it. Mary”
Sorry, have to disagree here strongly, and think this is just a lame excuse for settling for second-best, all too common in America. Lorne Michaels is the last person I’d take lessons from: SNL hasn’t had a funny skit in 20 years. And most of my heroes “overthought,” from Balzac to Flaubert to Musil to Wells to Welles to Beethoven to Stravinsky to Kurosawa to Frank Lloyd-Wright. When either Tina Fey or Lorne Michaels is up to their standards, they can preach to me. Till then, who asked ya?
Point taken, John. Thanks for commenting, as always. I was reading it a bit differently, though. As a woman, writer, ex-shrink and mother of daughters, I was interpreting the “overthinking” more as a personal, self-worth issue–not as professional issue involving a lack of quality control.
A lot of women I know, myself included, have at one time or another questioned if they are good enough or worthy enough to write a novel, follow a dream or … fill in the blank. The overthinking is the voice in our heads that often says “who do you think you are that you think that you can do this. you should be taking care of everybody else, not pursuing this thing or that…” and it will go on and on. Sometimes this overthinking is actually resistance. It is our wobbly self-worth keeping us from doing anything risky, lasting, valuable or even remotely self-satisfying.
So I wasn’t taken so much with Lorne Michaels statement, but by Tina Fey’s reaction to it. To her willingness to go down the shoot, take the risk, and put her work out there into the world…. just my 2cents.
Well, I too ask that question, all the time, as you undoubtedly know if you read my blog. In fact, my most recent post was how gratified I was that Reese Witherspoon’s take on celebrity seems to validate the central premise of my story. I never feel certain about anything I do. As for personal doubt, well, read a good bio on Beethoven. He was full of doubts, despite the boasting. Mozart worried he was a lousy husband and father. Flaubert had serious self-esteem issues, and there were times when Tolstoy and Kafka thought they were worthless pieces of excrement. It’s not a man-woman thing, though so many women for some reason seem intent on seeing it that way, and turning it into a “gender identity” issue while projecting that very desire onto the male species.
I’m not sure what desire you think so many women are projecting, John. Could you say more?
What I’m saying is I always hear “as a woman” and how expectations are set differently for women, usually by men. While that was obviously true a long time ago, and while there are still a few chauvinistic types today, I think most of the time it’s something women are projecting. I’ve met plenty of condescending, chauvinistic women, but I don’t take them to represent the gender. I think it’s time we moved beyond how men see things vs how women see them, because we largely see them exactly the same way. “As a woman, writer, ex-shrink and mother of daughters, I was interpreting the “overthinking†more as a personal, self-worth issue” can be read “As a man, writer, ex-shrink and father of daughters, I was interpreting the “overthinking†more as a personal, self-worth issue” just as easily. No need to bring gender into it.
I have to strongly disagree with you on this one, John. “As a man, writer, exshrink and father of daughters…” does not read the same to me. Although there certainly have been huge strides forward for women in our lifetimes, it’s still not a level playing field. There are all sorts of statistics that say differently. Just look at the number of contributors who are women in the New Yorker magazine or Poetry Magazine for that matter. There’s usually 3 or 4 women to 10 or 11 men. And you’ve probably read all that controversy about how the NY Times only reviews women authors about a third of the time. Gender issues are still playing out big time and women are still hitting their heads on glass ceillings in practically every arena of our society: economics, arts, political, etc.
That said, I think men have different issues that are equally as hard. They are expected to take a heroes journey and all we give them in this culture to go through that rite of passage are fake, unsoulful pursuits such as making a million bucks in business or going into the military to fight a war.
Even if we both wish it weren’t so, I think gender identity is still doing a number on both of us. But I appreciate the discourse.
Now I’m going to let other people weigh in if they want.
Hey Susan -thanks for the post. By the way, one has to admire the amazing longevity of Saturday Night Live. I’m not a big TV watcher but it’s hard to miss the fact that SNL has continued to be successful for a helluva long time and has launched a number of people including Chris Rock, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler. It’s good to laugh, whatever does that for us, and Tina deserves her success – she is hilarious. I also love Parks and Recreation. And I love books even more 🙂
Sorry for the delay in responding, Alicia. Thanks for stopping by. I’m glad you liked the post! 🙂