|
|
|
|
|
|
by coldtea
3630 days ago
|
|
|
>As far I can, the author advocates the exact same strategy, they just use a week as their unit instead of a day. I don't see how it's that different otherwise. By being far easier to pull off, and thus less prone to slipping and demotivation? Quantitative changes often lead to qualitative differences |
|
|
If that were true, I suppose that would be a good argument in favor of a different cadence. But I don't see that the author presents a compelling case for that.
> less prone to slipping and demotivation?
As others here noted, having a rigid work schedule isn't about motivation, it's about discipline. Motivation is easy. Every aspiring writer has piles of it. J. K. Rowling is beloved by almost the entire world and is a billionaire. Few roles are held in esteem as much as being a successful published writer, and many dream of an idealized full-time writing life of quietly sitting next to the window with their typewriter/laptop/pen and paper sipping tea while they craft their next opus.
What's hard is discipline—the willpower to translate that motivation into the grinding work of carving out sentences for hours on end. A schedule helps with that.
I'm personally not convinced that a longer schedule cadence makes discipline easy. My experience is that it tends towards the opposite. A longer period of reckoning gives you more time to procrastinate and get out of the habit of doing the work.
A day might be too short for many—it is hard to keep up—but I think a week might be too long for even more.
> Quantitative changes often lead to qualitative differences
Yes, I totally agree. However, the author doesn't seem to realize that's what he was arguing.