Read a lot and write a lot?

[RikkiKane]

Stephen King said it's the golden rule above all others and I am no position to disagree with a such a legend. Does everyone agree that to write novels for a living, you have to follow this rule always? I write for hours every day but I don't read much (I love watching films instead), but I can only assume I'm a fool for doing this and it's probably the reason it takes me about three hours just to write a few good sentences that serve my novel well. My vocabulary is very good and so far my book is awesome (according to my friends) and they can't wait until I finish it but it's taking me so long. I should read more shouldn't I?

[Maryn]

Yup. The skills you acquire as a constant reader transfer to your own writing. If you choose well, a good book beats out a good movie. Seriously.

Although plenty of us love film, too. Maestrowork (Ray) is a critic, and many of us discuss film here, both good and bad. And of course we have screenwriters, carefully corralled lest they start writing novels, too.

Maryn, not really following you around here--you hope!

[kct webber]

I think it's certainly a good policy to never write more than you read. It keeps you not only familiar with what works and what doesn't, it also keeps you familiar with what ideas have been done before.

[ChaosTitan]

I find it difficult to produce words when I'm not ingesting them. If you're a novelist, you need to read novels. If you're a short story writer, you need to read shorts. If you're a screenwriter you need to read screenplays.

I've been on a reading binge these last two years or so, and I feel like they've been my most creative years ever.

Read to know your genre. Read to know what's in the marketplace. Hell, just read to give your brain proper exercise that it won't get from watching television. Read as often as fits your lifestyle and your pace. Don't get discouraged if you can only fit in one novel a week, but Writer Z reads one a day. Everyone is different, and everyone has different demands on their time.

But if it ever came down to skipping an hour of television a night and not reading anything all week, I'd skip the TV.

[Fredster]

..it takes me about three hours just to write a few good sentences that serve my novel well.
I can relate to this 100%. It's not unusual for me to sit down for a couple of hours and come out with just a paragraph. Frustrating, but at least it's progress. :)

[lkp]

If you don't enjoy reading, you may not understand what those who do enjoy reading want to read.

[Niwo]

I can relate to this 100%. It's not unusual for me to sit down for a couple of hours and come out with just a paragraph. Frustrating, but at least it's progress. :)

I only write when I can. I think forcing yourself to write is like forcing youself to pee. But when you finally can pee, you just can't stop.

[john barnes on toast]

To think you can write without reading is either foolish or arrogant.

[cathyfreeze]

Plus, especially in genre, movies are way simpler and way behind the curve in where your genre is going. Generally. :)

I think reading a lot often translates into reading more nonfiction, too, though. Read to add fuel to the fire. Read to get new info into your fiction or to come up with new plots. I just came up with a new idea--mixing an old fairy tale (repunzel) with a new scientific discovery (a fungus that invades insects and takes over thier motor functions--forcing them to head to higher ground near water so when the fungus sprouts from the ant's insides, it's at the premium spot to reproduce more spoors.) Creepy but true! So what happens if *that's* the reason the witch isolated repunzel? Heh.

Never would have come up with that if i hadn't been reading science-mag sites online.

[Fredster]

I only write when I can. I think forcing yourself to write is like forcing youself to pee. But when you finally can pee, you just can't stop.
I wish I were like that. I have to make a huge effort to get the words out (except dialogue, usually). I like the idea of writing a lot more than the actual act. But...I've got this story in my head that's been floating around for a few years, and it's time to get it out, whether anyone ever reads it or not. Know what I mean?

[Niwo]

I wish I were like that. I have to make a huge effort to get the words out (except dialogue, usually). I like the idea of writing a lot more than the actual act. But...I've got this story in my head that's been floating around for a few years, and it's time to get it out, whether anyone ever reads it or not. Know what I mean?


Yeah... well, if that's the case just go for it. I can only tell you to just write. At least until you get started. And don't care how it turns out to begin with, because you can always change it later. I know how terrible hard it can be to begin a story that you've had in your head for so long. You want it to be good now that you have spend so much time thinking about it. It would be a waste not to let it be good, right? I know how it feels, and I used to feel the exact same way when I begun playing guitar. But the best thing is to just play. In your case, write. Atleast that's how I feel. So sit down somewhere nice with a cup of coffee if you're into that, and take a shot. If you have some nice dialouges prepared that you like, start by writing them down. Hopefully the rest will get along too.

Also, I guess you can learn to just pee alot... it just takes practice and alot of water. Or coffee.

[Delhomeboy]

You definitely need to read a lot...and honestly, you need to read WIDELY. That means everything from genre sci-fi to short stories about a rock; you do this simply to see what works and what doesn't. Magazines, movies, books, short stories, newspapers, these are all good ways to enhance your writing in different facets--but you should never limit yourself to just one part if you want to be a decent writer.

[CaroGirl]

You definitely need to read a lot...and honestly, you need to read WIDELY. That means everything from genre sci-fi to short stories about a rock; you do this simply to see what works and what doesn't. Magazines, movies, books, short stories, newspapers, these are all good ways to enhance your writing in different facets--but you should never limit yourself to just one part if you want to be a decent writer.
I agree up to a point, but there are genres I've read that I don't enjoy and won't read again. I don't think that's necessarily limiting. If I have no intention of ever writing a YA urban fantasy romance, why should I read one?

[john barnes on toast]

You definitely need to read a lot...and honestly, you need to read WIDELY. That means everything from genre sci-fi to short stories about a rock; you do this simply to see what works and what doesn't. Magazines, movies, books, short stories, newspapers, these are all good ways to enhance your writing in different facets--but you should never limit yourself to just one part if you want to be a decent writer.

agree, and disagree (but more agree, i think)

you're absolutely right that you need to read a lot, and to expose yourself to a variety of influences (I believe watching good films, good television, reading non-fiction, following (non-celebrity related) current events, all contribute to improving yourself as a story teller).
But I can't quite swallow the notion that you need to read from every genre. We all have our preferences, (and I'm not stupid enough to get into a debate over which are more valid) and I don' think it's essential to force yourself into reading things that fall massively out of your field of interest.
(of course there's an argument that it's still valid to read things you don't like in order to understand why you don't like them, but I think life's too short—better to invest your energies on grasping why you love the things you love)

There are writers, and even whole genres, that have no appeal to me. I'm not going to read shit*, just to broaden my horizons.

*'shit' being determined entirely based on my own opinions and preferences. Everyone is free to formulate their own individual definition.

[Etola]

agree, and disagree (but more agree, i think)

you're absolutely right that you need to read a lot, and to expose yourself to a variety of influences (I believe watching good films, good television, reading non-fiction, following (non-celebrity related) current events, all contribute to improving yourself as a story teller).
But I can't quite swallow the notion that you need to read from every genre. We all have our preferences, (and I'm not stupid enough to get into a debate over which are more valid) and I don' think it's essential to force yourself into reading things that fall massively out of your field of interest.
(of course there's an argument that it's still valid to read things you don't like in order to understand why you don't like them, but I think life's too short—better to invest your energies on grasping why you love the things you love)


I don't think a writer has to necessarily read every type of writing from every genre--or to force oneself to read what you can't stand. I don't think anyone here is advocating that (from what I've interpreted of these posts, at least). I think the general idea here, though, is to be willing to explore outside one's familiar comfort zone. And I think that can (and should) be done without causing oneself egregious suffering :) For a while all I read was fantasy, but now I break it up with other genres, with poetry, and with the occasional non-fiction--all stuff I'm curious about and interested in, or even just saw in the library and thought, "Hmm, I wonder what that is all about?"

[scarletpeaches]

I only write when I can. I think forcing yourself to write is like forcing youself to pee. But when you finally can pee, you just can't stop.No, forcing yourself to write is called self-discipline.

[sleepsheep]

I am far more disappointed with movies these days than I am with books (and yes, I HAVE read the Dan Brown novels, and even so, the above holds). So, I don't think watching lots of films is a substitute for reading fiction. Besides, writing isn't just about getting that great unique idea, it's also about putting words together, and I don't think you can develop a good personal style of prose and dialogue without extensive exposure to other works of literature.

[Niwo]

No, forcing yourself to write is called self-discipline.

Yes, I am aware. And self-discipline is a great thing when you need to learn things. For an example, when learning a guitar scale. I took six hours straight learning one, and now I know it like the back of my hand. But it only required self-discipline because I didn't feel like doing it; I did it because I saw the reward of it. Not because I thought it was funny. And that's a thing you learn as you grow older, to think forward. However, I never got something nice out of forcing myself to write. Either I am in the mood or I am not. And if I am not in the mood for writing, all that comes out of my head when trying to is dry and uninspiring. My creativity can not be fueled by self-discipline. I surpose I haven't learned to pee on command yet. Who knows, I might be able to some day.

[Mara]

Yes, I am aware. And self-discipline is a great thing when you need to learn things. For an example, when learning a guitar scale. I took six hours straight learning one, and now I know it like the back of my hand. But it only required self-discipline because I didn't feel like doing it; I did it because I saw the reward of it. Not because I thought it was funny. And that's a thing you learn as you grow older, to think forward. However, I never got something nice out of forcing myself to write. Either I am in the mood or I am not. And if I am not in the mood for writing, all that comes out of my head when trying to is dry and uninspiring. My creativity can not be fueled by self-discipline. I surpose I haven't learned to pee on command yet. Who knows, I might be able to some day.

The quality of my writing got about ten times better when I learned to "pee on command." Learning the skill will take many hours of writing stuff that's not good, but eventually you'll start hitting "the zone" when you do it.

It's worthwhile. It'll improve your writing and your self-confidence. It's very rewarding to sit down and write 2000 decent words when you don't feel like writing at first.

[scarletpeaches]

I guess this is the difference between people who believe in writer's block and those who don't. I don't let the muse or my mood influence whether or not I write. I just do it anyway.

Now I may feel differently about what I write but afterwards I see no difference in quality. Not that I see having self-discipline as 'peeing on command'. I'm master of my work; it is not master of me.

[ChaosTitan]

If you are serious about pursuing publication--which comes with deadlines that have to be met, whether or not you feel like writing--then it's imperative to learn how to "pee on command."

If writing is a hobby that you do when you feel like it, then it's your prerogative to pee whenever you're moved to produce.

[Etola]

If you are serious about pursuing publication--which comes with deadlines that have to be met, whether or not you feel like writing--then it's imperative to learn how to "pee on command."

If writing is a hobby that you do when you feel like it, then it's your prerogative to pee whenever you're moved to produce.

Yeah, what she said :)

[sleepsheep]

I guess this is the difference between people who believe in writer's block and those who don't. I don't let the muse or my mood influence whether or not I write. I just do it anyway.

Now I may feel differently about what I write but afterwards I see no difference in quality. Not that I see having self-discipline as 'peeing on command'. I'm master of my work; it is not master of me.

I precisely with SP on this one. If writing is to become a profession, it must be approached professionally. That is to say, you may need to learn to write even when you don't feel like it.

[scarletpeaches]

My god. All these people agreeing with me in various threads!

Okay, what's going on hyuh...is this a plot?

*eyes horizon for other three horsemen*

[Niwo]

The quality of my writing got about ten times better when I learned to "pee on command." Learning the skill will take many hours of writing stuff that's not good, but eventually you'll start hitting "the zone" when you do it.

It's worthwhile. It'll improve your writing and your self-confidence. It's very rewarding to sit down and write 2000 decent words when you don't feel like writing at first.


Okay, I will try it out. You all seem to be saying that it's a good idea, and you're more experienced that I am. I can't deny that. Thanks for the advice guys and gals. I'll go write some junk when I had some sleep.

[Willowmound]

My creativity can not be fueled by self-discipline. I surpose I haven't learned to pee on command yet. Who knows, I might be able to some day.

Learning to pee on command really comes in useful if you want to get paid to pee, or even pee for a living.

[motormind]

My god. All these people agreeing with me in various threads!

Okay, what's going on hyuh...is this a plot?


It's a conspiracy. We lull you into a false sense of security, and then...

Anyway, I tried to write on command, but it felt a bit too much like my day job.

[scarletpeaches]

If you want to make a career out of it, you have to treat writing like a job.

Doesn't mean you can't enjoy it, though. Hell, I know I do.

[bearilou]

Still trying to wrap my head around peeing for a living...

That said (in an effort to clear out that buffer), pretty much in agreement with what everyone is saying here. At first, I thought I could get away with reading 'just a little...over here'. And my writing reflected that.

When I got a hold of some books that I couldn't put down and read every chance I got? Next time I put fingers to keyboard, well, my writing may not have improved but my attitude sure had and I felt like I'd been more productive. I felt a difference, at any rate.

[bettielee]

**snickers.**

peeing.

**then sits still so no one will notice... hasn't been reading very much... :( **

ahem. Yes. You must read.

[motormind]

If you want to make a career out of it, you have to treat writing like a job.

As soon as something feels like a proper job, it's time to stop. Life is too short to waste on tedious stuff.

[dahlfan]

As soon as something feels like a proper job, it's time to stop. Life is too short to waste on tedious stuff.That is so ~deep. Remind me why people even work?

[motormind]

That is so ~deep. Remind me why people even work?

To pay the bills, of course

[scarletpeaches]

As soon as something feels like a proper job, it's time to stop. Life is too short to waste on tedious stuff.Writing is a proper job to me and it's never been tedious. I love it.

[motormind]

Writing is a proper job to me and it's never been tedious. I love it.

"It's only work if somebody makes you do it" - Calvin (to Hobbes)

[bearilou]

As soon as something feels like a proper job, it's time to stop. Life is too short to waste on tedious stuff.

I wish writing could be a proper job for me. Then I wouldn't have to actually go out and work to keep a roof over my head, and write in those stolen moments of 'catch as catch can'. I could do what I love -and- get paid for it.

Some day! :)

[aadams73]

You'd be amazed at how much work writing for a living can be. Those of you who think it should be easy peasy artsy fartsy need to go and find something else to do, because you're living in a fantasy land. I've never worked harder or more hours in my life--even when I worked two jobs.

[Ken]

... so long as a person learns the basic mechanics of writing by reading a few books on grammar I wouldn't see why they would need to do any reading of novels at all. They can get their stories straight from life, or make them up out of their heads and then just put them down on paper and improve by continual practise. One doesn't need to read other authors' novels to do that, unless I'm missing something.

[motormind]

... so long as a person learns the basic mechanics of writing by reading a few books on grammar I wouldn't see why they would need to do any reading of novels at all. They can get their stories straight from life, or make them up out of their heads and then just put them down on paper and improve by continual practise. One doesn't need to read other authors' novels to do that, unless I'm missing something.

I think though that it's advisable if somebody has come across some form of storytelling, be it movies, theater or even comic books. Novels also have their own narrative rules, and one should read some works to get a few pointers.

[KTC]

"It's only work if somebody makes you do it" - Calvin (to Hobbes)

Oh, look at Calvin...being all...WRONG.

[gypsyscarlett]

... so long as a person learns the basic mechanics of writing by reading a few books on grammar I wouldn't see why they would need to do any reading of novels at all. They can get their stories straight from life, or make them up out of their heads and then just put them down on paper and improve by continual practise. One doesn't need to read other authors' novels to do that, unless I'm missing something.

Ah, you know you're my bud, but I really have to disagree with this one. Knowing how to write grammatically correct sentences is not the same as being able to write stories. There's so much more involved.

Grammar books are great to have around to refresh oneself on things they might have forgotten from school days.

But reading hundreds of novels through the years has instinctively taught me so much about the craft of writing.

And reading good novels inspire me to do the best that I can.

A novelist not reading novels just doesn't make sense to me. It would be like an actor saying they didn't watch films, or a musician saying they didn't listen to music.

[KTC]

I agree. Reading novels certainly makes a writer more better.

[Ken]

I think though that it's advisable if somebody has come across some form of storytelling, be it movies, theater or even comic books. Novels also have their own narrative rules, and one should read some works to get a few pointers.

... yep, I'd say so, too. Better safe than sorry, as they say. Though theoretically, I still wonder if reading is really all that important. And this is coming from someone who loves to read.

[john barnes on toast]

... so long as a person learns the basic mechanics of writing by reading a few books on grammar I wouldn't see why they would need to do any reading of novels at all. They can get their stories straight from life, or make them up out of their heads and then just put them down on paper and improve by continual practise. One doesn't need to read other authors' novels to do that, unless I'm missing something.

totally disagree.

[KTC]

... yep, I'd say so, too. Better safe than sorry, as they say. Though theoretically, I still wonder if reading is really all that important. And this is coming from someone who loves to read.


This is just my opinion, Ken, but I think the scaffolding of writing is the technical stuff...the grammar, etc. What I look for in writing and in reading is the MUSIC of the words...how they interact, how they combine to create something that is pleasing both as a story and as an orchestra. I believe that in order to get proficient at creating that level of writing, you should 'listen' to the works of others...to see how they do it. The scaffolding is extremely ugly. The thing you build while climbing upon the scaffolding should be beautiful. It's always a wise decision to investigate how others before you created their works while leaning against the same base scaffolding. Again, just my opinion.

[john barnes on toast]

I agree. Reading novels certainly makes a writer more better.


They've certainly learned me a lot.

[motormind]

A novelist not reading novels just doesn't make sense to me. It would be like an actor saying they didn't watch films, or a musician saying they didn't listen to music.

It is said of Giuseppe Verdi that he hardly ever went to performances of works by other composers, since if they were worse than his own work he'd be bored, and if they were better he'd be jealous.

[KTC]

It is said of Giuseppe Verdi that he hardly ever went to performances of works by other composers, since if they were worse than his own work he'd be bored, and if they were be better he'd be jealous.

And the Boy in the Bubble once said, "Why the hell would anybody want to go out there...in the world."

Doesn't make him right.

[gypsyscarlett]

It is said of Giuseppe Verdi that he hardly ever went to performances of works by other composers, since if they were worse than his own work he'd be bored, and if they were better he'd be jealous.

Well, to each their own, but he probably missed out on hearing some really beautiful pieces of music.

[Ken]

A novelist not reading novels just doesn't make sense to me. It would be like an actor saying they didn't watch films, or a musician saying they didn't listen to music.

... 'my bud.' You made my morning :-)
Regarding your post, you may be right. One really can't say for sure what one gets out of reading. It's not something one can put their fingers on, as I'm concluding from your post and other people's, elsewhere. So one really can't say for sure whether something truly is gained. All writers are different, too, of course. So while one may benefit greatly from reading, another such as Verdi may not.

[motormind]

Oh, look at Calvin...being all...WRONG.

I wholeheartedly agree with him. Yes, writing can take a lot of effort (just like making music, and I can know), but as long as you thoroughly enjoy it, it's not work.

Well, to each their own, but he probably missed out on hearing some really beautiful pieces of music.

But was he a bad composer because of it?

[KTC]

I wholeheartedly agree with him. Yes, writing can take a lot of effort (just like making music, and I can know), but as long as you thoroughly enjoy it, it's not work.



But was he a bad composer because of it?


Actually, unless you are writing for yourself...you should consider it work. Work isn't an evil connotation.

[Niwo]

... 'my bud.' You made my morning :-)
Regarding your post, you may be right. One really can't say for sure what one gets out of reading. It's not something one can put their fingers on, as I'm concluding from your post and other people's, elsewhere. So one really can't say for sure whether something truly is gained. All writers are different, too, of course. So while one may benefit greatly from reading, another such as Verdi may not.

I am convinced with that too. For some reading alot will give them alot of experiences, almost as if they where writing themselves, through the eyes of others. They would see it done, and learn from that. I myself learned alot from reading good books, but when I read a badly written book I've always had to throw it out of my mind or I would begin to write like that. If I read too much I tend to lose my own way of writing by replacing it with others way of writing. I once read a book called "The hitch hikers guide to the galaxy" and that was the only book I read for some time. I read in it every day. I couldn't help but to write in the exact same way that book was written.
When I haven't read for a long time, my way of writing gets plain weird, but I kind of like that. I think some people may need to find a balance.

EDIT:

Writing is work if you live of it. But who says work can't be nice? Who says it can't be your hobby at the same time? Just look at some scientists. And if you think work is something you're forced to by someone, well, some people are 'forced' to write for magazines. In my oppinion writing can be just as much work as everything else.

[Kathleen42]

I generally agree with what Stephen King (and many others have said). My only issue with King is the volume of books he sometimes claims are necessary. I have a full time job. That, plus writing, does not leave me as much time for reading as I once had (even with carrying a paperback in my purse to read while waiting in lines -- yes, I do that). That being said, I still read more than the average bear.

We are the sum of our experiences. Every book you read is an experience. Writing is a craft and reading is one of the necessary tools.

[Fredster]

It is said of Giuseppe Verdi that he hardly ever went to performances of works by other composers, since if they were worse than his own work he'd be bored, and if they were better he'd be jealous.
I can kind of relate to this. I feel like I'm doing okay writing things, then I pick up something like this from Dean Koontz, one of my favorite authors:

Along the whetstone of clear eastern sky, the sun sharpened scalpels of light. Out of the west, however, a cool onshore breeze pushed malignant masses of dark clouds.

I read that, and suddenly my stuff feels like "See Spot run. See Dick and Spot play catch." :D

[KTC]

Clarification: ALOT is NOT a word.

[john barnes on toast]

Well, to each their own, but he probably missed out on hearing some really beautiful pieces of music.

absolutely.


Yes, reading may not be beneficial to your writing, but only to about the same degree in which gravity may not be all that beneficial in preventing you from floating off into the air.


I think it's a frankly daft supposition to even posit, and citing one off examples that offer debatable contradiction is a really negative pursuit.
The single most important piece of advice for a young writer would be to 'read'. Promoting any crackpot theory that lends credence to the notion of not reading would be to do those people a disservice.

[Kathleen42]

Clarification: ALOT is NOT a word.

Again, one of those wacky things that frequent reading helps with ;)

[bearilou]

I view reading as being a multilayered thing.

Firstly, you see how other writers put their words together to create compelling narratives.

Secondly, when combined with what we know of the techniques and specifics of writing, we can sometimes see in a text where the author went wrong (and right). It's much easier to see it someone else's writing than in our own but if we read it enough, we become aware enough to now know to look for it.

Case in point for me. I just finished a trilogy of books. I loved them. They were fun reads and about a topic and a character archetype that I love. However, within this compelling read, I uncovered a few things that didn't ring true to me.

There was constant POV jumping in action scenes where the author needed to get some internalizations and rationalizations out in a fast manner. It still threw me from the story in a few places and I had to back up and trace through to whose head he as in.

And in a few places, he had the character describing himself with his 'severe expression' and 'the hard line of his stare' as if he were outside himself. As well as a few repetitive turns of phrase and unique words within paragraphs of each other....

Now technically, as a writer, I know to try to avoid these things. Somehow, it drove the point home to me how they look on the page. What it did to the reader in terms of keeping them in the story (or in these cases, almost losing me). I stayed firm with the story though because despite these few things, it was a great read. I still noted them and know to watch out for that when I'm editing.

In the case of a wonderful writer who doesn't appear to fall prey to problems, I read their prose, a description, some dialogue, whatever, and just sit in awe at the beauty of it. Once I'm over the sparklies, I try to study it to see how it was done. Maybe I'll repeat it, maybe I won't, but I'll be more informed by the end of it than if I had never read at all.

And in conclusion, my sig line always stays with me.

[backslashbaby]

I agree to read and read widely. A written story has unique nuances that are different than mechanics like grammar.

[motormind]

I read that, and suddenly my stuff feels like "See Spot run. See Dick and Spot play catch." :D

Really? I'd apply a hacksaw to a passage like that in my own work. Tastes differ.

Actually, unless you are writing for yourself...you should consider it work. Work isn't an evil connotation.

I have learned not to take my artistic endeavors too seriously, lest I bog myself down with wondering whether I'm doing the right thing--or doing it right. I'm just telling stories, not trying to find a cure for cancer (and even cancer researchers tend to be a jolly lot, as I found out firsthand).

Clarification: ALOT is NOT a word.

ANAL is, though.

[Kathleen42]

ANAL is, though.

Normally, I'd agree but in a thread where people are discussing whether or not it is necessary to read frequently to be a writer (or a good writer) I don't have a problem with pointing out a glaring typo in the title.

(Yes, I do realize my posts are rarely typo free.)

[CaroGirl]

I think all you aspiring writers out there should definitely stop reading, especially stop reading widely. Don't read "bad" books, and certainly don't read "good" books. Don't read books by famous authors or debut books by new writers. Don't read creative non-fiction or biography. Don't read in your genre or outside it.

And then, when you submit your work to editors and publishers, I (who read a book every 2 weeks, which isn't even all that many) might have a chance to get MY work published. Thank you for not reading.

[Kathleen42]

I think all you aspiring writers out there should definitely stop reading, especially stop reading widely. Don't read "bad" books, and certainly don't read "good" books. Don't read books by famous authors or debut books by new writers. Don't read creative non-fiction or biography. Don't read in your genre or outside it.

And then, when you submit your work to editors and publishers, I (who read a book every 2 weeks, which isn't even all that many) might have a chance to get MY work published. Thank you for not reading.

You are evil. And genius.

[aadams73]

I think all you aspiring writers out there should definitely stop reading, especially stop reading widely. Don't read "bad" books, and certainly don't read "good" books. Don't read books by famous authors or debut books by new writers. Don't read creative non-fiction or biography. Don't read in your genre or outside it.

And then, when you submit your work to editors and publishers, I (who read a book every 2 weeks, which isn't even all that many) might have a chance to get MY work published. Thank you for not reading.

Yes, yes, I approve of this plan mightily.

[KTC]

Really? I'd apply a hacksaw to a passage like that in my own work. Tastes differ.



I have learned not to take my artistic endeavors too seriously, lest I bog myself down with wondering whether I'm doing the right thing--or doing it right. I'm just telling stories, not trying to find a cure for cancer (and even cancer researchers tend to be a jolly lot, as I found out firsthand).



ANAL is, though.


It's not about being anal. It's about being a better writer.

And a great many of us make a living, or a side-living, through writing (myself included). I read your posts and it makes me wonder your age. There was a time, quite a long time ago, where I would have considered the word WORK a dirty word. Now, I explore ways to make WORK a wonderful word. I love writing. When I spend a few hours on an article and receive a cheque for writing that article, that's aces in my book. That's WORK I love. It is still work, though...no matter that it crosses into the territory of creative endeavor.

[john barnes on toast]

Picking people up on common or garden typos is bad form on an internet forum (even a writers forum) in my book, but there are some that it's just impossible to overlook.

The proliferation of 'alot' bugs the hell out of me. It's not as bad as improper use of question marks, but it's still bad.

[OddButInteresting]

I believe that in order to get proficient at creating that level of writing, you should 'listen' to the works of others...to see how they do it. The scaffolding is extremely ugly. The thing you build while climbing upon the scaffolding should be beautiful. It's always a wise decision to investigate how others before you created their works while leaning against the same base scaffolding. Again, just my opinion.

There are many people who genuinely have a way with words, and merely require practice to hone their skill, not study.

In my opinion knowledge hinders one's ability to think freely. The key is not to confuse imitation with adaptation. When you deliberately try to emulate the style of one of your favourite writers and don't keep the above in mind, you end up producing something stylistically incoherent due to the clashing of your voice and your idols'.

I read very occassionally. I finished Heinlein's 'Starship Troopers' a couple of months back, and have recently begun reading 'It's Superman' by Thomas De Haven.

However, I watch films on a regular basis. I'm more interested in narrative pacing and thematic nuance than developing a palpable context, so to speak.

A house is a house. A table is a table. A car is a car. My readers should already know this. I describe only what is alien to my audience, including any specifics details that contribute to the communication of character (E.g. scruffy hair or attire suggesting that a character is somewhat disorganised or apathetic about their appearance).

My point is that film can teach me all I need to know to tell a good story. I absorb information through the observation and interpretation of a subject (be it a story, an event or a performance) that flows naturally. Essentially, I am skilled at making sense of chaos. Reading requires more investment; writing is far too rigid for me to work with.

But as Backslashbaby said...

A written story has unique nuances that are different than mechanics like grammar.

And as I said before...

There are many people who genuinely have a way with words, and require merely practice to hone their skill, not study.

This is me. I'm a very sociable individual (the complete opposite of the tortured, reclusive writer stereotype), and am regularly exposed to different modes of communication. When I hear something particularly masterful, I take mental note of it and adapt my own speech accordingly. If it doesn't sound good when I speak it, I sure as hell aint writing it down!

Go with whatever works for you. My background is in Theatre Studies, so that may help to make sense of my approach to writing.

[CaroGirl]

I read very occassionally.
Yes. My evil plan is working.

I believe, for experienced writers, reading does not stifle creativity. It inspires it, particularly if you read something great. The less experienced writer can fall into the trap of writing like he reads, but at least he's writing. How do you gain experience but by writing? Just because you write what you read when you're just starting out, finding your "voice" so to speak, doesn't mean you shouldn't read. It means you should read and write more, gain more experience, and in the process find out who you are as a writer.

[john barnes on toast]

This is me.

Well, that's lucky for you. But you should appreciate that your ability to write to your potential without having to read, puts you into an almost infinitesimally small minority.

Be happy about it, be smug even, but promoting it as viable path to literary success is going be very damaging advice for almost everyone else.

[Kathleen42]

Yes. My evil plan is working.

I believe, for experienced writers, reading does not stifle creativity.

I agree with this. When I was in high school, my writing did take on a similar tone to my favorite writers. As I got older, it stopped being an issue. I developed my own voice and style.

And for those who want to get published, agents will sometimes ask you about other authors in your genre. It pays to be well read.

[CaroGirl]

I agree with this. When I was in high school, my writing did take on a similar tone to my favorite writers. As I got older, it stopped being an issue. I developed my own voice and style.

And for those who want to get published, agents will sometimes ask you about other authors in your genre. It pays to be well read.
Yes. And if you want to submit directly to publishers, especially small press publishers, their guidelines often want you to compare and contrast your work with other published books on their list, to tell them how yours fits. If you want to publish a book, why wouldn't you support and patronise the industry by buying and reading their books?

[ChaosTitan]

Yes. My evil plan is working.

I believe, for experienced writers, reading does not stifle creativity. It inspires it, particularly if you read something great. The less experienced writer can fall into the trap of writing like he reads, but at least he's writing. How do you gain experience but by writing? Just because you write what you read when you're just starting out, finding your "voice" so to speak, doesn't mean you shouldn't read. It means you should read and write more, gain more experience, and in the process find out who you are as a writer.

This.

This is me in a nutshell. Reading helped me learn and find my voice. Did I fall into the tone and voice of other authors as I struggled? Sure did. Did I eventually find a voice of my own that no longer falls prey to other authors? Sure did.

In my opinion, reading books WILL NOT make you a worse writer. But there's a very good chance it WILL make you a better one. YMMV.

[bearilou]

Something to keep in mind, I think, is that not all things work the same for all people.

Odd utilizes the visual for 'narrative pacing and thematic nuance', which is more important to them at this time for their writing career. They do not derive the same input from reading as they do from film and performances.

motormind, as my mother fondly says, 'lets the rough end drag' when writing, meaning they are not bogged down in the intricasies of 'writing' but just enjoys the process for what it is. Something creative and joyful for them so are not worried so much about reading widely as reading for enjoyment as well, wherever that journey takes them.

I view reading as necessary to keep myself from getting stale. It revitalizes me and freshens me when I feel myself getting boggy and helps me spot bad habits in my own writing. Visual input entertains me but means nothing in terms of applying it to my writing, while seeing on the page does. Yet, I also gain great joy from reading, even if it's reading with a more detailed eye.

disclaimer: My apologies if I have assigned motivations where there were none. These observations are simply gleaned from my reading responses.

I guess the thing is, as writers, we can and will learn from a variety of places. Films, plays, the radio, tv, reading fiction, nonfiction, newspapers, magazines, listening to people talk, love, hate, laugh, order coffee...if we close the door on one of those avenues, we are shortchanging ourselves in the rich variety of experiences we can tap when we write.

*will stop being long-winded now*

[motormind]

It's not about being anal. It's about being a better writer.


"Better" is merely a matter of opinion. You'd likely use the books of some of my favorite writers for target practice, I'm sure.


And a great many of us make a living, or a side-living, through writing (myself included). I read your posts and it makes me wonder your age.


Which pleases me immensely. I love being an enigma.

And by the way: you wonder about someone's age, or wonder what someone's age might be. As long as we're being anal...


There was a time, quite a long time ago, where I would have considered the word WORK a dirty word. Now, I explore ways to make WORK a wonderful word. I love writing. When I spend a few hours on an article and receive a cheque for writing that article, that's aces in my book. That's WORK I love. It is still work, though...no matter that it crosses into the territory of creative endeavor.

I have extensive experience writing erotica (most of it not in English), but once I felt it was becoming mere work I dropped it, cheques in the mail be damned. The same counts for my music: once I found out I preferred making ambient and dub I stopped making breakbeat, even though the pay is much less. Yes, I know what it says under my avatar, but it's a joke. Money doesn't mean squat to me. As long as I have enough to pay my bills and to travel, I'm happy.

In any case, I feel some people on here could stand some lightening up. Sure, it's not always easy to write, but you shouldn't take it too seriously.

[john barnes on toast]

If you want to publish a book, why wouldn't you support and patronise the industry by buying and reading their books?

because you were incredibly conceited?

[Kathleen42]

Common questions I've answered which could have been avoided by reading:

How do you tag dialogue?
Is swearing okay in YA? What about sex?
Is it hard to pull off first person present?

[ChaosTitan]

As long as I have enough to pay my bills and to travel, I'm happy.

In any case, I feel some people on here could stand some lightening up. Sure, it's not always easy to write, but you shouldn't take it too seriously.

Perhaps you see it as a need for some of us to "lighten up," but have you considered that some of us may think you need to "grow up?" I'm genuinely asking here. It sounds like you're living the kind of life you want, but that sort of freewheeling, travel when I want and stop working when it feels like "work" lifestyle just doesn't...well, work for most people in the real world.

We have responsibilities that require a steady income and stability. We have dependents--spouses, children, aging parents, etc...--who require us to work and pull in money and keep a roof over our heads. And we are not the minority.

Writing is my job now. It keeps food in my stomach, pays the rent, and occasionally helps a family member in need. Do I take it seriously? Hell, yes, I do. Because not only do other people depend on me to earn money, my agent depends on me to produce. My editor depends on me to produce.

Writing is my job, and some days it feels like work. Some days it's damned hard. But I'm not just going to quit because it starts feeling like work. It's worth being "work," because it's what I've always wanted to do. And I'll feel perfectly free to not "lighten up" about it.

[aadams73]

The question I find myself asking is this:

If you don't love books and love reading, why the heck would you want to write a book?

I am, first and foremost, a reader. My desire to write stems from my love of reading.

[aadams73]

"Better" is merely a matter of opinion. You'd likely use the books of some of my favorite writers for target practice, I'm sure.


Why would you not want to improve your craft?

[KTC]

maybe writing is all about pixie dust and sparkles?

[brokenfingers]

This thread is funny.

[Toothpaste]

And by the way: you wonder about someone's age, or wonder what someone's age might be. As long as we're being anal...


Actually no. KTC's version was also correct.

Honestly, I think the people who don't want to read more are just lazy. I know this because that's me. I love movies. I review movies as one of my jobs. I prefer movies. But guess what, I also want to be an author. If I want to be an author I have to understand books just as deeply as I get movies. I have to force myself to read, to remind myself that I actually do love books.

Odd - you are wrong. The way I know you are wrong is that the things you detail as not needing to learn from reading books aren't the things people are talking about that one can learn from reading books. Setting? Hair colour? Descriptions? That isn't what we're talking about. If you are worried that you would steal another's voice, or that a bunch of voices would get all mushed up in your brain, that just suggests to me you are a still an immature reader and need to read far more. I don't worry about stuff like that when I read.

When you start to read more, you can feel frustrated (especially if you don't enjoy it), "Why am I doing this?" But as you keep going, suddenly something clicks. Suddenly you start to read in a different way. Just as after you've watched enough movies you start to understand how things are edited, and start to be able to tell when something is recorded live on set or ADR. You start to see the deeper inner workings of writing. Start to learn tricks. Start to understand what is necessary and what isn't.

I am one of those few who believes in innate talent. I do. You, Odd, probably have it. You write well, though, if I may say, with one of those slightly contrived "writerly" voices - the kind of voice many develop in university. But I've never thought that talent alone was going to get me anywhere. And I'd never want it to. It would be quite a waste to not try to improve on your talent.

Yes you observe human nature (and dude, I was a theatre major from the age of 11, I get the advantage we have in listening to others. We rock at creating dialogue), but it's the individual techniques, that you learn from reading. It's like stage combat. Have you done any of that yet? You can watch people sword fight in a film, emulate it to the best of your ability. But when you have someone teach you, when you actually have the sword in your hand and you learn real technique, your sword work becomes that much better, that much more specific. It's the difference between depth and superficiality.

You'll probably think I'm wrong with all this. Or that it doesn't apply to you. And you will definitely not like being called lazy. I know, I've felt all those things. But I hope someday you find yourself in my position, because I am so grateful that I decided to just see why everyone was telling me to read more. It's made a great difference. Possibly not as great from the outside looking in. But in here, it's awesome.

[john barnes on toast]

The question I find myself asking is this:

If you don't love books and love reading, why the heck would you want to write a book?

I am, first and foremost, a reader. My desire to write stems from my love of reading.

as I said earlier in the thread, i think the answer to that lies somewhere between foolishness and arrogance.

[OddButInteresting]

Yes. My evil plan is working.

I believe, for experienced writers, reading does not stifle creativity. It inspires it, particularly if you read something great.

This is precisely why I only read occassionally. It keeps my writing grounded without erring into the realm of forced imitation. I'd drown in a swamp of information if I read too much.

And on this train of thought...

Be happy about it, be smug even, but promoting it as viable path to literary success is going be very damaging advice for almost everyone else.

Firstly, I apologise if my statement came across as smug. It wasn't intended to belittle the efforts of others.

My intention was to contribute to a balanced and informed body of advice. As you say, the large majority of successful writers would tell you that reading widely and thoroughly - or "doing your homework - is the key to developing your own skill as a writer.

By presenting an alternate approach to writing that places greater emphasis on practice and recitation over study and reclusion, I was hoping to prevent the topic from descending into dogmatism. That is not to suggest that I believed the discourse to be going in that direction, though.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to this:

Something to keep in mind, I think, is that not all things work the same for all people.

I'm pleased that I am able to write without being a voracious and wide reader, but I'm certainly not smug. I encourage contentment over pride, for "pride comes before the fall".

[Jake G]

I could be wrong about this, but I think Fitzgerald said "I find writers who don't read to be extremely boring."

At first, I just read because I enjoyed it. However, I have been working on my craft a lot lately, and noticed I am starting to pick apart sentences in other published books. It helps a lot when I'm finally ready to write.

[motormind]

The question I find myself asking is this:
If you don't love books and love reading, why the heck would you want to write a book?


Some people just love to tell stories. I myself read books at a steady pace, but I am not a particularly fast reader.

Why would you not want to improve your craft?

I do, but not by my own measure, not someone else's.

maybe writing is all about pixie dust and sparkles?

And vodka.

Actually no. KTC's version was also correct.


So it is! I learned something today. Learning is good (especially since English is not my first language).


nYou'll probably think I'm wrong with all this. Or that it doesn't apply to you. And you will definitely not like being called lazy.

"Lazy" is mostly used to label people who place importance on other things than yourself. So...


We have responsibilities that require a steady income and stability. We have dependents--spouses, children, aging parents, etc...--who require us to work and pull in money and keep a roof over our heads.


I am married, but I don't think my wife would be happy if I'd do something I hate solely to make money (and she can also take care of herself pretty well). And rest assured: I don't do stuff out of the blue. I do take everything up with my wife and I make sure to have a backup plan. Finding ways to make money is no problem. Finding something worthwhile to do in your life is.

[Toothpaste]

I'm pleased that I am able to write without being a voracious and wide reader, but I'm certainly not smug. I encourage contentment over pride, for "pride comes before the fall".

I can see you have a great deal of identity tied up with being "different", I get that too. But please do keep this in the back of your mind: just because you can write without being a voracious reader, doesn't mean that you are writing to your best. Okay, maybe I'm wrong, you probably are writing to your current best. What you don't seem to get is that with knowledge those parameters grow. Your best becomes so much better.

All that being said, this is something for you to discover someday on your own (and not me shoving it down your throat), and I sincerely do hope you mean what you say, that it isn't pride, merely some small pleasure, that you have in being not well read. Because pride certainly will hold you back. Honestly . . . it seems already to have.

[Manuel Royal]

Writing is my job now. It keeps food in my stomach, pays the rent, and occasionally helps a family member in need. Do I take it seriously? Hell, yes, I do. Because not only do other people depend on me to earn money, my agent depends on me to produce. My editor depends on me to produce.That's my dream, seriously.

As for the OP -- yes, you need to read a lot. If you want to write short stories, read Saki and O Henry, Bradbury and Cheever, Neil Gaiman and Damon Runyon. Or pick up an anthology with a lot of different writers; there'll be different styles, and something might really click with you.

Read novels and let the words soak into you. Some writers outline a novel down to every detail of the plot; others start with characters and a situation, and let it develop organically from there. Either approach can produce good books; read a novel and think about how the writer went about his work.

Even when I watch a movie, I think about what the dialogue and scene descriptions would look like on the page. I think about the structure, and the decisions the writer made along the way.

Even if you read something and end up hating it, it's not wasted; you learn what you want to avoid doing.

[Toothpaste]

"Lazy" is mostly used to label people who place importance on other things than yourself. So...


I don't understand what you mean by this. Would you mind explaining?

For the record, I consider myself very lazy. I know I could be far more prolific, if I just did butt in chair more often. I could also be much more well read. I find books take more effort to read than movies take to watch. I'll choose a film over a book any time. I know that there is a degree of laziness to that. I never throw stones, I love my glass house thank you very much.

ETA: Figured out what you were saying. I disagree. I don't call you (or me) lazy for not reading because reading is something I'm interested in and you're not. I call not reading when one is striving to be an author, lazy. You have already expressed that the second you aren't loving every second of what you are doing you stop. I'm very different. I see writing the way I see exercise. I loathe doing it at the time, but the end result is so much more satisfying to me than had I just chosen to sit around and do nothing. Sometimes the pain, the hard work, the bad feelings, all of it, can result in something so much more amazing than the easier route. Reading books might not appeal to some, but in doing it, I swear, a writer WILL become better at their craft. There is no doubt whatsoever. So I do call it lazy when someone chooses not to do something that will aid in their pursuit, just because, "I don't wanna."

[Manuel Royal]

I'm pleased that I am able to write without being a voracious and wide reader, but I'm certainly not smug. I encourage contentment over pride, for "pride comes before the fall".Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. A similar concept expressed with a different arrangement of words. The translators hired by King James knew the value of each word they used. Their minds were immersed in words, and they were able to use them with power and poetry. You simply can't achieve that kind of facility and grace without listening to the voices of those who have come before you, your ancestors in the great family of letters.

Unless you're some kind of unholy genius who can essentially create literature on his own. Good luck with that.

[Kathleen42]

Writing is my job, and some days it feels like work. Some days it's damned hard. But I'm not just going to quit because it starts feeling like work. It's worth being "work," because it's what I've always wanted to do. And I'll feel perfectly free to not "lighten up" about it.

And some days your fellow AWers pester you for interviews ;)

The decade I decided to be a graphic artist aside, I've wanted to be a writer since age four. My kindergarten teacher asked what I wanted to be when I grew up and I just knew that I wanted to be a writer.

It's long, grueling, and sometimes tedious. There have been weeks where I've only seen my (very patient) boyfriend at lunch because my nights were spent revising. There are holidays I didn't take because I needed vacation time to meet a deadline. There are nights where I got maybe three or four hours of sleep because an agent recommended I read an author in my genre.

For me, it's been hard work and sacrifice and I'm okay with that. Others may not feel the same way *shrug*.

[Bufty]

If others find one's writing lacks clarity and doesn't flow (in other words it's a struggle to get through even if folk may not exactly say that) it's almost certainly because one is not reading enough.

The only reason we read a book to it's end is because we are carried along by what we picture and feel from the words - keen to find out what happens next - without constantly having to scratch our heads as to what images the writer is trying to get across.

Just my two-penneth.

[Ken]

... bottomline: whatever works. If the approach you're taking is allowing you to improve and ultimately get published then continue taking that route, and don't let anyone tell you differently. // For those who've said they limit their reading for fear their own voice may become squelshed I can relate. To counter that, I read outside my genre. Movies are also an inspiration, as is art and music. My longstanding goal, in fact, is to write fiction like a certain jazz musician played. Man that cat was cool! // And of course I realise there are plenty of writers who read in there select genre and thrive by that approach. So no need to address that in a subsequent post. I fully accept this to be the case, while continuing to hold true my own view. Truth, if such a term can be applied in the arts, is relative.

[OddButInteresting]

Firstly I must apologise, Toothpaste. I hadn't noticed your previous response the first time I replied (in fact, I can't remember it being there despite having read them all). Just to cover a couple of your initial points:

I agree on the "contrived writerly voice"; my prose can be rather utilitarian. That said I have had a shot at the poetic before, and while the results were pleasing the stylistic structure of my sentences ended up diluting their meaning somewhat.

I'm reminded of a line I read a while back that was taken from a review of a Martin Amis novel. It was basically hot air: it sounded wonderful, and it certainly stirred the senses, but after having read it several times I concluded that the sentence was devoid of a collective meaning. If I were Amis I would no doubt be flattered that a reviewer had gone to the effort of constructing such a sensationally sycophantic appraisal of my work. Having said that, it struck me as a little - dare I say it - pretentious.

If my understanding is correct, I believe that the argument here is for writing prose that prioritises the establishment of an emotional connection with the reader before the communication of ideas, even if the latter is essential.

In this regard, I would agree that it can only be beneficial to study the work of those whose prose struck an emotional chord with you and decipher the method through which they managed to do so.

This would also reinforce my advocacy of adaptation and my condemnation of imitation.

I can see you have a great deal of identity tied up with being "different", I get that too. But please do keep this in the back of your mind: just because you can write without being a voracious reader, doesn't mean that you are writing to your best. Okay, maybe I'm wrong, you probably are writing to your current best. What you don't seem to get is that with knowledge those parameters grow. Your best becomes so much better.

Hey, for all I know you could be right and my prose is dreadful. It's all subjective, but I understand that there is a fine line between what an agent thinks and what a mass audience will think. If it truly is atrocious then a sharp agent will probably spot it within the first few paragraphs, and I must bear that in mind.

Although I haven't read Twilight, I'm well aware that the majority of 'literati' despise it, and that it was turned down by several agents before one obliged to represent it. But isn't that generally how it goes - judging by the 'Submission: Success' ratio on here - even in the experiences of the forum's most talented?

All that being said, this is something for you to discover someday on your own (and not me shoving it down your throat), and I sincerely do hope you mean what you say, that it isn't pride, merely some small pleasure, that you have in being not well read. Because pride certainly will hold you back. Honestly . . . it seems already to have.

I assure you that I do not deny myself the pleasure of reading out of a desire to be "different", or to prevent myself from being overwhelmed and intellectually stifled by knowledge. As you said in your previous post, you initially had to force yourself to read. Although I do read occassionally, I've just taken more pleasure in studying visual subjects such as films, paintings and videogames.

Were I tasked to describe, in words, an image presented before me in a fashion that was both poetic and meaningful then I do believe that I would be up to the challenge. On the other hand, I do struggle to create fictional contexts to which I have no sensory attachment. That, I assume you're all suggesting, is the skill of a competent fiction writer. This, I also agree with.

Cold, clinical and utilitarian prose is neither moving nor entertaining. I would argue that the ideas being communicated are strong enough to stand on their own, but if my readers lack an aesthetic connection with the material then I'm better off writing academic papers.

I shall certainly keep this in mind.

And as for voice...

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. A similar concept expressed with a different arrangement of words. The translators hired by King James knew the value of each word they used. Their minds were immersed in words, and they were able to use them with power and poetry. You simply can't achieve that kind of facility and grace without listening to the voices of those who have come before you, your ancestors in the great family of letters.

I was merely quoting an utterance that I have oft been witness to during the twenty-and-two years that I have occupied the muscular vessel from which my responses run forth :D.

But seriously, I personally write for the pleasure of doing so. I do not consider it to be work, as many here seem to do. Yes, I have to force myself to write every day, but I do so at my own pace and within my means. I do hope to be published sometime early in the forthcoming decade, but I know that this will not be possible if I do not persevere and - most important of all - practice.

Again, this method has worked-out well for me. I have written three complete short stories, two of which were written for the purposes of entering a competition. In the first I scored an Honourable Mention and in the second I heard nothing. To be honest, the latter was a little vulgar in places (a semi-comical account of someone suffering with food poisoning isn't exactly everyone's idea of a cosy evening's reading by the fire).

Yes, you could argue that I haven't written enough for my opinion to qualify, but I have always been a storyteller in some capacity. It's just a matter of adapting to the necessities of the literature market.

To conclude I would still argue that it is possible to write decent prose without having read a great deal yourself. If you have a sound understanding of the cadence and function of language then you're half-way there. Bufty seems to agree...

If others find one's writing lacks clarity and doesn't flow (in other words it's a struggle to get through even if folk may not exactly say that) it's almost certainly because one is not reading enough.

... although it is clear that he/she strongly suggests that one learn the craft before attempting to create material themselves, which would put our respective opinions at odds.

Make of this post what you will, but I encourage anyone reading this topic to consider all arguments before acting upon their teachings.

Good gawd, that was long-winded. Once I get started I can't stop! I'd be better off leaving the forum and channelling all this energy into writing my fiction, eh?

[CaroGirl]

Although I do read occassionally, I've just taken more pleasure in studying visual subjects such as films, paintings and videogames.
Okay, I'll risk it. Call me anal. Despise me if you must, all of you. And I wouldn't say anything if it didn't keep getting written in this thread (THREE times now, maybe more).

But occasionally does NOT have two s's. Just the one. Whew. I feel better now.

[aadams73]

Okay, I'll risk it. Call me anal. Despise me if you must, all of you. And I wouldn't say anything if it didn't keep getting written in this thread (THREE times now, maybe more).

But occasionally does NOT have two s's. Just the one. Whew. I feel better now.

I don't despise you, nor do I think you're anal. I don't buy into that whole "but it's just a forum--I spell correctly when I'm writing for real" mentality. That's merely justification for sloppiness.

Posting here can be an effective exercise for perfecting grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

[quickWit]

Posting here can be an effective exercise for perfecting grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

diddo

:D

[CaroGirl]

diddo dildo

:D
Fixed it for ya.

[quickWit]

Ooooooooooooooooo. That was just plain mean.

:roll:

[OddButInteresting]

But occasionally does NOT have two s's. Just the one. Whew. I feel better now.

I can't believe I missed that! Especially considering that I re-read my messages three times over before posting them (and you think you might be a bit anal!).

I don't despise you, nor do I think you're anal. I don't buy into that whole "but it's just a forum--I spell correctly when I'm writing for real" mentality. That's merely justification for sloppiness.

Posting here can be an effective exercise for perfecting grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

Now this is good advice. Other than my mispelling of "occasionally" I'm pretty pleased with the rest of my post, having gutted it like a Mackerel.

[The Lonely One]

I feel like one should read and write widely, and often, yes. I also feel that you shouldn't do a job you hate (life's short and fuck if you aren't going to get meteored one of these days, you know? Then what's the point of the job you hate? Still got meteored...).

If you would rather not write more often than you would like to write, pursue something else that you enjoy more vigorously. Why force yourself to write/read? I think we all have our days and moments in particular stories where we're like...eh...come on, but on the overall I think we should enjoy what we do more than not enjoy it.

If I dislike writing 10 percent of the time, I feel I should enjoy it the other 90 percent in order to make it worth doing for me. And some of that percentage comes from having a finished product to smile about after the work.

[job]

You'd be amazed at how much work writing for a living can be. Those of you who think it should be easy peasy artsy fartsy need to go and find something else to do, because you're living in a fantasy land. I've never worked harder or more hours in my life--even when I worked two jobs.

Amen.

I know there are many many folks who love every minute of writing. Their time at the keyboard is a joy. When the creative juices don't flow, they get up and go read a book.

I know there are folks who make a living with their writing.

I just don't think there are many who do both.
I envy anyone who does both.

But I am puzzled by the notion that one should stop being a brain surgeon or a writer or a kindergarten teacher or a zen monk or a poodle groomer because it's hard or because it takes grunting, sweating, difficult, tedious, painful work.

[bearilou]

If I dislike writing 10 percent of the time, I feel I should enjoy it the other 90 percent in order to make it worth doing for me. And some of that percentage comes from having a finished product to smile about after the work.

Sweet crackers, this.

Seriously. Are there people who love what they do (work or hobby) 100% of the time? Really? They never encounter frustrations or roadblocks? Even in something like a hobby?

Working toward something (and maybe even encountering rough patches) does not equal 100% drudgery.

Or am I mistakenly reading metaphors in some responses and interpreting it literally?

[The Lonely One]

Sweet crackers, this.

Seriously. Are there people who love what they do (work or hobby) 100% of the time? Really? They never encounter frustrations or roadblocks? Even in something like a hobby?

Working toward something (and maybe even encountering rough patches) does not equal 100% drudgery.

Or am I mistakenly reading metaphors in some responses and interpreting it literally?

I think you're misunderstanding--I meant only that why the hell would I write if I disliked it for a majority of the time? the 90-10 percent figure was arbitrary, mainly inferring the former (that you should have an overriding joy of what you do, more than you dislike it).

I'm under no gumdrop fairytale about what writing is. I just...enjoy it. I'd rather do something easier if ONLY for a day job, with no compelling reason to write within me.

[KTC]

I don't despise you, nor do I think you're anal. I don't buy into that whole "but it's just a forum--I spell correctly when I'm writing for real" mentality. That's merely justification for sloppiness.

Posting here can be an effective exercise for perfecting grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

I totally agree. I pointed out the 'alot' thing because it was used incorrectly repeatedly throughout the thread. I am anal. Some people don't like that, but oh well. You should always take your words seriously...even on a forum. Having said that, I too make a great number of mistakes. For everything I do point out here, I let about a hundred things slide. In order to let them slide, I must cut myself with an extremely sharp razor blade. Tit for tat, I suppose.

[bearilou]

I think you're misunderstanding--I meant only that why the hell would I write if I disliked it for a majority of the time? the 90-10 percent figure was arbitrary, mainly inferring the former (that you should have an overriding joy of what you do, more than you dislike it).

Actually, it's not really you that I'm addressing, it's more of a general bwuh? at some of the comments in this thread. That part I quoted above I actually agree with. Why would anyone beat their head against the wall for something they only enjoy a little bit of their time?

Just like with any job or any hobby, if you enjoy doing it a majority of the time, that little bit of percentage of the time where you stub your toe and swear loudly and wonder aloud why the hell you're doing it shouldn't be the reason why you set it down and walk away. At least to me.

[Manuel Royal]

I guess we should distinguish between work as "sustained effort required to create or achieve something" and work as "doing what somebody else wants us to do for eight or ten hours of our precious time, five fucking days a week".

Most of us are familiar with the second kind, and would love to leave it behind. But if you want to write, it takes the first kind of work. Like a lot of us, I get ideas spontaneously, so that's not work. The work part is putting down hundreds or thousands of words in a particular order so that I can at least try to communicate that idea in a form that somebody might actually want to read.

Every piece I've ever written that was halfway decent took work. I'm a lazy bastard, so I really have to force myself, but it's worth it when I do. Even if I knew for a fact there was no chance of ever making money at it, I'd still write, and still take it seriously.

[KTC]

five fucking days a week

Isn't that a Beatles song? Oops. My mistake. I think that was actually eight fucking days a week.

[bearilou]

I guess we should distinguish between work as "sustained effort required to create or achieve something" and work as "doing what somebody else wants us to do for eight or ten hours of our precious time, five fucking days a week".

Most of us are familiar with the second kind, and would love to leave it behind. But if you want to write, it takes the first kind of work. Like a lot of us, I get ideas spontaneously, so that's not work. The work part is putting down hundreds or thousands of words in a particular order so that I can at least try to communicate that idea in a form that somebody might actually want to read.

Every piece I've ever written that was halfway decent took work. I'm a lazy bastard, so I really have to force myself, but it's worth it when I do. Even if I knew for a fact there was no chance of ever making money at it, I'd still write, and still take it seriously.

*prepares cookies for shipment*

As I was starting dinner it hit me that in any disagreement, it usually boils down to differing definitions. So you said it perfectly, exactly what I was trying to say (and quite poorly, at that. *sigh*). :Clap:

[KTC]

Every piece I've ever written that was halfway decent took work. I'm a lazy bastard, so I really have to force myself, but it's worth it when I do. Even if I knew for a fact there was no chance of ever making money at it, I'd still write, and still take it seriously.

Ditto. I do my best every time...just because I'm an anal bastard. But I'm also dreadfully lazy. What a combination. Effort pays off.

[kidcharlemagne]

If I hadn't read other writers I don't think I would be so inspired to write prose myself.

Being in the process of studying a different form i.e. novels and short stories as opposed to screenplays I find that you can only get so far by reading a 'How to Write a Novel' book or learning about technique on forums like this.

For instance POV (which takes some time to get your head round). You can read about POV in a 'How To' book but then you really need to read actual novels to see how POV is utilized.

Also, I know from reading great screenplays that a sort of osmosis takes place where quality writing is subconsciously processed by the brain and influences, in a positive way, what comes out on the page.

[Toothpaste]

ODD - here's the thing, there is really no debate here. You present yourself well, explain why you do what you do, and it serves you well. Fine. My argument is despite all that, you will become a better writer if you read more. There is simply no ifs ands or buts about it. You will. Whether you choose to is up to you. And it really is. You are right. Twilight does just fine despite it's terrible prose. There is absolutely no need for you to improve on your writing, to discover new interesting ways of writing that you might not have thought of (which you will never encounter if you only read narrowly in the genres you like), to learn that despite claiming your prose is utilitarian, you are actually writing the complete opposite - that you like to use the most florid words possible (heck you even dropped an "oft") and that it gives you a slightly pretentious voice. To understand that sometimes an author can say something simply and it is far more moving than anything more verbose.

By reading more you might also learn that writing is far more than just communicating ideas. It's also HOW you communicate ideas, and that there are so many different ways to do that. You might also learn how exciting that concept is.

But you don't need to.

People get published with different degrees of abilities all the time. And that is perfectly fine. You need to decide what kind of author you want to be. Whether you are happy as you are (and I'm glad you said you were 22, it makes my hypothesis that you were a university student - or at least a recent one - accurate. See, being well read has taught me to recognise certain voices, and yours is very familiar to me), is up for you to decide.

But I know, for a fact, that reading more, will make you a better writer. Take it or leave it.

[brokenfingers]

Writing for pleasure or as a hobby is quite the different beast than writing as a job where you actually get paid.

I see some of the members who've posted in this thread are blessed enough to have a full-time job they absolutely love 100% of the time. Cuz heaven knows they wouldn't do it otherwise.

Us mortals, however, have to make do with jobs that, while we might not necessarily hate them (yet many do), are still necessary if we choose to eat and not live under a bridge in a box. And sometimes these jobs becomes drudgery when done 40 hours a week - week after week, year after year.

And yes, that includes writing when your job is writing for others.

Surprise, I know.

[john barnes on toast]

But I know, for a fact, that reading more, will make you a better writer. Take it or leave it.

You've probably just broken the very fundament of reasoned debate here, and almost certainly contravened a central ethos of this forum, but fuck it, some things just have to be said.

The notion that reading is not essential for the betterment of our writing is frankly stupid. In fact, it's an abhorent notion for a writer to hold, and I can't believe it's even being debated.

I know this place is ridiculously polite (and that's a good thing a lot of the time) but lets not be afraid to call a spade a spade folks. If we think something's totally fucking stupid, we should have the balls to say so. And if that offends some people's sensibilities, I say tough. Offense is an inevitable consequence of people debating any matter they feel passionately about.

[KTC]

You've probably just broken the very fundament of reasoned debate here, and almost certainly contravened a central ethos of this forum, but fuck it, some things just have to be said.

The notion that reading is not essential for the betterment of our writing is frankly stupid. In fact, it's an abhorent notion for a writer to hold, and I can't believe it's even being debated.

I know this place is ridiculously polite (and that's a good thing a lot of the time) but lets not be afraid to call a spade a spade folks. If we think something's totally fucking stupid, we should have the balls to say so. And if that offends some people's sensibilities, I say tough. Offense is an inevitable consequence of people debating any matter they feel passionately about.

I'm with both you and toothpaste on this on. 100%

[sleepsheep]

Just went through the thread, and I'm with toothpaste and JBoT on this. A lot of the responses gave me serious WTF syndrome. Firstly, I am shocked that people don't like reading. I know that's a bit obnoxious and elitist, or some other word like that, but such is my outlook. Reading is wonderful. How can you not love it? (Apply the same stroke of unyielding conviction to coffee and chocolate cake). Furthermore, of course reading makes you a better writer, and there are many reasons for that, most of which have been covered up-thread. Also, if you hate reading, why do you like writing? I just don't get it. Anyway, this is a good, but ultimately frustrating thread.

[scarletpeaches]

I don't give a shit if it's elitist. I don't trust or like people who don't read. I wouldn't waste a moment's thought on people who claim to be writers and who don't read. So I'm a snob. Sue me.

[sleepsheep]

I don't trust or like people who don't read.

Indeed. I am even more suspicious of people who boast about how little reading they do, or how much they dislike it.

[scarletpeaches]

Like KanYe. :ROFL:

[The Lonely One]

Actually, it's not really you that I'm addressing, it's more of a general bwuh? at some of the comments in this thread. That part I quoted above I actually agree with. Why would anyone beat their head against the wall for something they only enjoy a little bit of their time?

Just like with any job or any hobby, if you enjoy doing it a majority of the time, that little bit of percentage of the time where you stub your toe and swear loudly and wonder aloud why the hell you're doing it shouldn't be the reason why you set it down and walk away. At least to me.

Ah. *retracts unnecessary clarification.

:)

[Ken]

... another thread on the topic:

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24068

[Toothpaste]

Like KanYe. :ROFL:

Ah yes. The man himself: "I am not a fan of books. I would never want a book's autograph . . . I am a proud non-reader of books. I like to get information from doing stuff like actually talking to people and living real life."

Said while on a tour promoting his . . . book . . .

[mscelina]

Good Lord--this is just killing me. You can't be a good writer without reading a LOT. Not just a little bit; a LOT. You need to know your genre, know what makes a good character, know what grammatical devices work and which ones don't. You need to know how to tell a good story, how to make it pertinent for your reader, how to write a kick-ass plot resolution. If you don't read, you can't do that. Period.

It's like this: let's say your ambition was to be a professional athlete. In order to succeed at your ambition, you've got to work out, you've got to study game films, you've got to practice technique. Reading is exercise for a writer's mind.

If you don't work out (read) you won't have the strength to reach your ultimate goal (write a good story). There are no shortcuts. There are no magic pills you can take that give you a perfect plot. (shut up quickie--don't you DARE go there). You've got to put in the work, and if you're NOT putting in the work, you're just fooling yourself.

[RikkiKane]

Yup. The skills you acquire as a constant reader transfer to your own writing. If you choose well, a good book beats out a good movie. Seriously.

Although plenty of us love film, too. Maestrowork (Ray) is a critic, and many of us discuss film here, both good and bad. And of course we have screenwriters, carefully corralled lest they start writing novels, too.

Maryn, not really following you around here--you hope!

Well, the greatest story ever told is "The Lord of the Rings" and the beautiful films beat the verbose, long-winded books any day. BTW - thanks to everyone for their opinions. I better start reading more!

[mrmiyagi]

This thread is terrible. If you want to write, write. This is the primary relationship to focus on.

[Kathleen42]

Well, the greatest story ever told is "The Lord of the Rings" and the beautiful films beat the verbose, long-winded books any day. BTW - thanks to everyone for their opinions. I better start reading more!

I don't, necessarily, think that's a very good example (and forgive if you meant it sarcastically). If I'm going to sit down and do one or the other, yes, I'll pick the recent film adaptations. The books are, imo, a bit meandering and I think the editorial decisions Jackson, Walsh, and the other woman (I'm sorry, I don't recall her name) made were excellent and, in many cases, justified.

That being said The Lord of the Rings is one of (if not the) most influential fantasy books ever penned. There is an entire genre which has been shaped by his imagination and the world her created. Generations of authors have been influenced by those books and those splendid, beautiful movies you and I adore would not have been possible without Tolkien creating his world and millions and millions of fans adoring it. Fans who include Peter Jackson whose love for the books is obvious every time the man talks about making the film.

[Toothpaste]

This thread is terrible. If you want to write, write. This is the primary relationship to focus on.

Well you do that then. I'm going to try to build and improve on my craft, and get the chance to read some amazing books while doing so. Two birds, one stone.

Oh, and I'll also write. Because I want to write.

I am just so awesome at this multitasking thing.

[mscelina]

This thread is terrible. If you want to write, write. This is the primary relationship to focus on.

:roll:

Welcome to AW!

*and psssssst! Writing isn't 'a relationship.' It's both an art and a craft, so what a young writer needs to focus on is...practice.*

Cheers! Don't forget to check out our Newbie Thread. It requires reading, though...

[mscelina]

Well you do that then. I'm going to try to build and improve on my craft, and get the chance to read some amazing books while doing so. Two birds, one stone.

Oh, and I'll also write. Because I want to write.

I am just so awesome at this multitasking thing.

You are awesome at the multitasking thing AND you always have my favorite avatars too.

Just thought I'd point that out. :)

[RikkiKane]

I don't, necessarily, think that's a very good example (and forgive if you meant it sarcastically). If I'm going to sit down and do one or the other, yes, I'll pick the recent film adaptations. The books are, imo, a bit meandering and I think the editorial decisions Jackson, Walsh, and the other woman (I'm sorry, I don't recall her name) made were excellent and, in many cases, justified.

That being said The Lord of the Rings is one of (if not the) most influential fantasy books ever penned. There is an entire genre which has been shaped by his imagination and the world her created. Generations of authors have been influenced by those books and those splendid, beautiful movies you and I adore would not have been possible without Tolkien creating his world and millions and millions of fans adoring it. Fans who include Peter Jackson whose love for the books is obvious every time the man talks about making the film.


I think most people got tired of Tolkien using 90 pages to describe a river or a chair, and that's why so many people put his books down (especially The Two Towers). His story was without doubt the greatest, but he often bored his readers senseless and The Hobbit was much better than LOTR.

[Kathleen42]

I think most people got tired of Tolkien using 90 pages to describe a river or a chair, and that's why so many people put his books down (especially The Two Towers). His story was without doubt the greatest, but he often bored his readers senseless and The Hobbit was much better than LOTR.

I'm not saying it's an easy read. I first tried in ninth grade and didn't finish until I was twenty-one (Darned Ents. The Ents got me every time). But it is one of those rare books which is fundamental to an entire genre.

Many people put his books down but I'd wager far more read until the end. You also have to remember that more description was common when Tolkien was a writer.

[RikkiKane]

I'm not saying it's an easy read. I first tried in ninth grade and didn't finish until I was twenty-one (Darned Ents. The Ents got me every time). But it is one of those rare books which is fundamental to an entire genre.

Many people put his books down but I'd wager far more read until the end. You also have to remember that more description was common when Tolkien was a writer.


Of course! Tolkien was a genius and that's the bottom line!

[Libbie]

Stephen King said it's the golden rule above all others and I am no position to disagree with a such a legend. Does everyone agree that to write novels for a living, you have to follow this rule always? I write for hours every day but I don't read much (I love watching films instead), but I can only assume I'm a fool for doing this and it's probably the reason it takes me about three hours just to write a few good sentences that serve my novel well. My vocabulary is very good and so far my book is awesome (according to my friends) and they can't wait until I finish it but it's taking me so long. I should read more shouldn't I?

I haven't read the rest of this thread, so if I repeat others' advice, forgive me. :)

Yes, it is vital to read frequently. Ask yourself: Why do you want to write if you don't read? If you don't love the WRITTEN word, how can you understand it well enough to entertain a reader? Yes, film-making is storytelling, but there are other skills involved with novel-writing than storytelling alone. Just as you couldn't expect to be a professional or even an accomplished but amateur film director if you weren't very familiar with the medium of film, so too you can't expect to know the medium of fiction writing well enough to excel if you don't absorb it as an audience member.

[motormind]

I don't give a shit if it's elitist. I don't trust or like people who don't read.

Well, "elitist" is not the word I'd choose for it, but let's not go there.

If you enjoy a work, would you suddenly dislike it once you find out the writer doesn't read a whole lot but prefers to be inspired by different means, like watching movies or reading comic books?

In the end it's all about output. You may have read all the world classics, but if you don't move me, you're out.

[virtue_summer]

If you enjoy a work, would you suddenly dislike it once you find out the writer doesn't read a whole lot but prefers to be inspired by different means, like watching movies or reading comic books?


It has nothing to do with "inspiration." Saying a person can become a great novelist, for example, while only watching movies or reading comic books is like saying that one can become a great pianist while only ever listening to music played on the guitar or that someone can become a ballerina by watching hip hop dancers. A writer who doesn't read is first of all devoid of logic or else they would be working in a field they enjoy. Secondly they're bound for failure because they'll have no idea how novels work. I wouldn't take them seriously at all.

[colealpaugh]

It has nothing to do with "inspiration." Saying a person can become a great novelist, for example, while only watching movies or reading comic books is like saying that one can become a great pianist while only ever listening to music played on the guitar or that someone can become a ballerina by watching hip hop dancers. A writer who doesn't read is first of all devoid of logic or else they would be working in a field they enjoy. Secondly they're bound for failure because they'll have no idea how novels work. I wouldn't take them seriously at all.

Although going out and living life first person is sometimes underrated. IMO, the ability to tell a story is foremost. It's easy to jump on motormind, but I'm a fan of a lot of writers who really couldn't give a crap about the literary world. They were journalists, friends of mine, who had stories to tell. Some were non-fiction, but quite a few have been novels.

I'm not arguing, just passing along what I've experienced.

[RikkiKane]

Good Lord--this is just killing me. You can't be a good writer without reading a LOT. Not just a little bit; a LOT. You need to know your genre, know what makes a good character, know what grammatical devices work and which ones don't. You need to know how to tell a good story, how to make it pertinent for your reader, how to write a kick-ass plot resolution. If you don't read, you can't do that. Period.

It's like this: let's say your ambition was to be a professional athlete. In order to succeed at your ambition, you've got to work out, you've got to study game films, you've got to practice technique. Reading is exercise for a writer's mind.

If you don't work out (read) you won't have the strength to reach your ultimate goal (write a good story). There are no shortcuts. There are no magic pills you can take that give you a perfect plot. (shut up quickie--don't you DARE go there). You've got to put in the work, and if you're NOT putting in the work, you're just fooling yourself.


Wow. This post and just about every other has really opened my eyes. I am gonna start reading all the time now, rather than just from time to time. You guys are just fabulous and I'm so glad I have found you all!

One thing I am delighted about though, is the fact that I don't have to make myself sit at my writing desk and write. I just love doing it and for me, the hard work is not writing. I just have to start reading more, which I must admit, I just don't feel like doing much of the time. I think I'll start on the Harry Potter series and take it from there.

[aadams73]

For dancing and making music you need special skills. For writing you only need to be able to write.

Anybody who can write readable sentences and has the urge to tell a story can write novels. Anybody. Even if that person only ever watched saturday morning cartoons.

I haz no skillz!!

God, who knew I was wasting my time all these years trying to improve my craft? All I had to do was watch cartoons and write!

:roll:

Writing readable sentences IS a special skill. Take a look around SYW and you'll see how many people can barely write a coherent sentence, let alone form them into something pleasantly readable.

[motormind]

Ask yourself: Why do you want to write if you don't read?

For some people money can be an immensely motivating factor.

Good Lord--this is just killing me. You can't be a good writer without reading a LOT. Not just a little bit; a LOT. You need to know your genre, know what makes a good character, know what grammatical devices work and which ones don't. You need to know how to tell a good story, how to make it pertinent for your reader, how to write a kick-ass plot resolution.

Which, of course, can all be learned from any combination of books on writing on the market today. And the same elements apply to other storytelling media, such as movies, comic books and plays. In the end, story trumps all.

If I could draw I would very likely produce comic books, but to my dismay I lack any artistic talent. I can write fairly readable sentences though, sometimes even two or more in a row, so I will just have to go with that.

The thing is: I read a lot. But it's mostly stuff that's way out of the limelight. Tolkien bores me to tears, for one.

[kidcharlemagne]

It's like this: let's say your ambition was to be a professional athlete. In order to succeed at your ambition, you've got to work out, you've got to study game films, you've got to practice technique. Reading is exercise for a writer's mind.

Right. I watched the Tyson documentary recently and he talked about how he watched all the fighters in the past over and over again. He studied and knew their every move.

[scarletpeaches]

Well, "elitist" is not the word I'd choose for it, but let's not go there.

If you enjoy a work, would you suddenly dislike it once you find out the writer doesn't read a whole lot but prefers to be inspired by different means, like watching movies or reading comic books?

In the end it's all about output. You may have read all the world classics, but if you don't move me, you're out.I can live without you reading my work.

If I enjoy a work, I'd be very surprised if the author wasn't a reader. I don't enjoy sloppy writing, cobbled together by people who think being a novelist requires no special skills or dedication, so I guess you'll have to cope without me reading your work, too.

[KTC]

Originally Posted by motormind http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4125072#post4125072)
For dancing and making music you need special skills. For writing you only need to be able to write.

Anybody who can write readable sentences and has the urge to tell a story can write novels. Anybody. Even if that person only ever watched saturday morning cartoons.


Um...isn't being able to write a special skill? Surely you don't mean the actual physical act of dragging the pen across the page is all you need to be able to do...so I think the ability to write is just as much a 'special skill' and the ability to make music. I'm not understanding something here?

And yeah...sure...anybody can write. yep. sure. some, though, can write a whole pile of donkey doodoo...because they haven't honed their storytelling skills. Telling a story and writing a good story are two different things, believe it or not.

[motormind]

I can live without you reading my work.


The word word "you" can be used in a generic sense, which should come as no surprise to someone who reads a lot. I never read anything by you specifically (aside from your posts), so I have no idea whether I'd like it.


If I enjoy a work, I'd be very surprised if the author wasn't a reader. I don't enjoy sloppy writing, cobbled together by people who think being a novelist requires no special skills or dedication, so I guess you'll have to cope without me reading your work, too.

Since you haven't read my work, how exactly would you know if my writing is sloppy and cobbled together? Moreover, how did you come to the conclusion I'm not a reader? You're piling up a lot of assumptions--which is especially odd as I mentioned my reading habits just a few posts down the line.

My conviction is that a work should stand or fall on its own merit. The less I know about an author, the better.

[bearilou]

And yeah...sure...anybody can write. yep. sure. some, though, can write a whole pile of donkey doodoo...because they haven't honed their storytelling skills. Telling a story and writing a good story are two different things, believe it or not.

Sure anyone can write!

But is what they are writing any good?

Ask any editor or agent who slogs through the slushpiles daily and they can testify to that better than anything else.

[motormind]

Um...isn't being able to write a special skill? Surely you don't mean the actual physical act of dragging the pen across the page is all you need to be able to do...so I think the ability to write is just as much a 'special skill' and the ability to make music. I'm not understanding something here?


Writing is not the real skill; telling stories is. Sure, putting meaningful strings of words on paper requires a certain level of craftsmanship, but it's something that can be learned simply by doing a lot. Telling stories is another matter entirely.


And yeah...sure...anybody can write. yep. sure. some, though, can write a whole pile of donkey doodoo...because they haven't honed their storytelling skills. Telling a story and writing a good story are two different things, believe it or not.

What one reader considers to be "donkey doo" can be pure gold to another. I know it's frustrating see the success of hacks like Stephenie Meyer, but she obviously does something right (even though I have to admit I have trouble seeing what that is).

[KTC]

Writing is not the real skill; telling stories is. Sure, putting meaningful strings of words on paper requires a certain level of craftsmanship, but it's something that can be learned simply by doing a lot. Telling stories is another matter entirely.

Telling stories is a valuable asset, but I have met scads of amazingly adept storytellers who couldn't string words together if they had a gun pointed at their head. For an actual example, my grandfather was a FABULOUS storyteller. People would come from miles around to spend an afternoon with him...he told the most amazing stories, both real life and 'no, really...this actually happened' stories that he told just to see the smiles. He was probably the best storyteller I ever had the privilege on knowing. The man couldn't write to save his life.

[bearilou]

What one reader considers to be "donkey doo" can be pure gold to another. I know it's frustrating see the success of hacks like Stephenie Meyer, but she obviously does something right (even though I have to admit I have trouble seeing what that is).

Well, there's obviously a difference between SMeyer and the hundreds of vampire novels sitting on slushpiles. One is that she did tell a compelling tale. Enough so that it caught the attention of an editor and an offer was made.

But for every Meyer, how many others are languishing on that slushpile, riddled with formatting errors (they didn't read the ms submission requirements), grammar/spelling/puncutation errors, incongruity in plot, uneven characters, riddled with genre cliches...honestly...just plain bad writing?

I suppose the biggest question is, if we are going to drag Meyer into this, is how widely does she read? Is she the norm or an outlier?

She answers that right here, in response to question #8. (http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/9FA6868D6CC441738975A4C8D11EA37A.aspx)

[KTC]

Well, there's obviously a difference between SMeyer and the hundreds of vampire novels sitting on slushpiles. One is that she did tell a compelling tale. Enough so that it caught the attention of an editor and an offer was made.

But for every Meyer, how many others are languishing on that slushpile, riddled with formatting errors (they didn't read the ms submission requirements), grammar/spelling/puncutation errors, incongruity in plot, uneven characters, riddled with genre cliches...honestly...just plain bad writing?

I suppose the biggest question is, if we are going to drag Meyer into this, is how widely does she read? Is she the norm or an outlier?

She answers that right here, in response to question #8. (http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/9FA6868D6CC441738975A4C8D11EA37A.aspx)

Yes. I do see no need to drag Meyers, or anybody else, through the mud here. And she was--and is--an avid reader.

[sleepsheep]

If I could draw I would very likely produce comic books, but to my dismay I lack any artistic talent. I can write fairly readable sentences though, sometimes even two or more in a row, so I will just have to go with that.



A bit of a derail, bit just had to say - you don't need to be an artist to WRITE comics. Some of the greatest comics of our time have been written through a collaboration between a writer and an artist, each one bringing their unique set of skills to the table. (For example, Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman, who each worked with artists in creating their books).

[Ken]

... the thing is, though, many writers simply don't have time to read that much. If you're working full-time and have other responsibilities to take care of you only have two hours or so a night to yourself, if you're lucky and then the weekends, half of which usually get booked up for some reason or other. So it becomes a choice of whether to read or to write, at least while working on a manuscript. I did a ten-year stretch of 9-5/8-6 slavery, myself, and with my commute factored in it was all I could do to write every night. Many, I'm guessing, are in a similar boat, and if you added up how many books writers actually read a year on average the stats would be unexpectedly low: not for lack of love, but time.

[bearilou]

Ken. Boy do I feel your pain! I have done stints just like that for long periods of time and it's very disheartening to find you have very little time (and energy!) left over.

You said something, though, that sticks with me.

So it becomes a choice of whether to read or to write, at least while working on a manuscript.

I know of some writers who will not read while they are writing, afraid that what they read will creep into their writing (mostly, I guess, to avoid voice 'contamination' and possibly plagiarism accusations). However, when you are between manuscripts, do you have time to squeeze in at least one book? Part of a book? A short story or two?

A little reading when you can catch it is good (and my personal opinion that it's better than not reading at all), especially when it's all you can spare. There are days when if I am looking at page and just know I need a mental holiday. I take a day, pick up a book and just read, not caring if I finish it or not. Just to let my writing brain relax.

I used to subscribe to Fantasy and Science Fiction when I was working 12 hour shifts. I couldn't lug around a paperback but the little mag was just big enough for me to take to work and I read 15 minutes a shift. That was it. Just 15 minutes.

Doesn't work for everyone, I know. *sheepish*

[motormind]

A bit of a derail, bit just had to say - you don't need to be an artist to WRITE comics. Some of the greatest comics of our time have been written through a collaboration between a writer and an artist

Been there, done that. Let me just say that I have no luck with collaborations.

I know of some writers who will not read while they are writing, afraid that what they read will creep into their writing (mostly, I guess, to avoid voice 'contamination' and possibly plagiarism accusations). However, when you are between manuscripts, do you have time to squeeze in at least one book? Part of a book? A short story or two?


What if you are never between manuscripts, but always writing?

[Ken]

I know of some writers who will not read while they are writing, afraid that what they read will creep into their writing (mostly, I guess, to avoid voice 'contamination' and possibly plagiarism accusations). However, when you are between manuscripts, do you have time to squeeze in at least one book? Part of a book? A short story or two?

... between manuscripts is when I've always done the bulk of my reading, due to time considerations and also because of how wrapped up in manuscripts I get. I honestly lose interest in everything else, including reading. The only thing on my mind are my manuscripts, comparable to when one is head over heels in love. My manuscripts become my sweethearts ... or my tormentors, depending on how you look at it ;-)

If I do read while at work on a manuscript it is after I've made considerable headway, finishing a difficult chpt, and feel like time is to some extent my own again and that I've earned some leisure.

Regarding contamination, I can relate. The way I avoid that is to read books similar in theme to my own works, so that if the voice creeps in it will mesh in fine with mine. I also read outside my genre. Ludicrous as it may seem I have never yet read a book in my select genre :-D Lately I've been reading crime novels, with no intent of ever writing one myself. I don't even think I could manage to do so if I wanted to.

[john barnes on toast]

We need to distinguish here between ideology and practicality.

Of course for people with significant other commitments it's not physically possible to read through vast libraries of books, but I'd still say that what time you can invest in your pursuit of being a better writer still has to have a sizeable chunk dedicated to reading. It might not be much. It might mean only a handful of books a year, but it's still essential.

This is not the same as willfully choosing to do little or no reading, on the basis that it's not necessary.

Falling into the first category makes you unfortunate, falling into the latter make you a doughnut.

[Priene]

If you can really be a good writer without reading widely, let's see a list of names. Published authors (Kanye West excepted) who are on record as saying they don't read and whose works show no literary influences. Let's build a list we can discuss.

I'll start: I don't know any author like that.

[Ken]

... reading has always been essential to me, because I love reading. I believe it has also helped me to improve at writing, by giving me a sharper focus as to what I wish to express, particularly in regards to theme. Even so, I won't knock others who willingly choose not to read. If they can manage to write good books and get them published who am I to question the approach they take?

[bearilou]

My manuscripts become my sweethearts ... or my tormentors, depending on how you look at it ;-)

Sometimes both! heeee!

Ludicrous as it may seem I have never yet read a book in my select genre :-D

Not as ludicrous as it sounds. Or at least, I can relate to that as well. There was a link posted up thread about someone hitting a dry spot in their reading. Nothing appealed to them.

I went through this period that lasted about 5 years. Nothing I picked up appealed to me and I was becoming despondant, afraid nothing would EVER appeal to me AGAIN! *insert 'woe is me' here*

It finally dawned on me to stop trying to read in 'my genre' because I wasn't finding books where I was fitting neatly. For unknown reasons, this was frustrating me to a standstill. So I picked up a book on something that interested me (genre be damned). It has become my new obsession interest and still has nothing to do with the genre I'm writing.

Lately I've been reading crime novels, with no intent of ever writing one myself. I don't even think I could manage to do so if I wanted to.

As you said, you deserve the leisure time and sometimes that extends to reading what you want, even if it doesn't apply directly to what you are doing.

*grin* It's all good!

[Ken]

If you can really be a good writer without reading widely, let's see a list of names. Published authors (Kanye West excepted) who are on record as saying they don't read and whose works show no literary influences. Let's build a list we can discuss.

I'll start: I don't know any author like that.

I'd be curious to see such a list, myself. I couldn't even say how much writers read, period. My only source of info would be the handful of biographies on writers I've read over the years, and that would hardly allow me to make any estimations. Maybe there are some stats to be found on the internet. It would be worthwhile to obtain. So have at it, those with google-search savvy.

[Ken]

I went through this period that lasted about 5 years. Nothing I picked up appealed to me and I was becoming despondant, afraid nothing would EVER appeal to me AGAIN! *insert 'woe is me' here*

It finally dawned on me to stop trying to read in 'my genre' because I wasn't finding books where I was fitting neatly. For unknown reasons, this was frustrating me to a standstill. So I picked up a book on something that interested me (genre be damned). It has become my new obsession interest and still has nothing to do with the genre I'm writing.

Same here! Up until last year I was sorta tired of reading, or at least wasn't reading nearly as much as I used to. So what I did was to begin reading YA survival books, which I've always enjoyed, and all of a sudden I was back into reading again. In essence, I think why I had slipped into that lapse of reading was that I had made reading a labor of sorts, and had lost track of the fact that it could be done for just plain fun and enjoyment :-)

[john barnes on toast]

I'd be curious to see such a list, myself.

Here you go:

[Bubastes]

Even if you read for enjoyment, you learn subconsciously. You develop a feel for what works and what doesn't even if you're not consciously picking apart every sentence.

[Ken]

... you may be right, John Barnes on Toast, but I'd still like to see some stats, just to make it official. It would be neat in any event to see how much writers read on average, enabling me to see where I stand. Probably at the low end of the spectrum; sigh.

I think you're right, Bubastes. Nice to think so in any event. I never really get much out of books from a writer's standpoint, as many here do: picking up on ways to structure novels, etc. So it's cool to think I still get something out of the books I read, other than enjoyment, that'll indirectly benefit my writing.

[scarletpeaches]

Well I've read around 40 books this year so far, which is pathetic by my standards. Then again, I have a blog buddy who's read 200.

[OddButInteresting]

...despite claiming your prose is utilitarian, you are actually writing the complete opposite - that you like to use the most florid words possible (heck you even dropped an "oft") and that it gives you a slightly pretentious voice. To understand that sometimes an author can say something simply and it is far more moving than anything more verbose.

I was taking a light-hearted stab at the fella who'd re-phrased "pride comes before the fall". I don't write like that normally. At least I hope not!

But I do agree with you. One can only become a better writer by constantly developing their craft - through study and/or practice - and reading regularly is a surefire method to condition your mind in preparation for writing saleable fiction. To believe that one has reached their literary 'terminal velocity' is rather complacent, and thus counter-productive.

The majority would tell you that anybody can write, but it's highly probable that only the minority can write to standard.


If you can really be a good writer without reading widely, let's see a list of names. Published authors (Kanye West excepted) who are on record as saying they don't read and whose works show no literary influences. Let's build a list we can discuss.

I'll start: I don't know any author like that.

I could've sworn Hanif Kureishi claimed that he'd never finished reading a book in his life.

Perhaps he was being facetious.

[motormind]

Well I've read around 40 books this year so far, which is pathetic by my standards. Then again, I have a blog buddy who's read 200.

Want a cookie?

In my view, you'd rather read 5 books well than 200 books superficially.

[KTC]

Want a cookie?

In my view, you'd rather read 5 books well than 200 books superficially.

I think your SNARK sucks ass. Show a little respect.

[Bubastes]

Some people read faster than others. It doesn't mean they're reading superficially.

[scarletpeaches]

Thanks guys. I think motormind just got out of the womb the wrong side, that's all.

MY POINT BEING, as if I need to explain it further, is that I read a lot. It's both a joy and 'research' as a writer.

If you think it's boasting, tough. I don't give a shit. I don't see why I should hide what I do in case some precious snowflake gets offended.

I'll pass on your snark to my blog buddy who's read five times as many books as me this year. I'm sure she'll give a shit what you think of her.

[Charlee]

I couldn't not read. I think if I really had no time left I would probably read and leave the writing for tomorrow.

You can't write well without seeing how it's done (or not done) by professionals

[scarletpeaches]

Oh, and to clarify for the benefit of anyone who cares to get on my case for 'boasting' - Ken wanted to know how much other writers read.

We're all writers here.

So I answered. Sue me.

Anyone else care to post how many books they read on average each year?

[JennW]

Yep. I read and write all the time. I write every day. I read as many books as I can, in all genres.

[IdiotsRUs]

It's possible to be an avid reader and not be able to write worth a damn too.

I don't get anywhere near as much time to read as I used to, sadly. I'm also way pickier nowadays too. I do read as much as I can ( mostly betaing at the moment, but I'm waaay behind on that too!) but when I read a published book, I read for pleasure. Sometimes a throwaway line gives me inspiration, or I like the way something was done and analyse how it was done. Sometimes I read stuff that makes me realise exactly what not to do...

But I learned way more about writing from both actually doing it to see what works and this board than I did from reading any story. Conciously at least.

[john barnes on toast]

I have to admit that I'm struggling to see the physically possibility of reading 200 books in 9 months, or why you'd want to for any other reason than to brag about it as though it were score.

[dolores haze]

I read voraciously. Minimum of two books a week. Sometimes a book a day, if I go on a real binge.

[CaroGirl]

In the progress of this discussion, I find myself caring less and less what other people do. Read if you want to; don't if you don't want to. I'll always be astounded that an aspiring writer isn't interested in books and reading but I'll no longer care.

Even though I work full-time, have two kids, and wrote an MG manuscript and completed and edited an edgy YA manuscript last year, I also read 40 books. That's not a boast, it's a fact and a testament to how much I enjoy reading. Everyone else can do whatever.

[john barnes on toast]

Anyone else care to post how many books they read on average each year?


I'm not sure that's a good idea.

It's not a competition.

[Bubastes]

I don't count how many books I read. I also don't count how many potato chips I eat. I just read/eat and enjoy.

[scarletpeaches]

I have to admit that I'm struggling to see the physically possibility of reading 200 books in 9 months, or why you'd want to for any other reason than to brag about it as though it were score.I had this discussion with someone this morning, with a person who refused to believe it was possible...anyway...I'm not going to repeat what was said; I don't want to get myself riled again.

Upshot is I'm sick of people accusing me and/or my associates of boasting when we answer questions like "How fast do you write?" or "How many books have you read this year?"

Maybe you wouldn't want to read 200 books in 9 months. Or couldn't. So? That's your choice. My friend did it for no other reason than she wanted to. And she enjoyed them of course.

It's got fuck all to do with boasting. She's not a member here and doesn't know I'm saying this about her.

[kidcharlemagne]

Well I've read around 40 books this year so far, which is pathetic by my standards. Then again, I have a blog buddy who's read 200.

Wow... along with nearly 20,000 posts on AW! Amazing that you have time left over to write. Do you have a day job as well?

[scarletpeaches]

I'm not sure that's a good idea.

It's not a competition.I don't remember saying it was.

I'm sick of having to hide what me or my friends do as if reading or writing a lot is shameful. It's not a contest and it's not bragging. It's answering a question another member asked out of nothing more than curiosity.

If someone asks how many books I read in a year, I'll answer because I keep a record. I don't see why I should hold back from that in case others think I'm bragging. It's a fact. I've read 41 books so far this year. Last year I read 115. I'm not going to hide that; if there's nothing shameful in reading 5 books a year there should be nothing shameful in reading over a hundred. (And there is a thread about reading 100 books in a year elsewhere on AW).Wow... along with nearly 20,000 posts on AW! Amazing that you have time left over to write. Do you have a day job as well?Writing is my day job. I say 'day' job; I keep my own hours. Mostly late at night to be honest...but the blog buddy to whom I referred earlier has a job outside the home and travels a lot. She just reads fast. With an astonishing rate of comprehension. I'm in awe of her.

ETA: Oh, and the post counts are spread over four years. And I type fast, so...meh. It's not that many.

[kidcharlemagne]

Oh, and to clarify for the benefit of anyone who cares to get on my case for 'boasting' - Ken wanted to know how much other writers read.

We're all writers here.

So I answered. Sue me.

Anyone else care to post how many books they read on average each year?

This year it's about 20+ not including some 'How To' books and stories from different short story collections plus listening to poetry on my iPod. However, I have to admit that, in my case, reading is also a form of procrastination. At some point, very very soon I am going to have to put the books down and write.:)

[motormind]

I think your SNARK sucks ass. Show a little respect.

You mean the same kind of respect "scarletpeaches" shows toward me? I merely reciprocate her sentiment. There is also a fine line between snarking and attacking someone personally, as "scarletpeaches" does.

And since this is obviously turning into a "dog pile on motormind" thread, I'll bow out with any grace I might still have left. I wish all of you well-read literary geniuses a pleasant day. Let me know once one of your novels wins a Pulitzer.

Oh, and by the way: I read 50 books this year so far. Boo-yah!

[KTC]

I read every day. I read on my lunch hour. I read while I'm making supper...holding the book and stirring/flipping/whisking/etc. I read before I go to sleep. I read on public transportation. I read during every free second I can find to read. I wrote 5 manuscripts over the past 3 years...and scads and scads of poetry, freelance articles, 3 plays, press releases, etc, etc, etc. My son is in hockey...This eats up a LOT of time...time I love to have eaten up...his hockey time is my favourite time of the year. I have a fulltime job. I am on a committee that is putting together a writing conference...we meet once or twice a month. I am in a critique group that meets once a month---between months I have 4 excerpts to critique.

I'm not bragging with this list...I'm showing that there is a LOT of time in a day. I write every day, religiously, for an hour 4:30am-5:30am. And then I squeeze writing in thoughout my day too.

If you want to do something, you will find time to do it.

Reading makes a better writer. That is fact, not opinion.

[KTC]

Oh, and by the way: I read 50 books this year so far. Boo-yah!


lol. If this is the case, I see everything you've been saying in this thread as baiting.

[scarletpeaches]

Crazy thing is I read more when I worked outside the home. I think that's because I didn't want to take my laptop on the bus or train with me for fear it would get damaged and as for longhand...well I can't write as fast as I think. So I carried a book with me everywhere.

I just love books. I drink them in. Or used to. I read because I enjoy it, of course I do. But I also want to learn and be entertained and enlightened and challenged...all of that. It's perfectly possible to read for enjoyment and as part of your writerly back-up too.

Now I know I said earlier something like I don't trust people who don't read...it's more along the lines of not liking when people boast about things they don't do. I've never seen the point. (KanYe this means you). It's really just a matter of you associate with people who have similar interests.

Some people might not want to hang out with me because they don't like books and they're one of my main obsessions. So? I don't hang out with parents because I can't stand kids. We're all allowed our own personal preferences.

The way I look at it is, a writer claiming they don't have to read a lot is like an architect claiming he doesn't need to enter into a building. Ever.

[john barnes on toast]

I don't remember saying it was.



I don't know what debate you've been having with other people, and I don't really care.

But you should be able to detach the two things, and respond to my post on merit. You're welcome to disagree. My comment was an honest summation of my opinion on the matter. I wasn't claiming it was the word of God, and certainly wasn't trying to fuel some flaming argument that I knew nothing of, so I don't think it's fair of you to project your animosity with some unspecified third party on to me.

[john barnes on toast]

and tell your mate, matchbooks don't count.

[scarletpeaches]

You mean the same kind of respect "scarletpeaches" shows toward me? I merely reciprocate her sentiment. There is also a fine line between snarking and attacking someone personally, as "scarletpeaches" does.

And since this is obviously turning into a "dog pile on motormind" thread, I'll bow out with any grace I might still have left. I wish all of you well-read literary geniuses a pleasant day. Let me know once one of your novels wins a Pulitzer.

Oh, and by the way: I read 50 books this year so far. Boo-yah!If anything I've said offends you that much, try reporting my posts or PMing me. No? Oh, okay then.

Congratulations on the 50 books by the way. I expect that means you rushed through them all for boasting rights. Bye now!

[Libbie]

For some people money can be an immensely motivating factor.

Yes, I know. And those people are very misinformed about the realities of professional writing. Such people should begin their exciting new foray into reading with some good books on what the industry is REALLY like.

I don't make a lot of money as a zoo keeper, but I'm doing that instead of writing full-time because I won't make enough off my writing to support myself until I've got a backlist, and that takes years. Years after achieving publication of my first novel. I learned that by reading about the industry.



Which, of course, can all be learned from any combination of books on writing on the market today. And the same elements apply to other storytelling media, such as movies, comic books and plays. In the end, story trumps all.

Story only trumps all when it's well-told.

If I could draw I would very likely produce comic books, but to my dismay I lack any artistic talent. I can write fairly readable sentences though, sometimes even two or more in a row, so I will just have to go with that.

Comic books are books. You've said elsewhere in this thread that people can still write well if they only read comic books, and I agree with that (though not with your assertion that they can be great writers and only watch movies.) They are heavy on the illustrations -- they use pictures instead of expository narrative -- but they still rely on the written word to achieve at least 50% of their storytelling.

The thing is: I read a lot. But it's mostly stuff that's way out of the limelight. Tolkien bores me to tears, for one.

Nobody said you have to read the classics, did they? I've read very few of the books "in the limelight," but I still read as often as possible.

You need to read other books for a number of reasons. First, you need to know what's cliche so you can avoid it. You also need to know what does and doesn't work, and understand why you believe it doesn't work. Most importantly, I believe, you need to find styles of writing that you both love and hate, and observe these styles, so you can carve out your own distinctive voice. I doubt that can be done unless you are familiar with other voices, and can compare your progressing voice to others' work.

Really, though, you should be reading because you love the written word. Why write if you don't already love to read? Why do you want to record your creative ideas as a bunch of black lines on white paper if you don't appreciate the medium, if you don't adore it? Paint instead, or dance, or create music, or a film.

I must admit, I think the people (and Rikki is sure not the first to say this on AW) who say they want to be professional writers but don't like to read kind of annoy me. What they're really saying is, "I think writing novels and even doing it full-time is easy." They're so, so wrong. And they'd know how wrong they were if they'd just make a habit of reading.

[Kathleen42]

I have no idea how many I've read since January. I don't keep track and how much I read varies during the year depending on my day job and what stage I'm in in the writing/revision process.

To be honest, while I agree that reading is important for all writers, I don't see the appeal of attaching a specific volume to it (like Stephen King does in On Writing) or comparing and contrasting. People read at different speeds and have different constraints on their time. I'm a fast reader and I don't have kids. I do have a day job and revisions.

[scarletpeaches]

I don't know what debate you've been having with other people, and I don't really care.

But you should be able to detach the two things, and respond to my post on merit. You're welcome to disagree. My comment was an honest summation of my opinion on the matter. I wasn't claiming it was the word of God, and certainly wasn't trying to fuel some flaming argument that I knew nothing of, so I don't think it's fair of you to project your animosity with some unspecified third party on to me.You quoted my post and said it's not a contest. I replied to that. If you don't like how I replied, you're welcome to report my post or PM me. I'd much prefer that instead of passive-aggressively claiming I'm projecting animosity onto you.and tell your mate, matchbooks don't count.Oh, I see. You're not trying to flame?

[Kathleen42]

I wish all of you well-read literary geniuses a pleasant day. Let me know once one of your novels wins a Pulitzer.


That was unnecessary.

[Manuel Royal]

Speaking of work . . . I'm currently in a period of unemployment. Almost since the beginning of the year, in fact. A lot of people are in the same boat, and I'm sure that includes some of us here. Until I can find a regular job, I'm taking advantage of the free time to write.

When I read the first few pages of this thread, I decided to take the day off from everything else and just immerse myself in a novel. Glad I did; it reminded me of why I wanted to write in the first place, and how much I want to give somebody else the experience of settling down with a book (that happens to have my name on it) and giving himself over to the story.

The book was A Night in the Lonesome October by the late Roger Zelazny; a lot of fun, and it shows how complex ideas, coming out of a rich cultural background, can be communicated with a simple style.

When I finished the book, I felt ready to write again.

[kidcharlemagne]

ETA: Oh, and the post counts are spread over four years. And I type fast, so...meh. It's not that many.

I make that 13.471232876712328767123287671233 posts a day. Well...I didn't count leap years. ;)

[scarletpeaches]

God. I really don't have a life.

*is sad*

Oh well. I hate people. So it's okay. Who needs to go outside? :D

To get vaguely back on topic and less snarky, a visitor to my flat once asked why I have so many books. I said, "Because I like books better than people." Hurr hurr, what a joke, right?

Then I realised it was actually true.

[dolores haze]

However, I have to admit that, in my case, reading is also a form of procrastination.

I shall join you in confessing this is also true of me. Darn those lovely, lovely books and those horrible people who write them!

*grin*

[kidcharlemagne]

I said, "Because I like books better than people." Hurr hurr, what a joke, right?

Then I realised it was actually true.

I hear you, although I do like people but I do find as I get older that I'm perfectly content to be on my own with a good book and faced with the choice of phoning a friend or catching a bit more time with a book I will plump for the book. :)

So many books, so little time!

[Libbie]

Oh, and for the record, since we're all waving our dicks over how many books we read in a year or whatever, I don't keep track. Personally, the numbers don't interest me. The literature does. If I'm not writing or working, I'm always reading -- either a physical book, or listening to an audio book while I drive, shop, jog, paint, clean, etc. I just don't keep track.

[john barnes on toast]

Oh, I see. You're not trying to flame?

that was meant as a joke.

[backslashbaby]

I probably read about 20 novels a year, I'd say. And lots of short stories, bits on the web, etc. Definitely not my obsession, but nice and steady.

And there hasn't been one that didn't make me close it up and write a new section of my stories out of the blue, btw. It's something about how it hits the imagination. Do try it out, at least, if your muse is rusty and you haven't been reading.

[CaroGirl]

lol. If this is the case, I see everything you've been saying in this thread as baiting.
I agree with this. boo-yah.

[Toothpaste]

Can we please establish that reading a lot doesn't specify which books you need to read? I see people saying, "If I don't want to read the classics I won't" and "I find LOTR boring" . . . and your point is? No one is telling people what to read. Yes in my mind it is best to read a wide variety of books, but you don't have to read some standard list of books.

And motormind, I know you aren't coming back here, but just in case. Thank you so much for your snide Pulitzer remark. For the record though, my novel has won an award, and is nominated for another. Since evidently that is the only standard you attribute to good writing, I thought you should know. And also, were you just being devil's advocate all this time with your 50 books read in one year? It seems to me there is some deeper issue going on here that we don't quite understand.

And anyone who thinks there is no skill in crafting sentences, in putting words to a page . . . well such a person is woefully naive. I have to say, of everything I've read on this thread since I got up this morning, that's the most depressing of them all.

[scarletpeaches]

that was meant as a joke.So was my post. Matchbooks? Flames? Geddit?

Oh I see.

No career as a stand-up comedian for me then. I has a sadz. :(

[john barnes on toast]

So was my post. Matchbooks? Flames? Geddit?




Too clever for me.

[Ken]

... nope; it isn't boasting to say how many books one has read, unless one stands on a street corner and shouts it to all passersby on a daily basis, and I do actually know some people in real life who do something of the sort ;-)

For those who can read and write quickly that's something to be proud of and they shouldn't hesitate to share that in discussions as these, no more than someone who reads and writes slowly should hesitate to mention their own rate. So long as one performs to the best of their ability they have no reason to be abashed.

I'm a slow reader, myself. This year I've read about 14 books, including 5 YA titles and two short story anthologies. Last year and the previous one I only read about 3 books, total. Part of the reason for the increase was hearing about how much members on this site read, which got me thinking that I should be reading more, myself, with the aim of improving my writing.

Perhaps next year I'll also manage to read 200 books ... easy readers that is ;-)

[KTC]

I am, I'm sure, the slowest reader here. My wife insists that it's because I'm a writer...but I know it's just a weakness of some sort. I try to read faster...because my reading list is going to last far longer than my lifespan...but I just can't. I sometimes read a sentence 3 times...for its beauty. I read every single word too...even 'the' and 'and'. My wife says she scans...which is perplexing to me. She often accuses me of being an Aspergian because I'm so rigid and regimented, etc. I try to 'teach' her how to read right, but she insists she does it better than me. I can't argue. She reads about 4 books to my 1. It pains me!

[scarletpeaches]

I think what I do is read groups of words. It's really hard to explain.

Working out how I read is like trying to work out how I breathe. I just...do it. As soon as I thinking about how it all works, it becomes more complicated than it needs to be.

[dolores haze]

I think what I do is read groups of words. It's really hard to explain.


That's what I do. I read an entire sentence before I process it. I always thought it was because I learned to read by word recognition, not by phonetics. Single words make no sense unless they're strung together. Did you perhaps learn to read before starting school? To this day I can't write a word that someone is verbally spelling out for me (unless they do it very, very slowly.) I have to hear the word.

Sorry. Derail.

[Ken]

... good to know that I'm not the only one who reads at a speed-challenged rate :-)

ps Actually, SP, I can see first-hand that you read quickly, judging how quickly you respond to posts here. I'll respond to one of your posts for instance and by then you'll already have posted replies of your own to five other members. Sometimes I swear there are two of you ;-)

[KTC]

I think what I do is read groups of words. It's really hard to explain.

Working out how I read is like trying to work out how I breathe. I just...do it. As soon as I thinking about how it all works, it becomes more complicated than it needs to be.

Yep. That's it. Groups of words. I'm pretty sure this is how my wife reads too. She will read the whole sentence at once. I. Read. Every. Single. Word. Individually.

[ChaosTitan]

Good golly, I go away to dig into edits and the thread doubled in size. My head hurts now.

If you can really be a good writer without reading widely, let's see a list of names. Published authors (Kanye West excepted) who are on record as saying they don't read and whose works show no literary influences. Let's build a list we can discuss.

I'll start: I don't know any author like that.

I'm waiting for this list, as well. I read a lot of author blogs, and I can't name one of them who doesn't occasionally mention what they're reading. Why? Not only do authors read to improve their craft, but they read to FREAKING SUPPORT EACH OTHER. Personally, if I ever stumbled across an author who said "I don't read, but here, buy my book!" I'd avoid them forever, no matter how amazing their book sounded.

As I've said before, if you're writing as a hobby, fine. Read or don't read. But if you're goal is publication, then for God's sake, support the industry you say you want to be a part of!


Anyone else care to post how many books they read on average each year?

I keep track of my books on Goodreads, because this year was about challenging myself to read more. So far, I've read 72 books (about eight of them were novellas, so moderately shorter than your average novel). This is probably the most I've read in a single year since I was a teenager. And you know what? This is the most creative I've felt in years, too.

Is there a correlation?

Can we please establish that reading a lot doesn't specify which books you need to read?

Exactly. I've not read a single "classic" since college. They just don't interest me. I write genre novels, so I read genre novels. I read a lot of urban fantasy, some romance, some historical, some erotica, even the occasional biography. I read what interests me, because I had enough of people telling me to read "classics" in school.

And motormind, I know you aren't coming back here, but just in case. Thank you so much for your snide Pulitzer remark.

Yeah, that made me laugh out loud. I didn't know I had to want to win the Pulitzer in order to be taken seriously. My only literary goal right now is for my debut release to not flop. ;)

And anyone who thinks there is no skill in crafting sentences, in putting words to a page . . . well such a person is woefully naive. I have to say, of everything I've read on this thread since I got up this morning, that's the most depressing of them all.

Ditto. Although part of me agrees with motormind when he said anyone who can string sentences together can write a novel. That's true. HOWEVER, it takes skill, practice and knowledge of your craft to write a coherent novel that other people will want to read. Or heaven forbid, pay you money for.

[thethinker42]

... good to know that I'm not the only one who reads at a speed-challenged rate :-)

ps Actually, SP, I can see first-hand that you read quickly, judging how quickly you respond to posts here. I'll respond to one of your posts for instance and by then you'll already have posted replies of your own to five other members. Sometimes I swear there are two of you ;-)

I can vouch for this too...she beta reads my chapters in a matter of minutes, and believe me, NOTHING escapes her notice.

[Ken]

... that's awesome.

[scarletpeaches]

That's what I do. I read an entire sentence before I process it. I always thought it was because I learned to read by word recognition, not by phonetics. Single words make no sense unless they're strung together. Did you perhaps learn to read before starting school? To this day I can't write a word that someone is verbally spelling out for me (unless they do it very, very slowly.) I have to hear the word.

Sorry. Derail.Yeah, I could read by the age of two. School bored the living piss out of me 'cause I'd already been reading for years by the time I went to primary (start age is 5 in this country).

Weird thing is I don't remember how I learned. I just had newspapers and books put in front of me by an early age and someone must have told me what these strange symbols meant.

It feels like I've already read because my ability to do so goes so far back.

There may be something in this because if someone spells out "C-A-R," I picture the letters in my head, put them together and go, "Oh. Car. Right."

But if they say, "Car," immediately I picture the thing.

[Priene]

I remember reading that some people have the ability to read groups of words, while some don't. When most of us read a word, for instance, we'll see it as one pattern, rather than breaking down into individual letters. Some (I'm one) can do the same with multiple words, and they tend to read faster. I don't recall Aspergers being mentioned in connection with it.

[scarletpeaches]

I just has menny braincleverz. Mor than a tree!

Don't hate me.

[KTC]

I remember reading that some people have the ability to read groups of words, while some don't. When most of us read a word, for instance, we'll see it as one pattern, rather than breaking down into individual letters. Some (I'm one) can do the same with multiple words, and they tend to read faster. I don't recall Aspergers being mentioned in connection with it.

No. The asperger's comment was more general...referring to my rigid personality...not my reading ability. I'm not, though...I'm just sickeningly anal about everything.

[Priene]

From Blackwell reference (http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405145374_chunk_g978140514537451)

...Love in a Blue Time reveals and pays homage to Kureishi's literary influences, featuring epigraphs from Robert Louis Stevenson and Italo Calvino, while modeling one story (“My Son the Fanatic”) on a work by Philip Roth and another (“Lately”) on Anton Chekhov's “The Duel.” Furthermore, his representation of London as a site of chaos and anomie places his fiction in the tradition of urban realism, recalling the works of Zola and the later Dickens, while mapping territory also explored by Zadie Smith, Ian McEwan, and others.

I think we can cross Kureishi off our list.

[scarletpeaches]

I can read individual words...say, on a list. It's just, when I see words in books, I read them in groups because it takes less time. I like reading fast 'cause it means I can read more.

[bearilou]

... good to know that I'm not the only one who reads at a speed-challenged rate :-)

And bearilou makes three!

[bearilou]

This is probably the most I've read in a single year since I was a teenager. And you know what? This is the most creative I've felt in years, too.

Is there a correlation?

If I didn't believe it before, I do now. This is the most I've read in a while (although it's just a mere 6 novels and two handfuls of short stories) and I've gotten my writing wind back as well.

And the more I write...the more I read...the more I write...the more I read...

[KTC]

I can read individual words...say, on a list. It's just, when I see words in books, I read them in groups because it takes less time. I like reading fast 'cause it means I can read more.

Damn you. Damn you all to hell.

[scarletpeaches]

Damn you. Damn you all to hell.I read these words as a group and collectively they make me laugh.

[The Lonely One]

The thing about not reading is...you can't learn to write AT ALL without reading. You read your own work. You read to learn letters and sentences and syntax and grammar by viewing and assimilating; that is, reading. Why is this an argument? If you choose to stop reading, you choose to stop writing. They're interlinked.

If we're talking about reading OTHER fiction (not counting the sentences on the blackboard you had to dissect in grade school--yes those are fiction. Janey didn't really walk the dog. Did you really think that? Jane, you ignorant slut)--well you can go ahead and not read all day. You'll produce the same crap day in and day out that has unrealistic, directionless dialog, because you're basing your technique off of actual conversation and posts online, since that's apparently all you read. You'll make all the same mistakes that make your stories hokey, flat, riddled with violations against your readers, and with only your own hammer to fix it all.

I don't know about you guys but sometimes a socket wrench comes in handy, or a screwdriver. I don't mind borrowing one if I need to tighten something.

[The Lonely One]

In fact does anyone have a screwdriver? No, I mean a drink...

[kidcharlemagne]

Most of what I read is lit fiction and I'm a slow reader mainly because I want to savour the words. Maybe that is also possible to do via speed reading as well, I wouldn't know. I bought a book on how to speed read once but I never read it. :D

[aadams73]

I think what I do is read groups of words. It's really hard to explain.

Working out how I read is like trying to work out how I breathe. I just...do it. As soon as I thinking about how it all works, it becomes more complicated than it needs to be.

That's what I do. I read an entire sentence before I process it. I always thought it was because I learned to read by word recognition, not by phonetics. Single words make no sense unless they're strung together. Did you perhaps learn to read before starting school? To this day I can't write a word that someone is verbally spelling out for me (unless they do it very, very slowly.) I have to hear the word.

Sorry. Derail.

I learned to read before starting school and these are my experiences exactly. I recognize words, I don't spell them out at all.

And I have an extremely hard time writing a word when someone is spelling it out to me--it's excruciating and I get quite muddled.

[sleepsheep]

Anyone else care to post how many books they read on average each year?

I average about a book a week. During periods when I have to do a lot of academic reading, I don't allow too much time for fiction. But, reading fiction (novels, stories, and comics) is my biggest and most longstanding hobby, and I always hesitate to give it up.

[sleepsheep]

I learned to read before starting school and these are my experiences exactly. I recognize words, I don't spell them out at all.

And I have an extremely hard time writing a word when someone is spelling it out to me--it's excruciating and I get quite muddled.

That's exactly my experience too. I learned to read in English using the "whole word" approach, which is unlike phonics in that I don't sound out the letters to form words but rather recognize each word almost as if it's a picture. In contrast, I learned to read in Russian using a phonics approach, and my Russian reading is much much slower, since I look at the letters and how they fit together, rather than looking at the whole word, as I do in English.

[aadams73]

That's exactly my experience too. I learned to read in English using the "whole word" approach, which is unlike phonics in that I don't sound out the letters to form words but rather recognize each word almost as if it's a picture. In contrast, I learned to read in Russian using a phonics approach, and my Russian reading is much much slower, since I look at the letters and how they fit together, rather than looking at the whole word, as I do in English.

Heh, what a funny world it is. I learned Greek the same way you learned Russian, and my experience is identical. My Greek reading is glacial compared to my English.

[sleepsheep]

Most of what I read is lit fiction and I'm a slow reader mainly because I want to savour the words. Maybe that is also possible to do via speed reading as well, I wouldn't know. I bought a book on how to speed read once but I never read it. :D

On the recommendation of a professor I knew, I took a speed-reading course offered at my University. It was necessary for me at the time. I was going for my MA, and I had about 500 pages of reading to do per week. I couldn't manage it otherwise. The speed reading helped, but I would never use those techniques for fiction. It is NOT an enjoyable way to read literature. In fact, I've never heard of anyone speed reading fiction, although perhaps agents and editors do this to get through their piles.

[Bubastes]

I learned to read before starting school and these are my experiences exactly. I recognize words, I don't spell them out at all.

And I have an extremely hard time writing a word when someone is spelling it out to me--it's excruciating and I get quite muddled.

Interesting. I learned English via phonics and I've always been a fast reader. I also won spelling bees when I was a kid because I knew how to sound out words. Not sure what that proves except my nerdity.

[Kathleen42]

Interesting. I learned English via phonics and I've always been a fast reader.

I consider myself a fast reader as well and I learned phonetically.

[CaroGirl]

I have no idea how I learned to read. I've been reading since I was 3 so I have no memory of learning how or not being able to read. I'm not a fast reader. I read lit fic mostly and I like to savour the words, not hare throught the story. I also frequently read novels so good I don't want them to end. So I read even slower knowing I'll be sad when it's over. I hope that's not weird.

[KTC]

I have no idea how I learned to read. I've been reading since I was 3 so I have no memory of learning how or not being able to read. I'm not a fast reader. I read lit fic mostly and I like to savour the words, not hare throught the story. I also frequently read novels so good I don't want them to end. So I read even slower knowing I'll be sad when it's over. I hope that's not weird.


Ditto. I don't remember not reading, so I have no idea how I learned. I was reading well before school. Just extremely slowly.

[kidcharlemagne]

On the recommendation of a professor I knew, I took a speed-reading course offered at my University. It was necessary for me at the time. I was going for my MA, and I had about 500 pages of reading to do per week. I couldn't manage it otherwise. The speed reading helped, but I would never use those techniques for fiction. It is NOT an enjoyable way to read literature. In fact, I've never heard of anyone speed reading fiction, although perhaps agents and editors do this to get through their piles.

OK, good, then I can continue with slow reading. My wife is a fast reader to the point where I questioned whether it was possible for her to really savour and absorb prose at that speed. I guess it is hard for us slow readers to believe that you can fully enjoy great prose at fast lane speed.

[Cassiopeia]

I used to read more than I do now. I'm so overwhelmed with reading for my university studies that I'm going to have to make this something I do to get away from all that.

Reading so much in a week makes me NOT want to read fiction.

[Blarg]

No, forcing yourself to write is called self-discipline.

I think there's a lot to be said for this. If you wait for inspiration to strike before you write, you may produce very little, and when you do write, find it hard to accumulate enough momentum to actually finish much.

That's fine for a casual writer, but if you are someone who has to write to a deadline or wants to make a career out of writing, you'd better be the most inspired son of a gun on the planet if you don't do lots of writing when you're not in the mood.

[peachiemkey]

I used to read a ton as a little kid. A credit goes to the Harry Potter series for forming half my vocabulary and essentially teaching me how to write. I was one of those little rejects who would bring a book to recess.

Now... I barely read. And I'm horribly unproductive compared to others when it comes to writing.

When I do read, the words flow for 2 hours to 2 days. Then shut off again.

It's so obvious what I need to do (read more!), but there's no time. Ugh. I'll have to work on it.

[cathyfreeze]

I think there's a lot to be said for this. If you wait for inspiration to strike before you write, you may produce very little, and when you do write, find it hard to accumulate enough momentum to actually finish much.

I agree. I'm seriously blocked, but i try to write every day. I find that the more i force stuff out, the easier it gets, and i do manage to write several hundred words of productive stuff every time i sit down. That doesn't sound like a lot--it's not--because i'm still blocked. :) But the longer i go without writing at all, the harder it is to write even *one* sentence when i log back in.

Seriously. Write, even if it's crap. It gets less crappy, if you do. ;)

cat

[VRGunslinger1982]

Except for authors like F. Paul Wilson and Stephen King, but authors suck. Horrible. Anyone read The Time Traveler's Wife yet? An atrocious book. The libraries are filled with inane, convoluted crap. And to think we're cutting down all those trees to produce crap.

[scarletpeaches]

Uh-oh.

[VRGunslinger1982]

Uh-oh? WHat's that mean?

[KTC]

it means cut the crap. (probably)

[CaroGirl]

Except for authors like F. Paul Wilson and Stephen King, but authors suck. Horrible. Anyone read The Time Traveler's Wife yet? An atrocious book. The libraries are filled with inane, convoluted crap. And to think we're cutting down all those trees to produce crap.
All right class. Listen up now. Is the above passage:

a) Fact
OR
b) Opinion

Think carefully now because the answer is worth 90% of this term's grade.

[KTC]

I'll go with opinion for a hundred, Alex. Or is that What is Opinion? No. that's the answer. oh, bother.

[Cella]

*whispers to KTC*

lock the thread! Lock the thread! It's going to get ugly in here!



*ducks before objects are thrown around the room*

[CaroGirl]

*whispers to KTC*

lock the thread! Lock the thread! It's going to get ugly in here!



*ducks before objects are thrown around the room*
Wait a minute! KTC has the power to lock threads? When did that happen? Should I be frightened?

[scarletpeaches]

Kevin invokes the supersekrit CHANT OF LOCKINATION and he makes it happen.