Recently, I chose to delay my normal story writing (except for noting a few new ideas, the pesky things) while I prioritized compiling a report. It made me think about the different approaches I have when writing different kinds of pieces.

When I write fiction, I often check against an internal sense of if something feels right; if it is authentic to this character, this world, this circumstance. I check the internal continuity of the worlds I’ve built, and that any dates and numbers are consistent.

Things like this post are not fiction, yet I am free to choose what I want to discuss and explore. The checks here mostly make sure I have expressed what I intend to coherently.

When I hear non-fiction, I immediately think of facts, like histories and biographies, encyclopedias and journalism – trustworthy sources. I personally consider that kind of writing harder work because I feel urged to triple check every declarative sentence I write to make sure I have not accidentally lied to my readers. There is more worry than frustration in making it, and relief mixed with the satisfaction when it’s finished.

There are similarities too, of course. They all need the broader considerations of what do I want to say, why do I want to say it, who will read this, how can I best communicate with them. And, once everything seems right, another check to make sure there are few enough typos and grammatical errors that people can just read, and not have to stop and decipher what I mean.

As with all skills, it is good to practice similar yet different things now and then.