My ultimate productivity hack: Write recursively
Yes, you should absolutely cover the same topic from different perspectives
In 2024, my base state of existence was “overwhelmed.” Between my full-time job, “Deadly Passions, Terrible Joys,” my weekly livestream with Ash Vandelay, caring for a desperately ill cat, trying to write a book, and freelancing, I spent just about every day exhausted, burned out, and hunting for ways to make my life easier — which generally meant writing nothing but the bare necessities and then stressing out about everything I wasn't doing. Something had to change.
I considered scrapping DPTJ altogether. And maybe my book, too. I'd keep up with the day job at PlanetF1.com and freelance.
Blessedly, Ash is not just a great collaborator, but also a great friend. As the year came to a close, she shared some of her own tips on how to manage your schedule, and she mentioned one thing that really stuck with me: Define your themes for the year, and try to do everything you can to operate within those themes.
Those themes can be topics I wanted to write about, or things I wanted to learn, or goals I wanted to prioritize — but they should serve as the guideposts for the year. Before I agree to a project, I should look at my themes and ask if this project aligns with my themes. If it does, great! If not, I should really ask myself if that project is something I have the capacity/desire to take on. Sometimes the answer is yes. Sometimes the answer is no.
I set out my themes, but as the year has gone on, I’ve started to think of this process almost entirely within the scope of my writing. I started out with three themes, but I've really only found myself centering around one.
The Elizabeth of a previous life would have seen that as a failure: I'd set out to do three things, and I could only manage to do one, which therefore earns me a failing grade in my own brain.
But this year, I've been asking myself why. Why did I set three themes? Was it because I had three major things to accomplish, or was it because that was the number Ash suggested based on the framework she was working from? (And no share to her, because her advice and guidance has been genuinely transformative; I'm grateful for the framework she offered because it meant I had something to work from!) Why did only one of those themes stick for me? What was it about the other two that made them easier to set aside?
For clarity, my three themes were:
Explore the history of Formula 1 in America
Explore Formula 1's history generally in honor of its 75th anniversary
Explore the sociocultural impact of the automobile on European society
While I've dabbled in all three themes, I've found the bulk of my attention centering on that first one.
There are a lot of reasons why! I consider it my area of expertise, so the more I learn, the better. I'm writing a book about the history of F1 in America. I use those findings in my day job. It also gives me plenty to talk about on my podcast. And I've been dabbling in this discipline for almost my entire career, so I have a base of knowledge to work from.
I've also found there is a ton of value in writing recursively.
What is writing recursively?
In high school, I had to read Frankenstein four times for four different classes. On my AP Literature exam, we were tasked with selecting a book and explaining in an essay how it was a bildungsroman — a book about growing up, basically. I'd read Frankenstein so many fucking times by that point that I used it as the base for my essay and got a perfect score. And then I got to college and had to read Frankenstein for class two more times.
The book absolutely haunted my educational career, but it taught me the value of reading recursively — or, reading the same book over and over again. I was most definitely sick of Victor Frankenstein's existential whining by the time I wrote my last paper on the book, but I also realized that, on each reading, I learned something new. I could write a dramatically different essay every single time I read it if I approached the book from a different lens. It took on a different complexion if I was reading it through the lens of Gothic literature, or of literature by women, or of epistolary novels, or of a bilgundsroman.
I don't know why it took until 2025 for it to occur to me that perhaps I could experience the same breadth of understanding by writing recursively. I didn't even realize that's what I was doing until a few weeks ago.
Basically, writing recursively is writing about the same topic again and again, albeit from different angles or for different purposes.
I think this finally clicked for me earlier this year. I'd put together a content plan that touched on all three of my themes, but I found myself returning to Theme No. 1 over and over. How many times can I write about the Indianapolis 500 being part of the F1 calendar for over a decade? The answer is “a lot,” because the more I tackle the topic, the more I learn. I've looked at it from the perspective of F1 needing a non-European race to justify its “world” championship status, and from the perspective of Alberto Ascari being the only F1 driver to try the 500 when it was on the calendar, and from the perspective of the 500's ties to European sanctioning bodies, and from the perspective of F1 historians who have to sift through a bunch of crazy stats, and from the perspective of the Race of Two Worlds bringing Indy 500 racers into contact with F1 drivers at Monza's oval. You can tackle this from a thousand different ways — but every time, I learn something completely new.
I think I ended up centering on the history of F1 in America because I'm currently working on a book about that very subject, so it absolutely benefits me to write one story from one angle, then return to write another story from another angle.
Instead of approaching this book as a massive, daunting task, I've instead tried to find ways to break it down into bite-sized chunks that I can turn into a podcast episode, a video script, or a PlanetF1.com article. Considering I've been working in the “F1 in America” sphere for a while, I also have a really strong backlog of work to consider when it comes to transforming those stories into a greater narrative.
I'll give you a little idea of what the recursive writing process has looked like using the US Grand Prix at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway road course (2000-2007) as an example.
I wrote one story on the 2005 US Grand Prix recapping, briefly, why it mattered.
I wrote another story on the 2005 US Grand Prix in more detail.
I wrote another story on the 2005 US Grand Prix, this time from the perspective of American fans who were already disillusioned with the ongoing American open-wheel split, and the politics that were now plaguing their race.
I backed up and situated the overall existence of the IMS road course within the history of the track's founding.
I wrote podcast episodes and articles about the founding of IMS.
I then zoomed in on the American open-wheel split for a handful of different DPTJ podcast episodes.
I wrote a few stories on the impact F1 had on the American open-wheel split, as well as how F1's FISA vs. FOCA war drew inspiration from American open-wheel.
I wrote about the impact of 2001's 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US Grand Prix that took place shortly after, as well as the various political scandals at other US Grands Prix that soured US fans.
I've written about the Indy 500's critical place in the American open-wheel schedule, making IMS a battleground for different sanctioning ideologies, and how IMS then expanded beyond American open-wheel to embrace both NASCAR and F1.
I've also written about the evolution of F1 in terms of professionalism, which impacted the expectations levied on the circuits hosting the sport.
And… plenty more that I know I'm forgetting!
Each of these stories is different enough justify revisiting the overall topic, because there's a unique narrative in each idea. I'm able to flesh out ideas in real time; then, when I sit down to write my chapter on the US Grand Prix at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway road course, I already have a ton of shorter pieces to draw from. I've already investigated a more niche idea. So, when I sit down for the chapter, I'm able to zoom out, identify larger trends, link distinct stories together, and craft an argument that fits the scope of my new project.
Could I write this book without having crafted all those other stories and podcasts? Absolutely! But it would have required the same amount of preliminary research and a large amount of drafting/rewriting/editing to refine my argument. I'd have done the same amount of work, but I'd be trying to climb a mountain all at once rather than spending years slowly working my way up to the peak, enjoying the scenery along the way. And I've been able to use all that early work to build my “brand” as an author, so it won't be some big shock to see my name associated with a book on F1 in America. Ideally, people will think, “Oh — she knows her stuff, I'll check this out!”
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love branching out and doing work that falls outside of that theme. But there's also something particularly wonderful about regularly revisiting the same topic and continuing to find something new and exciting within its confines.
Looking forward to reading your book Elizabeth!! And you gotta do a book tour that includes Detroit!!!