I made a to do list on a large sheet of paper, spatially organised by topic but with enough white space that it still looks calm. This semester I’m going to write consistently, although it’s easy to look at the list of things to do (teaching, admin, ELINOR, our conference) and see that research will be the activity most easily postponed for more immediate deadlines.

My plan is simple: I’ll write an hour a day. That doesn’t sound like much, but I think that might be the beauty of it. I want to work less and get more done, and limiting time will not only make each bout of writing more intense, it will make me much more likely to actually get around to it. And if I’m totally dying to write more in the evening I guess I’ll let myself.

And no, blogging won’t count for the hour-of-writing. This hour will be for intensive, sustained writing, writing of essays. I’m updating my short paper on Links and Politics for Library Trends, I’m writing a paper on distributed narrative for AoIR and another on games and teaching. D’you think an hour a day will suffice?


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

7 thoughts on “an hour a day

  1. jill/txt » fiction and blogging

    […] 217;m planning teaching. First lecture of the year is at noon. Afterwards I’ll do my one hour of writing. It would have been better to do it before teaching, but, it’s the first cla […]

  2. […] n through weblogs, mailing lists and other happenstance, it’s difficult to carve out even an hour a day to, for example, write. Because writing something intelligent and original involve […]

  3. diane

    One thing that has really worked for me is to give myself a word-count goal, in addition to a block of time.

    250 words per 15 minutes is actually do-able if 1) you know in advance what you want to say and 2) if you save your editing for later.

    But writing like this has changed my process entirely. Now I find I have to set aside time to revise as well — including time for reflection on the writing I’ve done. The reflection feeds into the writing… This reflection is especially important when I’m writing quickly.

    I also need to set aside time to pre-write: to gather thoughts, take notes, determine my direction for day. I do more pre-writing with my academic work, the essays and articles and (eventually) revising my thesis into a book.

    So I’m really interested to see how your hour-a-day plan works out. I find I’m always asking myself, Why is it so hard to set aside time for writing? Seems like it’s the most important thing to do, and yet I find it so easy to shunt it into evenings and early mornings and generally off-moments when I’m not doing something else. (It must be said that virtually anything else takes less concentration, peace and quiet.)

  4. Lars

    Personally, I find an hour is too short for “intensive, sustained writing”. If it is at all possible, I would rather recommend seven hours once a week or three hours twice a week. For me, it takes time to get into the rhythm of a long text, and the first hour or half-hour of any writing session is usually spent writing stuff that I decide to drop when I later edit or rewrite the text.
    Although I have heard similar opinions from other writers, I don’t think this is universally true. Einar ?òkland once pointed out that writing, for him, is not “process-oriented”, but “product-oriented”. When giving writing courses, he would say: If you feel that you write better sitting on a green pillow, get yourself a green pillow to sit on. It’s more about what comes out of the writing process than about what goes into it (time, pillows, solitude, quiet, whatever). I second that.

  5. vika

    I find an hour about as long as I *can* write in a sustained, powerful fashion at any given time. I’ve also found it useful to schedule 10-15 minutes immediately beforehand for nothingness. Concentrating and letting go of anything else that might be on my mind, and thinking about what it is I’ll be writing imminently, can be a useful tool.

    Do write updates to this, Jill: I’m curious too. 🙂

  6. diane

    I think that “nothingness” is actually the most important thing you could do, Vika! I wish there was better name for it… I find that I need the same thing — some kind of empty time to relax into writing. Hard to articulate what’s happening then, but that state of “quiet mind” is totally crucial.

  7. Elin

    An hour a day keeps the doctor away, I’d say.
    I’d also say it is better not to write in the evening if that is not put in your schedule. It is better to keep a notebook and jot ideas in there as you think of them – but don’t write. If you write more than your scheduled time, you might just feel so on top of it that it matters less if you don’t write the next day. And, you will be so much more focused during the period you have set away, because you don’t have to feel guilty for not doing other things at that time and you can spend your evenings looking forward and be excited about that hour of your own. Diane gave great advice, by the way – writing is about so much more than the writing itself!

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Screenshot of a paragraph from a New York Times article published May 12, 2026. Text reads: "The price of tomatoes -tart bursts of flavor in salads and sandwiches — surged nearly 40 percent in April from a year ago on a combination of bad weather, high tariffs and climbing transportation costs."
AI STORIES

Genre glitches and unexpected promotional phrases as a sign of AI writing

A genre glitch is a characteristic of LLM-assisted writing where the text suddenly switches genre, typically inserting a short promotional phrase full of sensory details into an informational text. Genre glitches occur when a word in the generated text is heavily associated with a genre or context that is markedly […]

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.