Should I Trunk It?

[Stunted]

What would you do if you were in my situation?

I've been working on it for roughly a year and a half, but there was a had a manuscript that you'd been working on solidly for about a year with a sad, inactive period of a few months in the middle. Even after all this work and love, the novel still isn't fun to read. The first few scenes are awful and conflictless. In fact, there's not much conflict going on at all. It's just one big, tan mess of "Oh...this guy's talking to me. I don't want to talk to him. I'm dissatisfied with my life in general. Oh, wait, I'm in love with that guy, but I'm uncomfortable with my feelings and don't know how to approach him." Then they have a big fight, which is pretty good, actually, but then there's just this totally inert ending and it's over.

There are scenes, here and there, that I like, and there's a stretch in the middle which may actually be good, but I'm just sick of this shit! I've been working so hard and I still have all this awful stuff around that I just don't know how to get rid of.

If you think it matters, I just started college, and my feelings about my WIP have a tendency to reflect my feelings about my life. So it may be that I'm stressed out and still adjusting and it's freaking me out novel-wise.

What should I do?

[cptwentworth]

Do you have any other ideas that you would like to start right now? Perhaps you could shelf this ms for a while until you have a little bit of detachment to it and then look at it more objectively. You might decide to scrap the main idea and save the piece in the middle you like for another story, or rewrite this one later once you've distanced yourself from it for a bit.

[Juliette Wade]

I think cpwentworth has a good suggestion. Leave it alone for a while and do something else, and that will give you a better view on the manuscript when you return to it. I'm sure you have plenty to do in college, anyway. :)

[KTC]

I third it. Shelf it. It's not going to crawl away. It'll be there when you're ready to return to it. Maybe next summer it'll look like something you'll be dying to tackle.

[dempsey]

What they said.

[Cassiopeia]

Start on something new. From your description I'd put it away and maybe in a couple years the answer to it will come to you.

[JoNightshade]

I'm just sick of this shit!

Regardless of what you ultimately decide to do with this manuscript, when you feel like this it's time to back away. If you tackle it when you feel like it's utter crap, everything you do to "fix" it is also going to feel like crap. Trust me here. ;) Go clear your head with something else - another writing project, college essays, some crafts, whatever. You'll know better what you want to do when you've got some distance.

[Stunted]

Thanks everyone. I think you're all totally right. There's another novel that's been nagging at me. I'm going to focus on my schoolwork and social life and when the muse calls again, I'll get going on another novel. The trick will be to keep an eye on the old WIP and decide whether to trunk it for real or go back to it, but I'll manage.

I'm so glad I asked for your advice. I love this forum. Thanks everyone! Wish me luck!

[Cassiopeia]

Thanks everyone. I think you're all totally right. There's another novel that's been nagging at me. I'm going to focus on my schoolwork and social life and when the muse calls again, I'll get going on another novel. The trick will be to keep an eye on the old WIP and decide whether to trunk it for real or go back to it, but I'll manage.

I'm so glad I asked for your advice. I love this forum. Thanks everyone! Wish me luck!
um...LOL...no, you don't keep an eye on it. You put it away. Out of sight, out of mind. ;)

[Raphee]

I'm going to focus on my schoolwork and social life and when the muse calls again, I'll get going on another novel.
Wish me luck!

Best of luck. I am sure all people on the forum have gone through what you are experiencing.

But don't wait for the muse.
Write something every day. Short stories, snippets, characters.
Don't worry much about this WIP, gears shall be working (or might be working in your head, and you might find a solution.)

Most important, try to learn what you did wrong, so that you avoid it in the future.

[Phaeal]

It sounds as if you've finished a draft of the novel. If so, you've accomplished a great deal, whatever the quality of the work.

Finishing what you start is the first big step toward being a serious writer.

"Practice" novels come with the territory, just like endless "practice" sessions come with being a musician. Sadly, there seems to be an idea floating around that if you can't turn out a publishable story or novel the first time out, you suck. Don't let that idea sting you.

Enjoy college and keep your fiction writing hand in with short stories or bits of the new novel.

The trunked novel can wait. I have one that waited for me for six years. It's just leapt out of the trunk, trailing fresh ideas and approaches like a baby phoenix trails fire, and we're in love again.

[allenparker]

As a parent whose chosen to educate his son even if it takes everything I have, let me give you some advice.

The adjustment to college is a big one. New people. New ideas. New ways to do things. It will color your judgment. Put the manuscript under your pillow and sleep on it until Christmas. Let yourself adjust to the new world. Still write, but write something fun, like term papers and love letters to a stranger you see in a bar.

Over the holidays, read back through it with a fresh eye and a more objective decision making process.

Second, I have a piece of advice given to me by my grandfather, speaking to me about race car parts. "Never be afraid to throw something away. You may have spent hours working on making that cam the best on earth, but if it doesn't work, you don't need it. And, don't be afraid to build something that might not work. It just might."

Of course, when he died, there was a chicken barn full of camshafts that didn't work. That was his trunk.

[john barnes on toast]

Is it one of the first full length manuscripts you written?

The reason I ask is, it sounds like it's fallen into to the all too familiar first book trap. I think a huge number of us, encouraged by the old adage of 'write what you know', think we're re-inventing the wheel by writing about the world as viewed through the highly specific prism of our own lives. The reality is that, by and large, stories by younger or inexperienced writers, about their limited world experience are indulgent, meandering, unoriginal and insignificant.

You may have broken the cycle, it happens occasionally, but be mentally prepared to face the reality that you probably haven't.
Don't feel to bad about it. I think the first time you bin a major project is a significant step for a writer. It's liberating.

[sleepsheep]

Is it one of the first full length manuscripts you written?

The reason I ask is, it sounds like it's fallen into to the all too familiar first book trap. I think a huge number of us, encouraged by the old adage of 'write what you know', think we're re-inventing the wheel by writing about the world as viewed through the highly specific prism of our own lives. The reality is that, by and large, stories by younger or inexperienced writers, about their limited world experience are indulgent, meandering, unoriginal and insignificant.

You may have broken the cycle, it happens occasionally, but be mentally prepared to face the reality that you probably haven't.
Don't feel to bad about it. I think the first time you bin a major project is a significant step for a writer. It's liberating.

I don't think this is true. Age has nothing to do with how good your novel is. Neither is experience with previous novels. A first novel isn't necessarily bad. A tenth novel isn't necessarily good. Binning a work you put a lot of time into is far more depressing than it is liberating. Still, if you feel like the project is beyond salvage, I say, set it aside and pick up something new. You can always come back to it with fresh eyes and a fresh mind. Good luck to you.

[offyatindy]

First, congratulations on putting a lot of words on the page. Not many people can really stick to it.

Second, have a look around. Life and novels are usually about more than relationships or people talking. (They should be.) There are cars and trucks and buildings and mountains and weather and other people. Some of these things are dangerous or funny or fun and make good fodder for a novel.

Third, take a walk and a shower. Take several walks and several showers. I'm not implying you smell bad. I just find walks and showers are good for generating ideas.

Finally, have a look at what you have written. You must have started the project for a reason. (Even if the reason was to make a ton of money with a bestseller.) There is probably some good stuff you can salvage. Maybe a lot of good stuff.

[allenparker]

I don't think this is true. Age has nothing to do with how good your novel is.

I disagree. The more you know about life, the more you can write about life. The better you know life, the better you will communicate about life. Novels improve when the author learns to convey their experiences in the written form.

Neither is experience with previous novels. A first novel isn't necessarily bad. A tenth novel isn't necessarily good.

Unless the person is not learning anything from the previous work, the tenth novel will always be better than the first. The average person will get better with each novel.

Binning a work you put a lot of time into is far more depressing than it is liberating.

I disagree. When you can look at your work objectively and say whether it is worth the investment or not is a freeing experience. You no longer have to depend on others for your approval. Knowing when to bin a novel is the key.


Still, if you feel like the project is beyond salvage, I say, set it aside and pick up something new. You can always come back to it with fresh eyes and a fresh mind. Good luck to you.

Here, we agree.

just my thoughts...

[Strange Days]

I disagree. The more you know about life, the more you can write about life. The better you know life, the better you will communicate about life. Novels improve when the author learns to convey their experiences in the written form.



Unless the person is not learning anything from the previous work, the tenth novel will always be better than the first. The average person will get better with each novel.


I disagree with your first point and agree with second. My objections to the first are: who said that life is the only inspiration for art? I cannot stand novels which are too close to life (and I'm NOT a big Fanstasy/Sci-Fi reader either!) - they bore me. Good art (writing included) may have nothing to do with life at all. Actually, Tarantino (not my favourite, but a good example here) will ALLWAYS be by far superior to Soap Operas. Real routine life rarely has a good plot... It's more important to know how to mythologize life, than to know life itself...
As for your second point- so true! your plot ideas might not get better from one Novel to the consequent- but the creativity of your writing inevitably does...

[Cassiopeia]

I've taken two months off from the rewrite of my very first novel. I went back to look at the first two chapters yesterday and I can see a blaring problem in chapter two. I didn't fix it, but made a note that it must be fixed. I hadn't realized it was that way. But I was more able to see it because I literally put it away and didn't think about it at all for those two months.

So, put this away. Put it out of your mind and get on with other things. Surely, you have more than one story in you.

Perhaps consider what I have been doing with my WIP. It was third person POV and I'm rewriting it into first person POV. The book is working out to be a much better story this way. Who knows, I may end up going back and rewriting it BACK into third person but I can promise you, it's been a heck of a wake up call to change from third to first.

So if you can't leave it alone? Try a total rewrite this way. I hadn't touched this novel in years. I dreaded the editing process. This has made it much easier.

Good luck and please remember, if you want a break from it, make it a REAL break.

[sleepsheep]

I disagree with your first point and agree with second. My objections to the first are: who said that life is the only inspiration for art? I cannot stand novels which are too close to life (and I'm NOT a big Fanstasy/Sci-Fi reader either!) - they bore me. Good art (writing included) may have nothing to do with life at all. Actually, Tarantino (not my favourite, but a good example here) will ALLWAYS be by far superior to Soap Operas. Real routine life rarely has a good plot... It's more important to know how to mythologize life, than to know life itself...

I agree, but would also like to add that life experience, or "knowing about life" as the previous response suggested, have all that much to do. It's an unfair assumption that a 60 year old will know more about life than a 20 year old, simply since they've been around longer. There are many exceptions.

As for your second point- so true! your plot ideas might not get better from one Novel to the consequent- but the creativity of your writing inevitably does...

Some people learn and grow, others don't. Some writers even deteriorate, or become lazy. Don't discount the possibility of a brilliant first novel from a young author. That's just not fair.

[Cassiopeia]

It's an unfair assumption that a 60 year old will know more about life than a 20 year old, simply since they've been around longer. There are many exceptions. It's not an assumption that a 60 year old will know more about life than a 20 year old. That's just the way it is. To ignore that we gather more life experience and the knowledge and wisdom that goes along with it, would be arrogant.

On the other hand, a 20 year old might experience something that a 60 year old hasn't because of their environment.



Some people learn and grow, others don't. Some writers even deteriorate, or become lazy. Don't discount the possibility of a brilliant first novel from a young author. That's just not fair.Be careful not to confuse personality with experience. Everyone grows on some level, it just isn't always evident because of their personality.

As to the possibility of a brilliant first novel? It 's possible, albeit, not that common place. Does this mean we shouldn't aim for it? Of course not.

I balk a little at your usage of, "young author" here, because no matter what one's age, "young author" also mean "new author".

[Strange Days]

It's not an assumption that a 60 year old will know more about life than a 20 year old. That's just the way it is.

But then- how knowing life is anyhow relevant to knowing and understanding art and its history? Alcoholic neighbor will allways be less fascinating than Orlando Furioso. Not to mention- worse inspiration for your writing...

[Strange Days]

Some people learn and grow, others don't. Some writers even deteriorate, or become lazy. Don't discount the possibility of a brilliant first novel from a young author. That's just not fair.

Not sure here. Yes, undoubtedly there are writers/artists, who write something brilliant and then- detiriorate (like Kesey). But then- the majority works the other way round. Even King's writing was getting better and better from book to book. Even Depeche Mode wrote better songs in 90-ies than in 80-ies.

[Darzian]

What would you do if you were in my situation?

I've been working on it for roughly a year and a half, but there was a had a manuscript that you'd been working on solidly for about a year with a sad, inactive period of a few months in the middle. Even after all this work and love, the novel still isn't fun to read. The first few scenes are awful and conflictless. In fact, there's not much conflict going on at all. It's just one big, tan mess of "Oh...this guy's talking to me. I don't want to talk to him. I'm dissatisfied with my life in general. Oh, wait, I'm in love with that guy, but I'm uncomfortable with my feelings and don't know how to approach him." Then they have a big fight, which is pretty good, actually, but then there's just this totally inert ending and it's over.

There are scenes, here and there, that I like, and there's a stretch in the middle which may actually be good, but I'm just sick of this shit! I've been working so hard and I still have all this awful stuff around that I just don't know how to get rid of.

If you think it matters, I just started college, and my feelings about my WIP have a tendency to reflect my feelings about my life. So it may be that I'm stressed out and still adjusting and it's freaking me out novel-wise.

What should I do?


You're paying for college. I'd give priority to that. Don't let this WIP mess up your education. I'm in college too and I have virtually no time for writing. I'm in college right now as I write actually. :D

I write while on the bus and in the 10 minute breaks in between lectures. I can't put too much time into writing because I need near perfect grades for the career I'm aiming for.

So, my advice: Settle well into college. Take a break from this novel. Write other stuff in the time you have and once you're well adjusted, you might want to come back to this with a fresh eye.

Good luck. :)

[allenparker]

I agree, but would also like to add that life experience, or "knowing about life" as the previous response suggested, have all that much to do. It's an unfair assumption that a 60 year old will know more about life than a 20 year old, simply since they've been around longer. There are many exceptions.

There are exceptions. There are not many exceptions. Exceptions are so rare that when they happen, you hear about them. Ask yourself this question. Do you want an editor who has one year of experience or 30?

It is a fair assumption that a 60 year old will know mountains more than a 20 year old. The real problem is that the only way you know this for sure is to live to be 60 and look back.

I haven't reached that point, but in my 50 years, I can say that I know a lot more about life, love, family, friends, work, sports, patriotism, and the eternal hope of life everlasting at 50 than I did at 20.

At 20, I thought I knew it all. I also thought my Dad was an idiot. Today, I know I don't know everything, but those things I don't know about, I can as my Dad about. He'll probably know.


Some people learn and grow, others don't. Some writers even deteriorate, or become lazy. Don't discount the possibility of a brilliant first novel from a young author. That's just not fair.

There are people on here who have their first novel published. There are people on here who have their fiftieth novel published. Everyone grows in life. If you don't you die. The ones that don't realize this are the ones who haven't lived that life.

Lastly, please name one brilliant first novel from a teenager.

[john barnes on toast]

I don't think this is true. Age has nothing to do with how good your novel is. Neither is experience with previous novels. A first novel isn't necessarily bad. A tenth novel isn't necessarily good. Binning a work you put a lot of time into is far more depressing than it is liberating.


I probably should have been clearer with my point about younger/less experienced writers producing indulgent crap, in that it related specifically to those attempting to write that archetypal first book (the one where they have a rubbish job, and no girlfriend because they're out of step withe the times.)

And even though I'd concede that age and experience are no absolute baromiter of quality (and that some book's brilliance can be defined by their sheer youthful vigour) I would say that I find it hard to believe that any writer truly fulfills their potential in their first completed manuscript (emphasis on completed rather than published).

Regarding the liberating value of junking a once-precious project, I really will have to stand firm on that point. I honestly think it's one of the best things a young writer can do.

[allenparker]

Actually, Tarantino (not my favourite, but a good example here) will ALLWAYS be by far superior to Soap Operas. Real routine life rarely has a good plot... It's more important to know how to mythologize life, than to know life itself...


Tarantino is a great example. Let's take a look. He studied the masters. He's legendary for placing Godard's work in his. His style, French New Wave, is expressionistic of the French, Swiss and American New Wave. In his commercially successful, he tones the style and design into a more appealing array of long shots, out of sequence takes, building stylized work from camera angles brought out by the masters of the New Wave era, especially the homages to I Am Curious, Yellow and Blue.

BTW, Tarantino was 29 when he premeired River Dogs for Sundance. In the film world, he was almost ancient.

My son, who I am willing to let anyone interested in investing, will hopefully debut his latest work at the 2011 Sundance at the ripe old age of 21. Of course, this will be his 10th film.

Send all checks to me. I'll apply them to the latest batch of dead people's costumes.

As a final note, Soap Operas have little to do with real life. And film students study Soap Operas because it gives them an insight into fast paced production and the differnt styles of acting all piled into one place.

[Strange Days]

Lastly, please name one brilliant first novel from a teenager.

"Gunslinger". Stephen King was 18 when he started it. Whole Dark Tower series -as any other great/commercially successfull book- is based mostly on images and characters from classic literature, poetry and modern pop-culture- starting with Chant de Roland and Child Roland to the Dark Tower came... to Wizard of Oz and Magnificient Seven... Yes, he did use his life experiences in it- but only to signify their insufficiency as a source of inspiration in contrast to art and imagination...

[Strange Days]

Tarantino is a great example. Let's take a look. He studied the masters. He's legendary for placing Godard's work in his. His style, French New Wave, is expressionistic of the French, Swiss and American New Wave.


And that's why he is a great example. Does he make succesfull and entertaining movies because he "lived till 60" and saw "a lot of life"? No! It's because he "studied the masters"! He took inspiration from their work, from their art. What does it have to do with life? I never said knowing/studiying the subject of what you're working on is unnecessary- I said life experience itself is not such a big deal at this point. As for his age- well Kim Ki Duk also debuted after 30. And his life experience as a shepherd didn't help him in directing at all...

[john barnes on toast]

And that's why he is a great example. Does he make succesfull and entertaining movies because he "lived till 60" and saw "a lot of life"? No! It's because he "studied the masters"! He took inspiration from their work, from their art. What does it have to do with life? I never said knowing/studiying the subject of what you're working on is unnecessary- I said life experience itself is not such a big deal at this point. As for his age- well Kim Ki Duk also debuted after 30. And his life experience as a shepherd didn't help him in directing at all...


I might be missing your point here, but are you suggesting that art can be an adequate substitute for experience when it comes to finding inspiration?

Even if that were true (and I'm far from convinced) then surely it would fall down somewhat on the fact that an older person will have experienced more art as well as life?

If the path to great film making (to continue your own theme) was to voraciously study other films, then you'd still improve as you grew older, by virtue of having had more time to study them.

[Strange Days]

I might be missing your point here, but are you suggesting that art can be an adequate substitute for experience when it comes to finding inspiration?
Even if that were true (and I'm far from convinced) then surely it would fall down somewhat on the fact that an older person will have experienced more art as well as life?
If the path to great film making (to continue your own theme) was to voraciously study other films, then you'd still improve as you grew older, by virtue of having had more time to study them.

Let me correct myself here: Art AND Knowledge. Those two are not just adequate substitutes- those are superior to experience for the sake of imagination. Knowledge which comes from books (films/TV/internet) is superior to the experience the life itself provides to you (again- if we are talking about its use for imagination)... And I disagree with your second point- you entirely dismiss intensity of studies and research, taking to consideration only time. Does a good research substitute a good experience for the sake of writing? Of course it does.
Again, returning to my example: What book will sell better- the one with main character created from Roland the Furios and Chris Adams, or the one about pathetic and boring alcoholic neighbor?

[john barnes on toast]

And I disagree with your second point- you entirely dismiss intensity of studies and research, taking to consideration only time. Does a good research substitute a good experience for the sake of writing? Of course it does.

I'm still not sure what point you're making, but whatever it is, then the hypothesis of the theory has to be made on the assumption of 'all things being equal'.

ergo, if the question of 'to what degree time is a determinent factor for garnering a scholastic understanding of a subject', isn't based on the assumption of a consistent intensity of study, then it is utterly, utterly, pointless to continue the debate.

Yes, a twenty-two-year-old will be able to write a better book than a thirty-six-year-old, if the thirty-six-year-old is in a coma. Not sure I'd want to use that kind of logic for the basis of a theory though.



Again, returning to my example: What book will sell better- the one with main character created from Roland the Furios and Chris Adams, or the one about pathetic and boring alcoholic neighbor?

I have no idea who these people are.

[Strange Days]

Roland the Furious is a hero of medieval ballad "Le Chant de Roland" and Chris Adams is a main character in "Magnificent Seven".
In any case, if I follow your logic correctly- an average 60-year old professor of Literature can write as well as 60-year old Stephen King?

[john barnes on toast]

In any case, if I follow your logic correctly- an average 60-year old professor of Literature can write as well as 60-year old Stephen King?

you don't follow my logic correctly.

[tmallory3737]

I stuck with one novel for ten frick'in years. It was huge, 200,000 words. Too many characters, too much going on. Slowly another story pushed itself on me, and I finally gave up on my ten year labor of love. I wrote the second story in eight months. My mantra was, '100 pages a month'. It is by far a better story than my 10 year story.
At the end of the eight months I returned to my 10 year story. I cut it in half, half the characters, half the words, and most the crap.
I started last week trying to sell it. Got a hit right off the bat.
So yeah, I think time away is good, but doing what you have to do to make the boring parts interesting, is better.
Now back to my 8 month story, got a lot of cleaning up to do on it.

[allenparker]

"Gunslinger". Stephen King was 18 when he started it. Whole Dark Tower series -as any other great/commercially successfull book- is based mostly on images and characters from classic literature, poetry and modern pop-culture- starting with Chant de Roland and Child Roland to the Dark Tower came... to Wizard of Oz and Magnificient Seven... Yes, he did use his life experiences in it- but only to signify their insufficiency as a source of inspiration in contrast to art and imagination...

King is great example. He first published a story when he was in his twenties. His first novel was published when he was 26. Gunslinger, according to him, took time and life experiences to make the story work.

And, I don't consider Gunslinger or any of his first works to be brilliant.

Poe was brilliant. His work was brilliant.

[allenparker]

Let me correct myself here: Art AND Knowledge. Those two are not just adequate substitutes- those are superior to experience for the sake of imagination.


This is where we disagree. Experience is the only teacher. You can learn from others experience, but it is the act of doing and living with the results that matter.

Perhaps we shall have to agree to disagree.

[Strange Days]

Perhaps we shall have to agree to disagree.

Yep. It's not up to our own arguments to prove either of us wrong or right here. :) It's up to other people- writers with life experience and writers without one...

[Strange Days]

you don't follow my logic correctly.

Well, if you meant the the SAME person is more likely to write better when he/she is 60 than when he/she is 20- ok, that does make sense to me.
But then- I'm already older than Shakespear or King were when they wrote their first publicly known works. Will I EVER write better than they did at the age of 20? Even when I turn 70 and have plenty of life experience? Probably not.

[sleepsheep]

I might be missing your point here, but are you suggesting that art can be an adequate substitute for experience when it comes to finding inspiration?

Even if that were true (and I'm far from convinced) then surely it would fall down somewhat on the fact that an older person will have experienced more art as well as life?



My opinion is that, when it comes to life experience, quality and diversity of it is far more important than quantity. Surely, you'll agree, it's an unfair assumption that somebody who's been around for 60 years has had more interesting and vivid experiences than somebody who's been around for a third of that time.

[john barnes on toast]

Well, if you meant the the SAME person is more likely to write better when he/she is 60 than when he/she is 20- ok, that does make sense to me.

Firstly I haven't stated an age at all. I've merely challenged your supposition (or at least what I think it to be) that age or experience has no bearing on a person's potential for improvement at writing.

And, yes, of course any example would have to be based on the same person to have any bleeding point to it whatsoever. Nobody could dispute that a genius of 20 will be able to write better than a moron of 60, that's why you can't use different individuals as a basis for any kind of comparison. This is such a basic principle of any discussion of this type that I can't fight the suspicion that you're being willfully obtuse on the matter.

[Strange Days]

Firstly I haven't stated an age at all. I've merely challenged your supposition (or at least what I think it to be) that age or experience has no bearing on a person's potential for improvement at writing.


Oh, I'm not talking about geniuses and morons- just about different degrees of talent, they might vary not that vastly. And I will agree with you even more if you mean particular experience in writing, not just some obscure "life experience"...

[Cliff Face]

Well, I'll weigh in on the question of life experience making better writers.

My first point is simple enough, and seems to have been overlooked so far. It concerns YA fiction. In YA books, especially first-person perspectives, you expect the characters to have limited insights. It makes it more believable for a teenager to be swayed by a new emotion than for the teenager to go, "Oh, hmm, no, that would be quite a to do, I think I'll give that a miss, Missie!" - if you get my meaning.

So the point is, you don't need 60 years of social experience to be able to write a YA book - in fact, such experience will typically make it a less popular YA book, because it won't be in a voice the teen readers will recognise. So, for the sake of the genre, a 20 year old could quite easily make a better writer than a 60 year old, assuming they had the same talent levels, simply because the 60 year old will be forever tempted to be insightful beyond the characters' means.

All it takes to be a good writer in YA is a good story backed up with having *critically* watched, say, a bunch of sitcoms, for their social conventions. You can learn those talents in a year or so, easily enough. But ask yourself - who is more likely to watch a year's worth of sitcoms - a teenager or a 60 year old?

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this makes younger people better writers, just more in tune with YA fiction (as a general rule, which is really all we're talking about here...).

My second point is about types of experiences as opposed to volume of them. Somebody suffering from cancer could write a cancer-character better than someone who has never had cancer before, not because of the mechanics of the treatment - that's easy enough to learn - but because of a closer and deeper bond with the condition's emotive responses. How it feels, basically.

So the second point is simply this: Just being older doesn't mean you've had every experience. A 20 year old who is suffering from psychosis delusions and hallucinations could, once they're on sufficient medication, write a better psychological book than someone who has just toyed around with social manipulation for 60 years. It's because it goes deeper. In effect, the whole "write what you know" idea is making my point for me - any given 20 year old will have presumably had experiences that any given 60 year old hasn't had. Just being older doesn't mean you've experienced everything.

A 60 year old who has never experienced psychosis might overlook what such a condition can propel you towards in terms of your writerly inspiration. So is the 20 year old a better writer than the 60 year old? It depends on what they're trying to write. However, to get to a standard publishable quality, a 20 year old would've had plenty enough experiences to write SOMETHING worth reading, even if they can't write a traditional piece of literature as well as the 60 year old.

But then let's look at that literature question. In my mind it seems like the genre where age and "ordinary" experiences will hold the biggest advantage. The age gives you knowledge of more eras and their customs, and probably more countries and their eras and customs... The ordinary experiences gives you perhaps a more literary voice on the normal things, which is often needed to make a normal experience read well, because everyone will be more critical of something that happens everyday than something that can't ever happen, such as in SF/F.

So you'd think that the older person has the advantage. But someone mentioned genius vs. idiot before, and I'd like to borrow that in a sense. Driven vs. lazy is a good example. If you are driven, you can get 60 years worth of lazy experience in a couple of years. So age itself doesn't mean much, as opposed to personality. And as far as what happens once you've got a good eye for emotion and custom - well, more age will just give you an advantage very very slowly, because the emotions involved in day to day life will only change as customs change, and customs change slowly.

A driven young person can learn customs of the past and infer the emotions quite readily. The older person already knows this, but has to keep up with the times for new customs. So who has the advantage? Neither, if they both have the same skill level in general - it just takes different personalities - driven for the young people to find things out that aren't necessary for them except in writing, and persistent with the older people to keep up with the times. Both can have the same skill level in any genre - the only thing that would then separate them would be age.

Now, don't get me wrong. In general, all I've said would mean that older people would have the advantage, except maybe in YA writing, but this is on the assumption that everyone is as lazy as everyone else, and doesn't seek out new knowledge. If you seek out knowledge, you can pick up the skills of age.

The only time when age would almost certainly mean better writing, is when talking about "writing experience" as opposed to "life experience" - but life experience can be learned quickly, at least as far as knowledge goes, which includes emotions in regards to situation. The only thing that can't be learned straight off is your own take on specific situations, such as needing to suffer from psychosis to instinctively know it better than someone who has simply studied it.

And as far as those very specific circumstances go, there's usually only a limited number of them in any given book, so for turning out better writing, I would argue that life experience doesn't make a huge difference - writing experience would, but actual beginning skill levels are based on how committed you are, much more than nearly anything else.

Now, I just realised I've ranted quite a bit about something I didn't care about before reading this thread, so perhaps I should just qualify all this with, "I'm 25, so being told I'm inherently a bad writer due to lack of experience just sort of ticked me off. I can't remember who it was, and I don't really care, but someone poked the bear and so I ranted. If I'm wrong, again I don't care, because the beautiful thing about rants is that it makes you feel better. Um... hi."

[Aschenbach]

[QUOTE=Cliff Face;4124692]

So the point is, you don't need 60 years of social experience to be able to write a YA book - in fact, such experience will typically make it a less popular YA book, because it won't be in a voice the teen readers will recognise.

My favourite children's books were writen by adults, and the sophisticated perspective they offered was a gateway to adult books. YA books don't have to be written by clueless Young Adults.

If you are driven, you can get 60 years worth of lazy experience in a couple of years.

I don't think you appreciate what the life span of someone 60-70 years could have encompassed. For instance;

bombs dropping on Europe. Wartime evacuation. Mass extermination of their older relatives. The holocaust. Marriage. Parenthood. TV becoming widespread (never mind mobile phones, video games, internet and all the other recent inventions of the digital age). Post-war austerity fading into the swinging sixties. Mass immigration. The revolution in popular culture and the weakening of religious/social convention. Lady Chatterley. The IRA, the trade unions, Thatcherism, the National Front. Punk. The Falklands. The Gulf. Sunday opening. Satelite television.

I could go on. I know you don't like it, but people with 60 years under their belts have lived through history as well as gone through the normal human milestones like growing up, sex, marriage, bereavement, etc.

THEY KNOW FAR MORE THAN 20 YEAR OLDS!

[Strange Days]

I don't think you appreciate what the life span of someone 60-70 years could have encompassed. For instance;
bombs dropping on Europe. Wartime evacuation. Mass extermination of their older relatives. The holocaust. Marriage. Parenthood. TV becoming widespread (never mind mobile phones, video games, internet and all the other recent inventions of the digital age). Post-war austerity fading into the swinging sixties. Mass immigration. The revolution in popular culture and the weakening of religious/social convention. Lady Chatterley. The IRA, the trade unions, Thatcherism, the National Front. Punk. The Falklands. The Gulf. Sunday opening. Satelite television.

I could go on. I know you don't like it, but people with 60 years under their belts have lived through history as well as gone through the normal human milestones like growing up, sex, marriage, bereavement, etc.

THEY KNOW FAR MORE THAN 20 YEAR OLDS!

I think you "misunderestimate" (c) the power of Research. All those things can be researched and written by a good writer much better than by someone who actually experienced them. Did Leo Tolstoy actually fight against Napoleon in 1812? Did he witness the Burning of Moscow? Had he any experience of mingling in Russian Hight Society of early 19th Century? Nope. He wasn't even born in 1812...
And yet the man wrote "War and Peace" (Originally intended as "War and Society")

[Aschenbach]

I think you "misunderestimate" (c) the power of Research. All those things can be researched and written by a good writer much better than by someone who actually experienced them.

Sorry, I don't agree. Reading history books is no substitute for actually living through that period. And that goes for Tolstoy as well.

There is a clear distinction betwen first hand experience and second hand/imagined experience.

[mathewferguson]

Definitely put it aside. Early work is like the stuff you did in primary school: right for the time and a great learning experience but that picture of a duck isn't going to cut it in professional world ...

[MDei]

I won't even get into the age argument. I'll keep my opinion on that to myself, but as far as the book goes. We all have those moments and it doesn't always have to be the first book. My first book was decent, even though I ended up revamping it a few years later. The book that I felt like that is the one I'm almost done with now.

It was just a bunch of even and stuff happening with a character thrown in the mix and it was a good start but an element was missing. I but it away for about a year and then three months ago, I came up with another idea, but the idea just didn't have enough depth to it. I came across my old novel and married the two ideas and what I have now is a book that might actually be worth something.

My point is, don't give up on it forever. Just because you trunk it doesn't mean you never go back to it. So leave it alone, work on something else and focus on school. If you're anything like me, you'll be sitting in class and the idea will just come out of nowhere. You'll eventually figure out what to do with it.