Nineweaving on her site describes her writing process, and many of her Friends chimes in with theirs at her invitation. Many of them seemed to be of the Mental Movie Transcription type which I warn my students about: that is, watching a mental movie play and trying to describe it as it passes. I think this method risks a particular kind of bad writing (risks, not guarantees) -- and that is that the resulting description is a different thing from the hallucination, dream, vision or creation that the writer witnesses. The intensity of the vision seen, the feelings aroused in the seer, is not automatically transferred or transmitted to the written description, and in fact may have next to no connection to it. To the original imaginer or visioneer, of course, the written description is a mnemonic for the vision; but not to readers. Often this puzzles writers, whose intense feelings were present to them throughout the writing process. What becamne of them? Why were they not passed to the reader? Nineweaving's process, weird as it sounds (to me too!) assures that it is only what is in the words that is promised to the reader.
I have been a collector of writer's weird methods of evading this problem or anchoring themselves in the words. I'll think of a few.