Isn’t studying Hemingway and the other masters a bit like studying “Mr Ed?”

[expatbrat]

So I got this email add thing from Absolute Write promoting this great course where we study the masters like… Hemmingway.

Is looking back really the way forward? Isn’t studying Hemmingway and the other masters a bit like studying “Mr Ed” or “the flying nun” as a means of producing the next “desperate housewives” or “24?”

I am all for remembering history so we don’t repeat the mistakes of our past. But if we spend too much time looking backwards – won’t we just trip over?

[triceretops]

I've made this mistake but in a different context--well, maybe it IS the same. In the past year I've read a lot of the old masters of science fiction--even the "golden age" writers. You all know who they are--Verne, Wells, Bradbury, etc,.

Little did I know that their concepts i.e, plots crept into my own writing. One of the first rejections that I received from a major house via my agent, stated: "You didn't push the genre enough." This could be a fluke, but I rather doubt it. What I've learned from this is, is too keep abreast of all new science discoveries and see if I can't come up with something unique and truly fresh. From here on out I'm going to concentrate on some newer stuff, maybe something ground-breaking.

We're not talking about the craft or style issues here, although I can certainly see how this could influence a writer. So I will say, yes, leave Lovecraft where he lies, and this is truly a different age. I think the masters are great for substance, color, atmosphere, pace and other aspects--just to see how it was done. But one does have to rely on one's own ability and talent in a uniquely personalized voice.

Tri

[Birol]

No. Disagree.

You study the past to learn from it. You study the canon in order to understand where you, as a writer, are coming from, and to know what you as a writer are building upon.

[blacbird]

The first thing you learn is how to spell "Hemingway".

caw.

[BuffStuff]

Studying great writers of the past can be very fulfilling, but just don't go into it with the attitude of copying what they did as far as style & technique goes. Look more toward how they created characters, made them interesting and developed them throughout the "Character Arc" of the story. Plot too, is a great point to study, but not the pacing of the plot & character arc. Many novels of the past moved far too slowly for the preference of today's reader. Learning about WHAT the past writers did, but finding a different, more updated way of doing it yourself is important.

Jane Austin, just as an example, (as great as she was) would have a hell of a time being published by a big publishing house today. The same with many of the other literary giants of the past. They were far better writers than most of today's most popular authors, but the market is much different, the trends in publishing and writing are different. The influence of film & televison has had a lot to do with the gradual decrease in the attention-spans of the average reader.

[maestrowork]

Some things about writing are universal: characterization, POV, plot, word choices, themes, structure, language, etc. Though time might have changed, these skills remain mostly relevant. Studying the masters like Hemingway or Twain or Dickens, like studying Picasso or Monet in art, tells us a lot about the craft. You might not want to write like Hemingway anymore, or compose like Mozart, or paint like Van Gogh, but you can learn a great deal from studying these masters.

[Jamesaritchie]

So I got this email add thing from Absolute Write promoting this great course where we study the masters like… Hemmingway.

Is looking back really the way forward? Isn’t studying Hemmingway and the other masters a bit like studying “Mr Ed” or “the flying nun” as a means of producing the next “desperate housewives” or “24?”

I am all for remembering history so we don’t repeat the mistakes of our past. But if we spend too much time looking backwards – won’t we just trip over?

I've never known a good writer, or a sucessful writer in most genres, who hasn't read an awful bunch of old and classic writers. If you don't read a great deal of what has been done in the past, you'll spend an awful lot of time trying to reinvent the wheel.

You also miss out on the best possible examples of what has been done well enough to last for decades or centuries. It isn't about not repeating mistakes, it's about repeating successes.

Reading current bestseller is also important, but all this does is tell you what reeaders want today, not what reader will want two or three years from today. Great writing and great storytelling never go out of style, and the best way to learn how to do both is to read and study those writers who did it well enough to be read yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

And if you look at the reading lists of today's bestsellingw riters, you near always find a healthy selction of yesterday's writers.

And in the end, it's like saying, "Isn't studying da Vinci and Rembrandt really a good way to learn how to paint?"

You bet it is, and that's why studying the old masters is mandatory in art school.

[poetinahat]

This is an interesting proposition: If you want to learn to write, study the Bulwer-Lyttons of the world, then do what they DON'T do.

Like sculpting the proverbial elephant: get a piece of stone and chisel away everything that doesn't look like an elephant.

[maestrowork]

In my film/media class we studied films such as Jaws, the Godfather, and David Lean movies. I doubt that anyone would be making those types of movies, the same ways, anymore, but WOW, did I learn a lot from the techniques. No CGIs, and I'm sure some of the techniques are obsolete, but the ideas behind, say, a Hitchcock zoom, or superimposition, are timeless. And the ways Spielberg, Copola, and Lean use these skills to weave together a spellbinding story are amazing. I think I've learned more about films while studying Jaws than I did all those years before watching films.

I think critical analysis of any art form is essential for one's understanding of such art form, and I'm not talking about artsy fartsy, ivory tower stuff.

[Zonk]

I heard of a girl who went to Juilliard. Her great love was Jazz - but all her profs wanted her to play Chopin, Liszt, Mozart, Beethoven, Rachmaninoff - an endless stream of music she really wasn't interested in, or wanted to play. She became desparate. She began to frequent bars with good Jazz groups, asking questions and learning what she could. Her professors told her soon that if she didn't start practicing better, she would fail out.
It all came to a head one day when her favorite teacher stopped her in the middle of a piece; he just put his hands gently on hers and shook his head.
"That won't do," he said. "If you're not going to try to do better than that, you may as well quit now."
She threw the sheet music all around the room and screamed at him.
"But I don't want to play this G**d*** old stuff! I want to play Jazz! This is just wasting my time!"
Her prof sighed. He looked on her paternally. He had a nice old face, hardly a wrinkle, except when he smiled. Taking off his half-moon reading glasses, he placed them in his pocket - and proceeded to lay down some of the most awesome chord progressions she had ever heard - while looking at her.
He stopped when he saw he had her full attention.
"When I am finished with you," he said, "you will be able to play anything you like: untill then you will play what I tell you to play."
And smiled.

You don't learn to play Mozart to be Mozart: you play Mozart to be a better piano player. Neither should you read Hemingway, or Faulkner (chalk and cheese, if you please http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif) or Bradbury or Austen or whoever to be them; you study them to be a better writer.

Only someone who has read everyone can claim to be truly original.


:D:D:D

[Jamesaritchie]

This is an interesting proposition: If you want to learn to write, study the Bulwer-Lyttons of the world, then do what they DON'T do.

Like sculpting the proverbial elephant: get a piece of stone and chisel away everything that doesn't look like an elephant.

Bulwer-Lytton gets a truly bum rap. He wa sa much better writer than he's given credit for. I think the main thing people have against him is that so many things he write have been truned into cliches. But this is the fault of the lesser, unimaginative writers who copied from him.

"It was a dark and stormy night" was a wonderful line when first used. It only became bad after twelve thousand writers with no imagination of their own also used it.

[Birol]

Maestro mentioned Mark Twain. He was a great one for combining social commentary, writing that made the reader think, with entertainment in such a way that the social commentary made an impact without being noticed.

[poetinahat]

Thanks for the correction! I was just trying to conjure a well-known example of a bad writer.

[Jamesaritchie]

Maestro mentioned Mark Twain. He was a great one for combining social commentary, writing that made the reader think, with entertainment in such a way that the social commentary made an impact without being noticed.

Mark Twain is also a writer whose style has never gone out of style. Most of his writing is timeless. I've sold several stories written as close to his style as possible.

[aruna]

What they all said. We learn to write well by subconsciously absorbing the rules, rythms, patterns of great writing. This is true for all of the arts.

[BuffStuff]

Great work is great work, and as such it should definitely be studied and appreciated, regardless of how old, or new, it is. But, at the same time it is also important to do the general bulk of one's study by studying the newest examples of whatever art you're in. If you're an art major, studying Rembrandt, Da Vinci, Van Gogh (who was considered a hack in his lifetime) etc is definitely time well-spent but there are scores, and scores of artists to come along since then who've displayed far more talent. It's just the nature of the beast. Art evolves. Med students wouldn't be trained to perform dissection with a scalpel from the 1890's. Film students and apprentice directors etc don't spend a huge portion of time (over the totality of their education) dissecting the work of silent film directors. Art evolves and improves over the generations, as it should and if its students study correctly, it has no choice but to. Though, the progression with writing and writers is a bit harder to define than with the visual arts, etc.

Great artists of whatever field should and do spend the majority of their study time by studying artists in their own generation. It's common sense. Psych majors are given the primer on Freud, Jung, Adler, etc because it is important to study them, and it gives a foundation. Truly cutting edge work is spent in the present.

So, in answer.. Studying Hemingway, etc WOULD be like studying the flying nun while attempting to create Desperate House Wives ONLY IF that person ONLY studied Hemingway, Austin, James etc to the exclusion of his own generation of authors.

If you want to create a Desperate House Wives, you certainly wouldn't do the bulk of your screenwriting and film analysis on movies from the 20's anymore than a writer wanting to create a Clancyesque thriller should do the bulk of his work studying Dickens (who was considered a hack for a portion of his career). This doesn't mean that studying the past masters isn't important. It is and always will be, but the bulk of your study should be spent analyzing great writers of your own generation.

A reason I am writing this is because, the mistakes people usually make lie in ignoring the past in their studies, but there's a smaller portion who, oddly enough, ignore the present. (I'm not making any assumptions or implications about anyone here, this is just something I have noticed in different areas of my life)

[PastMidnight]

If a writer can't be successful until they've read Hemingway, then I'm screwed, because I can't stand Hemingway.

I think that BuffStuff said it well. It's probably useful to have a working knowledge of those who came before, but it doesn't do any good to ignore the great writers who came after.

Also keep in mind that the canon of "great literature" taught in high school and college does not necessarly include all of the best books. There are huge gaps. And just because something is in the canon, it doesn't mean that it is an enjoyable read, no matter how well-written it may be.

[Birol]

There are many different canons. Nearly as many as there are students of literature.

If it helps, I also cannot stand Hemingway, but I've read him and can tell you exactly what it is I don't like about his style.

[Liam Jackson]

I'm not particualry interested in "studying" anyone. I'm interested in stories. Good stories. Styles may differ but a good story is a good story. Writers from the past (such as Hemingway, Steinbeck, Faulkner, Dickens, Poe, etc.,) had different styles and methods of presentation. Some of those styles would still pass muster in today's literary climate, while perhaps others wouldn't. Yet, even with the latter, I can still appreciate the storyline, the plot arches and mechanics of storytelling. And I might even learn something about the craft along the way. I consider that a bonus to a good read.

[MacAllister]

It's perhaps noteworthy that those old guys are still in print, while so many of their contemporaries are not...

[aruna]

If a writer can't be successful until they've read Hemingway, then I'm screwed, because I can't stand Hemingway.

.

I don't think it's a question of liking or not liking. I hate Wuthering Heights but I can still (reluctantly!) concede that it's a great book, and worth reading.

As for Hemingway - the name alone, ro me at least, says nothing. "For Whom the bell Tolls" is perhaps my all-time favourite book. I can't think of another book that had the same effect on me - I was crying for three days after reading it!
That was my very first Hemingway (about 5 years ago) and I decided that "Hemingway is my favourite author" and tried to get my hands on al his books (I was in Germany at the time and it wasn't so easy). Everything else by him was completely underwhelminhg, and one, "The Sun Also Rises" I found dreadful.

[PastMidnight]

Everything else by him was completely underwhelminhg, and one, "The Sun Also Rises" I found dreadful.

Maybe I'm not judging him on his best, then. The Sun Also Rises is the only book that I've ever started and put down before finishing. I always force myself to finish books, even if they aren't doing it for me. But I just couldn't do it with that book!

[PastMidnight]

I don't think it's a question of liking or not liking. I hate Wuthering Heights but I can still (reluctantly!) concede that it's a great book, and worth reading.


This may be true, but if I'm finding it hard to get into a book and pay attention to the story, it is less likely that I'll pay attention to the writing style.

[aruna]

Maybe I'm not judging him on his best, then. The Sun Also Rises is the only book that I've ever started and put down before finishing. I always force myself to finish books, even if they aren't doing it for me. But I just couldn't do it with that book!

I agree! I forced myself to finish it but I absolutely hated it.

[poetinahat]

Okay, just for balance's sake, an enthusiastic vote FOR The Sun Also Rises. Loved it.

I'll gladly trade you my half-read copy of The Hobbit, or my nearly untouched copy of Steinbeck's The Red Pony. Hey, you can have both. For nothing.

[janetbellinger]

So I got this email add thing from Absolute Write promoting this great course where we study the masters like… Hemmingway.

Is looking back really the way forward? Isn’t studying Hemmingway and the other masters a bit like studying “Mr Ed” or “the flying nun” as a means of producing the next “desperate housewives” or “24?”

I am all for remembering history so we don’t repeat the mistakes of our past. But if we spend too much time looking backwards – won’t we just trip over?
No, I don't think studying Hemingway and the classics is like studying Mr. Ed. If that were true, it would be pointless to try and learn any lessons at all from history. However, I believe that the classics, like any literature, should be absorbed into the skin, rather than studied. I believe we will learn from the authors we admire, without consciously trying to do so. I admire Hemingway but I don't try to write like him. As though I even could. LOL. But I am sure some inspiration seeps in from that quarter.

[aruna]

BTW who is Mr Ed???

[Stew21]

When I had to read Hemingway, it was The Old Man And The Sea, which I hated. Later when I went back to read some of the greats I read A Moveable Feast, Farewell To Arms, etc, and got a completely new appreciation. No I don't want to write like him, but something to be said for his abilities to be declarative, use the truest word, Feast showed a writing process that I enjoyed finding out about. He has a knack for explaining landscapes and places and giving it a feel. I think the same can be said for a lot of the masters and what they offer to the collective craft.

[NeuroFizz]

To me, the original question of this thread equates to one that centers on doing background research (on any topic). It is re-phrased as this: Why should we go back to original sources and journal papers when we have the internet? If you are nodding your head in agreement, you need a quick lesson on the inherent limitations, shortcomings, and potential biases of internet postings.

[maestrowork]

I don't think it's a question of liking or not liking. I hate Wuthering Heights but I can still (reluctantly!) concede that it's a great book, and worth reading...

Agreed. Like I said before, it's not about learning to write like Hemingway or Twain. But they were masters for some reasons, and if we could glean something from their writing, it could only help. Personally I like them, but can't stand, for example, Joyce. But still, I could learn, even just at the subconscious level, the "good stuff." Hemingway was great about using words, the simplest, truest, most exact words that paint a precise picture for the readers. Twain was a master storyteller that was both entertaining and thought-provoking. Austen was wonderful with characters and social commentaries. Etc. Etc. You don't have to like any of these authors or write like them... but I bet Chuck Palahniuk reads Jane Austen! :)

Like Mac said, many of these writers' masterworks are still in print and they still sell. To Kill a Mocking Bird, for example, is still a best seller after almost 50 years.

[zarch]

BTW who is Mr Ed???

A talking horse who had a wildly popular television program a few decades ago.

[NeuroFizz]

A talking horse who had a wildly popular television program a few decades ago.
And, for any literalists out there, he was an animal character in a popular television program, portrayed as a talking horse. (Just a little teasing fun, Zarch).

[zarch]

And, for any literalists out there, he was an animal character in a popular television program, portrayed as a talking horse. (Just a little teasing fun, Zarch).

You mean he didn't really talk?

[Birol]

Of course he did, Zarch. NeuroFizz said he was just teasing.

[zarch]

Of course he did, Zarch. NeuroFizz said he was just teasing.

Okay, good.

[zarch]

Sheesh, next you're gonna tell me the horse is dead or something.

[Sentia]

Mr. Ed wasn't your ordinary Palomino. He was the author of a book called Love and the Single Horse.

I get a lot of inspiration from Mr. Ed. I'll be sitting at my desk, writing dialogue -- too much dialogue, maybe -- and I can hear his famous words from the great TV caper episode: "I'm tired of talk, talk, talk. It's time for action! Action! Action!"

Can anyone tell I have Mr. Ed on videotape? http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[BuffStuff]

Mr. Ed was definitely the alphamale in that horse-human relationship. Wilbur needed Mr. Ed far more than Mr. Ed needed Wilbur.

Concerning *some* of the Classics of literature, I often have to wonder if their bestseller status is due solely to the fact that they are required reading in thousands upon thousands of public & private highschools all over the country (and beyond)

I know this isn't the case with many classics but there are a number of titles on the required summer reading lists that I would be *very* surprised if they'd retain their best-seller status were they not required reading.

At any rate, it'd be interesting to find out a rough % of the sold numbers that were for a summer reading list. This would be an impossible task, unfortunately. As an uninteresting sidenote, learning that the sales on Agatha Christie's Mysteries (roughly 2...billion so far) blow away any other author living or dead, shocked the hell out of me.

[Jamesaritchie]

If a writer can't be successful until they've read Hemingway, then I'm screwed, because I can't stand Hemingway.

I think that BuffStuff said it well. It's probably useful to have a working knowledge of those who came before, but it doesn't do any good to ignore the great writers who came after.

Also keep in mind that the canon of "great literature" taught in high school and college does not necessarly include all of the best books. There are huge gaps. And just because something is in the canon, it doesn't mean that it is an enjoyable read, no matter how well-written it may be.

You don't necessarily have to study Hemingway, though why a wannabe writer wouldn't pot in at least some time studying the most influential writer of the twentieth century is beyond me. You don't have a like a writer to read him, to learn why he was the most influential.

But if not Hemingway, then at least some of teh classic writers must be read and studied.

[Jamesaritchie]

Great work is great work, and as such it should definitely be studied and appreciated, regardless of how old, or new, it is. But, at the same time it is also important to do the general bulk of one's study by studying the newest examples of whatever art you're in. If you're an art major, studying Rembrandt, Da Vinci, Van Gogh (who was considered a hack in his lifetime) etc is definitely time well-spent but there are scores, and scores of artists to come along since then who've displayed far more talent. It's just the nature of the beast. Art evolves. Med students wouldn't be trained to perform dissection with a scalpel from the 1890's. Film students and apprentice directors etc don't spend a huge portion of time (over the totality of their education) dissecting the work of silent film directors. Art evolves and improves over the generations, as it should and if its students study correctly, it has no choice but to. Though, the progression with writing and writers is a bit harder to define than with the visual arts, etc.

Great artists of whatever field should and do spend the majority of their study time by studying artists in their own generation. It's common sense. Psych majors are given the primer on Freud, Jung, Adler, etc because it is important to study them, and it gives a foundation. Truly cutting edge work is spent in the present.

So, in answer.. Studying Hemingway, etc WOULD be like studying the flying nun while attempting to create Desperate House Wives ONLY IF that person ONLY studied Hemingway, Austin, James etc to the exclusion of his own generation of authors.

If you want to create a Desperate House Wives, you certainly wouldn't do the bulk of your screenwriting and film analysis on movies from the 20's anymore than a writer wanting to create a Clancyesque thriller should do the bulk of his work studying Dickens (who was considered a hack for a portion of his career). This doesn't mean that studying the past masters isn't important. It is and always will be, but the bulk of your study should be spent analyzing great writers of your own generation.

A reason I am writing this is because, the mistakes people usually make lie in ignoring the past in their studies, but there's a smaller portion who, oddly enough, ignore the present. (I'm not making any assumptions or implications about anyone here, this is just something I have noticed in different areas of my life)

I think the only real place I disagree is when you say scores of artists have come along who have surpassed da Vinci and Rembrandt. It hasn't happened. One of the reasons these two artists are still studied intently in art school is because no one has come along who could surpass them, or even equal them.

Med students have no bearing on the issue, and it's like comparing apples and battleships. That's an area where knoweldge has increased, not where talent has mattered.

In art school, da Vinci is studied purely and simply because he remains the best who ever lived in every area of painting. Any art student who masters da Vinci's technique can duplicate with exact precision every artist who has lived since. There are maybe two dozen artists still studied solely because no one has ever surpassed them, and maybe forty to fifty other, and Van Gogh is one, who are studied not so much for talent, but because of teh influence they've had, what they had to say, why they wanted to say it, etc.

But no painter has ever supassed da Vinci in either talent or technique. The same can be said for certain other painters. The modern painter who does not study them in intimate detail is a painter who will forever be at a huge disadvatange.

It works the same way with the great writers. Writing stye may have changed, but content has not. What the great writers of the past did with conetnt has never been suspassed, and has seldom been equaled.

Reading your contemporaries is a good thing, but I don't know that I'd say that's where the majority of reading time should be spent. If you're reading the best of your contemporaries, what you're likely doing is studying the great writers of the past second hand. And many of your contemporaries, no matter how popular they are today, will likely be old hat and forgotten completely tomorrow.

In most genres, even if you don't study the classic writers, it's probably more important that you read all the great past writers within your own genre. If you write science fiction, you really need to go back to the writers of the Golden Age and read them first. It's the same with mystery, with fantasy, etc. If not, you'll be reinventing the wheel, and what you think is new will probably have been done hundreds of times in the past, and probably done far better.

The one thing you can never get from reading your contemporaries is a lesson it what has already been done, and what hasn't.

[Jamesaritchie]

Mr. Ed was definitely the alphamale in that horse-human relationship. Wilbur needed Mr. Ed far more than Mr. Ed needed Wilbur.

Concerning *some* of the Classics of literature, I often have to wonder if their bestseller status is due solely to the fact that they are required reading in thousands upon thousands of public & private highschools all over the country (and beyond)

I know this isn't the case with many classics but there are a number of titles on the required summer reading lists that I would be *very* surprised if they'd retain their best-seller status were they not required reading.

At any rate, it'd be interesting to find out a rough % of the sold numbers that were for a summer reading list. This would be an impossible task, unfortunately. As an uninteresting sidenote, learning that the sales on Agatha Christie's Mysteries (roughly 2...billion so far) blow away any other author living or dead, shocked the hell out of me.

It really isn't all that difficultt o run the numbers. There are certainly a few classic novels that owe their continued success to high school and college requirements, but most have nothing to do with this. And even high school and college requirements are highly deceiving. Most students forced to read a book do not run out and buy one, they get if from a library, or borrow it. Those who do buy a book they don't really want to read buy used whenever possible.

Sales of most classics are truly impressive, even outside of high school and college.

High schools have very little impact on the numbers. They just don't. College has some impact, but most student in the type of college colass where the classics are required reading are students who want to read these books, and would read them regardless of requirements.

Public libraries have a much larger impact on numbers than do high schools, and the number of adults, and children too young to read the book as a requirement, is very impressive.

Most classics are still read because huge numbers of people still find them worth reading.

What's really amazing about the sales numbers is that any classic written before 1923 can be had for free on the internet, so if the book is being read merely as a requirement, there's no need to buy it at all, yet the sales numbers remain huge for many, many classic novels.

[expatbrat]

Hey all,

Thanks for all your fantastic responses. I deliberately stayed out of it to see where the thread went on its own and I must say I am rather impressed with the intellectual responses everyone gave. You did make me think - thanks. And the scrutiny of Mr Ed was great entertainment.

It is probably true I haven’t given Hemingway much of a chance. I hated Old Man of The Sea and never went back… Which is just silly thinking of it. For example the first time I had sex I said (honestly) “nar, we must have done it wrong, that is nothing like the movies. Do it again.” and then was completely baffled he could not simply “do it again” straight away.

Now imagine if I never gave that another chance – where would we be then huh? So taking aruna’s recommendation (which it wasn’t, but I have loved all her posts so I reckon I could love her fav book) I am going to read “for whom the bell tolls” as soon as I can get my hands on it. And as others have said, I will strive for a mixed balance in my reading diet.

Have fun.

[Zonk]

I understand that the way they got Mr. Ed to 'talk' was to plaster peanut butter on the roof of his mouth - a trick still used today when CGI is too expensive...


http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gifhttp://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gifhttp://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[Anya Smith]

Maybe I'm not judging him on his best, then. The Sun Also Rises is the only book that I've ever started and put down before finishing. I always force myself to finish books, even if they aren't doing it for me. But I just couldn't do it with that book!

I read that, and For Whom the Bell Tolls. I didn't like either. I know I'm naughty, but....:Shrug:

[pdr]

Anyone remember some time ago there was a thread in which I upset a lot of people by saying how much I disliked Hemingway?

One of the reasons I gave for disliking him was his influence on other writers even today.

'No way!' shrieked the offended fans.

Lovely then to read this from one of the offended!

'...time studying the most influential writer of the twentieth century is beyond me. You don't have a like a writer to read him, to learn why he was the most influential.'

Influential to Americans, yes,, JR. There are other 20thC authors who I think have had more influence.

But we'll never agree because you hate e.e.cummings and I bet you hate Gerard Manley Hopkins too. We like different styles of writing.

I still hate Hemingway's limited word choices, his castration of the language and his constipated style. But then I love writers like e.e. and Hopkins who get drunk on words.

Don't yell anyone, I have a headache. Agree to differ, please! And have a good laugh too.

[blacbird]

Anyone remember some time ago there was a thread in which I upset a lot of people by saying how much I disliked Hemingway?

One of the reasons I gave for disliking him was his influence on other writers even today.

'No way!' shrieked the offended fans.

Lovely then to read this from one of the offended!

'...time studying the most influential writer of the twentieth century is beyond me. You don't have a like a writer to read him, to learn why he was the most influential.'

Influential to Americans, yes,, JR. There are other 20thC authors who I think have had more influence.

But we'll never agree because you hate e.e.cummings and I bet you hate Gerard Manley Hopkins too. We like different styles of writing.

I still hate Hemingway's limited word choices, his castration of the language and his constipated style. But then I love writers like e.e. and Hopkins who get drunk on words.

Don't yell anyone, I have a headache. Agree to differ, please! And have a good laugh too.

Acknowledged. But he's still a giant of influence, and from that alone, every body with a pretense to write fiction needs to know about him, and how he did what he did. I think James Joyce committed some of the worst crimes against literature in the 20th Century, but I've read him, and my opinion is at least based on what I've read. And people should all do that, for the same reason.

caw.

[cwfgal]

I wonder who Hemingway and DaVinci studied.

Beth

[BuffStuff]

Hemingway studied with Gertrude Stein, as crazy as that sounds, among probably innumerable other sources. Davinci studied with mainly with Andrea Del Verrocchio, among a few others (Pietro Perugino, Lorenzo di Credi)

Both Stein and Verrocchio were very much alive & kicking during Hemingway & Davinci's respective lifetimes. Hence, further credence to my belief that while analyzing and studying the past is indeed important, the bulk of one's study should be of and from contemporary (living) sources, rather than long dead ones ^_~

Hemingway & Stein had a falling out and... honestly, I have a very hard time believing Hemingway got much use whatsoever from Gerdie, given that their styles were so dissimilar, what with Stein's pap, word-fluff that even she had a hard time explaining the meaning of, as contrasted with Hemingway's tight, succinct prose. On a number of occasions she resorted to attacking the intelligence of people who just couldn't get the meaning behind such illuminous poetry as this:

A BOX.

Out of kindness comes redness and out of rudeness comes rapid same question, out of an eye comes research, out of selection comes painful cattle. So then the order is that a white way of being round is something suggesting a pin and is it disappointing, it is not, it is so rudimentary to be analysed and see a fine substance strangely, it is so earnest to have a green point not to red but to point again.

...That clowns like Stein can get notoriety as being masterful 'artists' only goes to show that people are reluctant (for fear of sounding stupid) to call fluff exactly what it is. Sometimes even the 'literati' would rather nod their heads and pretend to 'get' what is nothing more than mindless word-play, than risk being thought a fool.

...I hate Gertrude Stein.

[James D. Macdonald]

Styles of writing come and go.

Story continues.

[janetbellinger]

I love Ernest Hemingway.

[Jamesaritchie]

Hemingway studied with Gertrude Stein, as crazy as that sounds, among probably innumerable other sources. Davinci studied with mainly with Andrea Del Verrocchio, among a few others (Pietro Perugino, Lorenzo di Credi)

Both Stein and Verrocchio were very much alive & kicking during Hemingway & Davinci's respective lifetimes. Hence, further credence to my belief that while analyzing and studying the past is indeed important, the bulk of one's study should be of and from contemporary (living) sources, rather than long dead ones ^_~

Hemingway & Stein had a falling out and... honestly, I have a very hard time believing Hemingway got much use whatsoever from Gerdie, given that their styles were so dissimilar, what with Stein's pap, word-fluff that even she had a hard time explaining the meaning of, as contrasted with Hemingway's tight, succinct prose. On a number of occasions she resorted to attacking the intelligence of people who just couldn't get the meaning behind such illuminous poetry as this:

A BOX.

Out of kindness comes redness and out of rudeness comes rapid same question, out of an eye comes research, out of selection comes painful cattle. So then the order is that a white way of being round is something suggesting a pin and is it disappointing, it is not, it is so rudimentary to be analysed and see a fine substance strangely, it is so earnest to have a green point not to red but to point again.

...That clowns like Stein can get notoriety as being masterful 'artists' only goes to show that people are reluctant (for fear of sounding stupid) to call fluff exactly what it is. Sometimes even the 'literati' would rather nod their heads and pretend to 'get' what is nothing more than mindless word-play, than risk being thought a fool.

...I hate Gertrude Stein.

I do think you have to weed carefully, and the easiest weed eater of all is to look at how the general pubic responded to the writer when he or she was alive, and how the general public responds long after the writer has died.

There will always be the pretenders, and some pretenders will become very famous with the literati, but seldom with the general pubic. Stein may well have been a pretender. She never did gain favor with the general reading public, and so doesn't qualify as one who should be read today, except maybe as an example of what not to do.

But other greats of the past, be the name Bronte, Austen, Twain, Dickens, London, Faulker, Hemngway, etc., did gain popularity with the general reading pubic, they were the bestselling writers of their day, and still retain that greatness and popularity.

But I fail to see what it matters that Stein and Verrocchio were alive during Hemingway's and da Vinci's lifetimes? What matters is that Hemingway and da Vinci lived, not that Stein and Verrocchio did. Stein and Verrocchio and completely irrelevant to the question. The idea is to study the best, teh greatest of each generation, and teh ones who had the talent and the power to remeain great from decades to senturies later.

No one knows who these are among today's writers, and not ot one of the Steins and Verrocchios alive today, and they number in the thousands, have been weeded out by the test of time.

I don;t think anyone would suggest that every writer who ever lived should be studied, but all teh great ones, teh lasting ones, the ones who told stories and built characters that the public loved then and still loves today, should be studied.

Studying contemporary writers is necessary, but in doing so you're far more likely to be studying what you should do than what you should, and teh odds are at least a hundred to one that you're studying a writer who will disappear tomorow and never be heard from again.

And it really shouldn;t be an issue. There's plenty fo time to read and study both, but I doubt you'll really understand what today's best writers are doing, and why they're doing it, without first studying a fair number of the same great writers from the past that they learned from.

[danielmc]

Whoever said that Hemingway is a great influence on Americans is just plain silly.

Im a 30 yr old englishman, with no college / university education, and the words and language and style he used in the 1920's is still fresh and as relevant as it is today.

Sure he had some not so great moments, but those not so great moments wil outshine pretty much anything wrote today. And he lived life, he didn't just lock himself away a la Proust or Joyce and write and write and write about his childhood / adolescence. He lived life first, then wrote about it afterwards. He saw (albeit limited) action in two world wars, he hunted and fished anything worth hunting or fishing, he lived in Cuba at its most turbulent time, had numerous wives and lovers etc etc. What i'm saying is, there is blood on the page, and sweat, and toil, and life full stop.

As far as studying, I agree with whoever said just read, don't study. If you like a book, re-read it and call that study. Having never been to college, I cant imagine what it must be like to sit down and have somebody who has never published a novel tell you what is good or bad about another.

And as far as who did Papa study, I disagree about the Stein reference. He was good friends with her, she maybe helped him with contacts etc, but for literary influences he did what any aspiring writer should do, and went back in time...and studied the masters that preceded him.

Whenever I read a book or hear a piece of music I really like, I like to look into the influences of that artist. Stands to reaosn what worked for them, will work for me.

For example, I love The White Stripes, so i searched around for what influenced them, sort of like tracing the family tree. I found their music could be traced through Led Zeppelin and the 70's Detroit scene, then into the 60's with the Stones and the other British blues inspired groups, then back to America and all the way back to the 1930's to the great blues men like Son House, Leadbelly, Robert Johnson, Woody Guthrie et al. My trail went cold there, but needless to say I love everything I found, going back to a recording I found of Robert Johnson's first ever recording in 1930 something.

I did the same with Hemingway, whose own musings in the posthumously published 'On Writing' book on studying the greats pointed me to the past, and found Dostoyevsky, loved his work, who in turn had been inspired by Turgenev and Gogol, then Pushkin and others before him. Again the trail went cold about the turn of 19th century, but I got plenty to keep me going in the meantime.

"What a book War and peace would have been," said Hemingway, "If Turgenev had written it." In one sentence is years of study and appreciation of language and form, and how by thinking so deep about the craft you can se how one writer's talents could have made a classic even better. This is how deep I believe you have to go in order to not become just another hack, or worse, an unpublished hack.

If anybody can quote a succesful, published writer who says yeah go ahead forget about went before don't study nothing just write what you want, then I'm all ears.

You want to be a writer? Why try reinvent the wheel and disavow those that have gone before?

I'm rambling. Hope my boss can't see me as I write this!

[zarch]

Speaking of Hemingway and talking animals, my favorite two novellas are The Old Man and the Sea and Animal Farm.

I'm not even sure why I like TOMATS so much. I guess I just enjoy the relationships between the man and the fish, the man and the sea, etc. I've found that very few people enjoy some of Hemingway's works but not others. Seems as if you like Hemingway or you don't.

[James D. Macdonald]

I can all but guarantee that Hemingway studied Shakespeare.

[Medievalist]

I can all but guarantee that Hemingway studied Shakespeare.

I can guarantee it; there are references in his letters.

[SJB]

Fiesta (The Sun Also Rises) is a terrific book.

[Higgins]

So I got this email add thing from Absolute Write promoting this great course where we study the masters like… Hemmingway.

Is looking back really the way forward? Isn’t studying Hemmingway and the other masters a bit like studying “Mr Ed” or “the flying nun” as a means of producing the next “desperate housewives” or “24?”

I am all for remembering history so we don’t repeat the mistakes of our past. But if we spend too much time looking backwards – won’t we just trip over?

I'm not sure why I dislike Hemingway. He's pretty innocuous. The Mr. Ed of Modernism. The Leave it to Beaver of manly man frozen Leopard images. I would think that there are hundreds of better novelists to look at for instructive reasons.

[James D. Macdonald]

I would study Mr. Ed and The Flying Nun if I were planning to write a long-running popular sit-com. I probably wouldn't try to imitate them, but I'd want to know what worked, what didn't, and why.

[Sesselja]

Hemingway gets a lot of attention in this thread, but apart from him:
Which 3 writers (just to narrow it down a bit) would you guys put on the recommended-to-be-studied list?

[KatRiley]

I haven't read through the entire thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating something that has already been said.

I think it's all about balance. Read current best-sellers and the classics. Read fiction and non-fiction. Read romance, sci-fi, mystery, etc. Read whatever catches your attention. Reading only classics, or current bestsellers or romance or fantasy, etc is a little like shopping only in one store. Why limit your experiences?

[Kate Thornton]

I think it's a good idea to go back even further - Ovid, Homer - further afield - Sun Tzu - find links - Dante, Milton or Christie, Carolyn Keen.

Include writers who wrote in English but didn't live in America. Go for the English, Canadian and Australian authors - get some perspective on the world. Get good translations of other writers.

And read voraciously. Read everything. If you write genre, go outside your comfort field and read literary and other genres, non-fiction, poetry, cereal boxes.

Art isn't only Rembrandt, Giotto and Bernini, you need to know DuChamps, Pollack, Rauschenberg in order to understand Fawkes and Hockney and Ashenbrenner.

If I were writing sit-com, I would look at the Honeymooners and My Favorite Martian and all the rest, to see what works, what doesn't, and what's already been done. I would want to know how The Dick Van Dyke show worked and look at all its children, the MTM shows.

A rich history of writing is out there - why would anyone choose to be a pauper? Writing without reading the past is like writing as a child. You may be gifted and inventive, but without knowing what has already been done, what has worked and from where to draw your cultural references, you can only produce from a small space.

[Birol]

Three, I think, is too narrow. I think any limitation is too narrow, but if you're going to narrow it down, then you also must target it. What genre are you writing in?

[Kate Thornton]

Hemingway gets a lot of attention in this thread, but apart from him:
Which 3 writers (just to narrow it down a bit) would you guys put on the recommended-to-be-studied list?

This is a hard one!

In English: Shakespeare (for the beauty of the language and how a good revenge plot can be constructed) Dickens (for setting a scene and using description) and Edith Nesbit (for simplicity)

In translation: Homer (for how to tell a long story) Dante (for the beauty of the language and excellent description) and tied for third place, Umberto Eco and Gabriel Garcia Marquez (for the human condition)

[RG570]

What I want to know is what kind of thought process connects Hemmingway with irrelevant trash like Mr. Ed? Am I the only one bothered by this increasing tendency towards equating books with TV and entertainment?

[Soccer Mom]

I agree with those who say to read the classics. Of course, I have a BA in literature, so I'm probably biased. I don't think I could dream of trying to push the genre of mystery without reading 1) Agatha Chrisitie 2) Dorothy L. Sayers 3) Edgar Allen Poe (I just picked three) and a whole lot more of them. How can I push the boundaries if I don't know where they are? I read the classics and the new stuff too.

[Medievalist]

Macdonald, up thread, said something that I think is important:

Styles of writing come and go.

Story continues.

Style is artificial; yes, you may have your own style, or what you think of as style, but style is nothing more than a particular fondness for certain patterns in syntax and vocabulary. Style is easily imitated.

Story, now that's the magic. It's story that gives a reader narrative lust, the thing that makes us turn the page.

Work on story; style is something that is easily acquired, and, with too great frequency, is not much more than repeated patterns of error.

Master story.

[Papa'sLiver]

I've always been firm believer in studying the past and learning from it. I mean, how can you know where you are going, if you have no idea where you came from?

I think writers should try to read everything they get their hands on, but yeah, I myself don't always follow that. It's like my wife loves british mysteries, but I'm just not into them. If I were, then wow, I'd really score, as she's got a ton of 'em.

[pdr]

Yes, breadth of reading. This is an American board so American writers are mentioned a great deal. There are some marvellous writers in English who come from Africa, India, Oz, NZ, the UK, and in translation from the whole world.

Challenge yourself and read one foreign book for every American one you read.

If you are interested in the richness of English, those wonderful structures and patterns you hear in Shakespeare's plays, then the King Jame's Bible is something to read, aloud if you can.

And you blokes. Try to read more women writers, modern and classic. You expect us to read your books but I do get tired of hearing (no, I'm not pointing at anyone on this board) that women writers write books for women.

[Medievalist]

And read Chaucer because, umm . . . well, he's really smart about human behavior, and character creations, and ahhh . . . he's good for your spelling.

[Anthony Ravenscroft]

Howard Waldrop, Kit Reed, Shirley Jackson, Philip Wylie, RA Lafferty, James Tiptree, Harlan Ellison, Ed Hoch.

For starters.

[SeanDSchaffer]

A lot of my favorite writers are classic writers. I would not be the writer I am today if I did not first read those classics from long ago. Writers like Robert Louis Stevenson, George Orwell, Edgar Allen Poe, A.E. van Vogt, and William Shakespeare, have all been inspirations to me both in writing style and in some of my writing structure. Much of what I know comes from having read the old Masters of the Craft.

No, I think that when you study Hemingway or any of the other old-time Masters, you really are, like others have said in this thread, learning your heritage as a writer and knowing what you are building on. If you start from scratch, you'll still be framing the house while other writers, who have learned from the Masters, will be selling the house.

Studying the Masters, if only for the sake of knowing what has been done and what has been successful--as well as what has not been successful--can only benefit you as a writer.

[SeanDSchaffer]

And you blokes. Try to read more women writers, modern and classic. You expect us to read your books but I do get tired of hearing (no, I'm not pointing at anyone on this board) that women writers write books for women.


Several of my favorite writers are women. Anne McCaffrey, Jane Yolen, Andre Norton, Mercedes Lackey, all are outstanding female writers whose works I have loved.

You make a good point, pdr.

[Homer]

So I got this email add thing from Absolute Write promoting this great course where we study the masters like… Hemmingway.

Is looking back really the way forward? Isn’t studying Hemmingway and the other masters a bit like studying “Mr Ed” or “the flying nun” as a means of producing the next “desperate housewives” or “24?”

I am all for remembering history so we don’t repeat the mistakes of our past. But if we spend too much time looking backwards – won’t we just trip over?

No serious reader or writer of fiction really believes this, of course. Among contemporary writers my personal favorite is Cormac McCarthy. Here's an essay by the famous literary critic James Wood reprising McCarthy's career including the enormous influence Hemingway has had over him as well as many other contemporary writers:

http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/articles/050725crbo_books

Of course, the Old Testament, Melville, Dante, Homer, and Dostoyevsky also hugely influence McCarthy. So don't stop at Hemingway. I recommend the Nineteenth Century novelists. In my opinion they are the benchmark, recognizing of course that there are modern conventions. But these are relatively marginal in comparison to core concepts to be gleaned form reading the great works.

[merper]

High schools have very little impact on the numbers. They just don't. College has some impact, but most student in the type of college colass where the classics are required reading are students who want to read these books, and would read them regardless of requirements.

The second part isn't true at all. Most colleges enforce a basic English course for freshman. I have 2 books of short stories from Joyce who I have 0 interest in. Then again I've heard of courses where the "required" reading are books like Harry Potter and Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

[Sesselja]

Three, I think, is too narrow. I think any limitation is too narrow, but if you're going to narrow it down, then you also must target it. What genre are you writing in?

I was just curious to see if people agreed on other writers besides Hemingway.

[civilian chic]

... modern conventions.... are relatively marginal in comparison to core concepts to be gleaned form reading the great works.

I think that's the essence of it, Homer: "great works" of literature are great because they contain qualities which transcend social and cultural preference.

I guess my answer to expatbrat's original question is, there is something in the "greats" that made them great. Probably not style. But something.

(And thanks for putting that out there, pdr. How about Lauie King, Annie Proulx, Andrea Barrett, and Louise Erdrich...?)

[RedMolly]

Probably not style. But something.

My money's on realism: not realism as in "everything this character does could be and probably has been done by my neighbor the Wal-Mart pharmacist," but in the sense that the characters reveal a slice of what is real and universal about the human condition. Even when they're near-invincible, demi-godlike figures like Gilgamesh and Achilles, it's their flaws and their struggle to overcome them that make them "realistic" and thus fit for the ages. And even when they're shabby, drunken reprobates like Leopold Bloom or [fill in Raymond Carver character here], they possess a certain greatness of spirit that likewise elevates them and makes them immortal.

That's enough literary pontification for the day. Back to that horrible soft-pr0n "Highlander" novel that turned up in my library basket somehow...

[civilian chic]

(Um, someone stuck that one in my library basket too.. I didn't put it there, I swear.)

I rebel against the idea that books of the canon are no longer relevant... because... if there's greatness in my writing--even just a speck--I hope it's transcendent, too. That is, I hope if someone picks up my book 50 years from now, their response won't be "Oh, reading her is as pointless as watching old 'Desperate Housewives'... remember that show? How quaint." Greatness is greatness is greatness. (Not saying my writing is great ... only that there is that bar.)

[pdr]

Sesselja, I can recommend many other authors to read instead of Hemingway.

[expatbrat]

(
I rebel against the idea that books of the canon are no longer relevant... because... if there's greatness in my writing--even just a speck--I hope it's transcendent, too. That is, I hope if someone picks up my book 50 years from now, their response won't be "Oh, reading her is as pointless as watching old 'Desperate Housewives'... remember that show? How quaint." Greatness is greatness is greatness. (Not saying my writing is great ... only that there is that bar.)

For a minute there I thought you were going to say something bad about Desperate House Wives... phew - it was just an example. Close one.


Back to the original question; if you don't like Hemingway then how much benifit would you get from forcing yourself to read it? Surely reading good books by other sucessful writers should be equally as good.

[Sesselja]

Back to the original question; if you don't like Hemingway then how much benifit would you get from forcing yourself to read it? Surely reading good books by other sucessful writers should be equally as good.

You can still learn from reading writers you don't like. The process just won't be so enjoyable. I also believe you can learn a lot from crap authors and poor writing. They show you what doesn't work, and that's equally important.

I don't believe in reading the classics. I believe in reading them all: the good, the bad, and the ugly. The ancient, the old and the modern.

[henriette]

whatever happened to having pride over what you have read, and your ability to discuss it with others? i mean, i myself hate hemingway, but i've read "a farewell to arms" and "the old man and the sea" to make damn sure i knew why. at least when discussing it, i can give my reasons (run-on sentences) for disliking his work. reading is never, ever a waste of time, unless you are wasting it on tabloids or walmart flyers.

plus, if you've read the classics, you can see how new writers steal plot lines and other devices. for example, the plot of "bridget jones diary" is based on "pride and prejudice", and helen fielding openly admits this. i don't know how many times i've pointed that out to people and they had no freakin' clue. :)

[expatbrat]

the plot of "bridget jones diary" is based on "pride and prejudice", and helen fielding openly admits this. i don't know how many times i've pointed that out to people and they had no freakin' clue. :)

Seriously – do you harass people at parties etc and ask if they know what book Bridget Jones Dairy is based on and then feel all important as you tell them? Goodness, I don’t need to impress people with an ability to comment on books, people respect me for who I am not how I can show off.

And what does pride have to do with what you read? Reading is private pleasure, I read what I enjoy reading, not what I think will impress others.

Reading with the goal of showing off is a tad tacky.

[poetinahat]

Come on now. Respect Your Fellow Writer.

Disputes don't need to involve personal attacks.

[aadams73]

I read what I like. I don't give a toss if my reading list impresses other people or not. If someone looks down their nose at my reading choices, it says more about them than it does me.

[expatbrat]

If someone looks down their nose at my reading choices, it says more about them than it does me.

Here, here. Absolutely.

[Medievalist]

whatever happened to having pride over what you have read, and your ability to discuss it with others?


Alas, we live in a time of barbarism; pride has gone the way of the shift key.

[civilian chic]

There are two points to reading, right? (1) Pleasure, and (2) actually learning something. People read for different variations of these two reasons, and most books are written with the goal being somewhere in between. The debate comes in where people's perceptions of "pleasure" differ. And do you consider learning something pleasurable? (I for one take great pleasure in reading Hemingway.)

[Richard White]

That's one thing that I'm enjoying (and I say that cautiously) about a class I'm taking this semsester. We're studying short stories from Aesop all the way to Rushdie.

Not every one is to my liking (esp. some by authors I otherwise really enjoy. Love Tolstoy's novels, find I can't hack his short stories). But, as with most of my other writing and literature classes, I find I'm using literary muscles I wouldn't normally use left to my own devices.

There are techniques and phrases and ways of looking at the world that I might never have thought of before until I read these stories. That's the fun in reading, you learn even from the stories you didn't like.

(Heck, I wrote a rejection letter for Tolstoy's "Death of Ivan Ilych" for my class. Way too much telling and not enough showing. :) )

[johnnysannie]

(Um, someone stuck that one in my library basket too.. I didn't put it there, I swear.)

I rebel against the idea that books of the canon are no longer relevant... because... if there's greatness in my writing--even just a speck--I hope it's transcendent, too. That is, I hope if someone picks up my book 50 years from now, their response won't be "Oh, reading her is as pointless as watching old 'Desperate Housewives'... remember that show? How quaint." Greatness is greatness is greatness. (Not saying my writing is great ... only that there is that bar.)


This is rather OT but since many people still watch popular television programs from the 50's and since (such as I LOVE LUCY to name just one while another is, of course, "Mr. Ed"!! ), it's far from inconceivable that fifty years hence people will be watching "Desperate Housewives" with appreciation, affection, and delight.

[Kate Thornton]

Or "House".

[Kate Thornton]

Reading for pride - I really do take pride in reading and learning. Learning is not always easy; it's nice to have facts, figures, informed opinions and speculations at hand. Especially if I am in a social situation where people are discussing books (a common situation for me) I am pleased and proud when I too can contribute to the conversation. I see nothing wrong in taking pleasure in being well-read and informed.

I read lots of things - not just fiction - I read in all my areas of interest: cooking, politics, history, theater, you name it. And sometimes I do this with the goal of being more interesting, having more to say or just plain acquiring knowledge. I see nothing wrong with this - in fact, I am proud to have finished Jeffrey Richelson's The Wizards of Langley. It was certainly fun to run into someone whgo was a Terry Pratchett *AND* a Jeffrey Richelson fan. Strange combo, but we both had something to talk about and our hostess didn't have to sweat over someone sitting alone in a corner with a drnk but no one to talk to.

I don't think anyone would look down their nose at someone else's reading choices. But they might give up on conversation if there's nothing about which to converse.

We should all take pride in choosing to read - and even more in choosing to write.

[expatbrat]

There are two points to reading, right? (1) Pleasure, and (2) actually learning something. People read for different variations of these two reasons, and most books are written with the goal being somewhere in between. The debate comes in where people's perceptions of "pleasure" differ. And do you consider learning something pleasurable? (I for one take great pleasure in reading Hemingway.)

Agreed, I certainly enjoy reading books where there is something to learn. But I don't learn with the goal of showing off or putting others down.

[expatbrat]

I see nothing wrong in taking pleasure in being well-read and informed.

...but we both had something to talk about and our hostess didn't have to sweat over someone sitting alone in a corner with a drnk but no one to talk to. .

Kate - I'd assume that is you found someone with similar reading interests you would have a lot more in common and more to talk about then book critiques.

I'm not saying anything bad about talking about books, we all do that and it can be rather fun, what I am saying that you would not have been the lonely person in the corner even if you had not read those exact same books.

[henriette]

Seriously – do you harass people at parties etc and ask if they know what book Bridget Jones Dairy is based on and then feel all important as you tell them? Goodness, I don’t need to impress people with an ability to comment on books, people respect me for who I am not how I can show off.

And what does pride have to do with what you read? Reading is private pleasure, I read what I enjoy reading, not what I think will impress others.

Reading with the goal of showing off is a tad tacky.



um, no, i do not harass people at parties. but if we're talking about "bridget jones" and i say, "the plot is based on 'pride and prejudice', isn't that interesting?" and they don't know what i'm talking about, well, at least i had something other than "did you know renee zellweger gained 20 lbs for the movie!?" to contribute. and they learned something. maybe next time they see 'pride and prejudice' at a second hand book store they'll check it out.

just like if someone said to me, "hey, you gotta read ________ , it is so relevant in today's world", i'll have learned something. or "you may not have liked 'old man and the sea', but 'for whom the bell tolls' might be more your speed", i'll have learned something. my mind has been opened towards a book i wouldn't have given a second thought to.

isn't literature meant to be read, shared and discussed? yes, i AM proud of the books i've read and the experiences i've had. i like to have intelligent conversations with other adults about books. i think it's important to take pride in one's knowledge, no matter what the subject is.

otherwise, let's all just talk about paris hilton and 'celebrity duets'. sheesh.

[RedMolly]

Alas, we live in a time of barbarism; pride has gone the way of the shift key.

*chortle*

"Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book." (attrib. Cicero)

[Kate Thornton]

Kate - I'd assume that is you found someone with similar reading interests you would have a lot more in common and more to talk about then book critiques.

I'm not saying anything bad about talking about books, we all do that and it can be rather fun, what I am saying that you would not have been the lonely person in the corner even if you had not read those exact same books.

Yes, that's true. Although books are such a great way of breaking the ice for conversation. I can always approach the lonely person in the corner and ask about books & interests.

[KTC]

So I got this email add thing from Absolute Write promoting this great course where we study the masters like… Hemmingway.

Is looking back really the way forward? Isn’t studying Hemmingway and the other masters a bit like studying “Mr Ed” or “the flying nun” as a means of producing the next “desperate housewives” or “24?”

I am all for remembering history so we don’t repeat the mistakes of our past. But if we spend too much time looking backwards – won’t we just trip over?

I can't believe my eyes. We must always study Hemingway.

[janetbellinger]

I don't believe studying anything when it comes to writing, particulary the style of other writers. I do believe we absorb it though when we read the works of other writers, particularly ones we admire.

[skylarburris]

well, Hemingway is a good study in flat characters, anyway.

[Sesselja]

I don't believe studying anything when it comes to writing,

Just curious, but...: What are you doing here on AW?

[KTC]

I don't believe studying anything when it comes to writing, particulary the style of other writers. I do believe we absorb it though when we read the works of other writers, particularly ones we admire.

As writers, we study every book we ever read. A spade is a spade. Every novel I read, good or bad, is being studied as I read it.

And...Hemingway's characters flat...whoever said that? Maybe so...but can you think of a more successful and lasting icon of American literature, besides maybe Mark Twain? Up here is Canada, we don't kick our dead writers...we study them.

[Jamesaritchie]

well, Hemingway is a good study in flat characters, anyway.

Yeah, about as flat as a well-inflated basketball.

[KTC]

Yeah, about as flat as a well-inflated basketball.


Thank you James. I was wondering how they could be so flat if I carry them with me always in my head?

[Papa'sLiver]

well, Hemingway is a good study in flat characters, anyway.


Wow, that is so wrong, but hey, to each their own. I just don't see how any of Papa's characters are flat. Nick Adams, flat?

/shrugs.

[Jamesaritchie]

I don't believe studying anything when it comes to writing, particulary the style of other writers. I do believe we absorb it though when we read the works of other writers, particularly ones we admire.

What's your reasoning for this? I knew very few, if any, successful writers who would agree with you. Studying the great writers of the past is just as important for witers as styudying the great master of the past is for painters.

Trying to reinvent the wheel may be fun, but it's not going to get you anywhere, even if you do it.

[Jamesaritchie]

I'm not sure why I dislike Hemingway. He's pretty innocuous. The Mr. Ed of Modernism. The Leave it to Beaver of manly man frozen Leopard images. I would think that there are hundreds of better novelists to look at for instructive reasons.

If there are better, I've never found them.

[Papa'sLiver]

I don't believe studying anything when it comes to writing, particulary the style of other writers. I do believe we absorb it though when we read the works of other writers, particularly ones we admire.


That's true, to a point, sure. However, say you're a guitar player (I am), and want to play like Jimmy Page, then sure I can listen to a ton of Zep, but it's only through sitting down and really working out HOW he did what he did do I then learn what makes his playing so great, along with having a deeper appreciation for it.

[Papa'sLiver]

"
Originally Posted by Sokal
I'm not sure why I dislike Hemingway. He's pretty innocuous. The Mr. Ed of Modernism. The Leave it to Beaver of manly man frozen Leopard images. I would think that there are hundreds of better novelists to look at for instructive reasons.
"

Innocuous? Wow... I just don't see that.

[Jamesaritchie]

Having never been to college, I cant imagine what it must be like to sit down and have somebody who has never published a novel tell you what is good or bad about another.

Depending on just who that person is, it can be a highly rewarding and hugely beneficial experience. We had quite a few well-published writers as instructors, but sometimes those who study literature as a career get it right, and can see things writers can't.


And as far as who did Papa study, I disagree about the Stein reference. He was good friends with her, she maybe helped him with contacts etc, but for literary influences he did what any aspiring writer should do, and went back in time...and studied the masters that preceded him.



He did, indeed, study the great writers of the past, from Shakespeare right up to the present. All good writers do this to some extent.

[Higgins]

If there are better, I've never found them.

Dawn Powell, George Eliot, Henry Fielding, Patrick O'Brian, Iain Banks,
Charlotte Bronte, Margaret Drabble, Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf, Alan Furst to name a few. There are no doubt many, many more that would much better repay a careful reading than Hemingway.

[Jamesaritchie]

Telling new writers they should read as many great fiction writers from the past as possible should be no more necessary than the need to tell them to breathe in and breathe out. The writer who doesn't is never going to be better than third rate. It should at least begin with Chaucer and Shakespeare, and should include at least five hundred works right up to the present.

Nor should the great poets be overlooked. The great poets can teach a fiction writer just as much as the great novelists and short story writers of the past.

For me, this alone was worth studying Shakespeare:

Sonnet 76

Why is my verse so barren of new pride,
So far from variation or quick change?
Why with the time do I not glance aside
To new-found methods and to compounds strange?
Why write I still all one, ever the same,
And keep invention in a noted weed,
That every word doth almost tell my name,
Showing their birth and where they did proceed?
O, know, sweet love, I always write of you,
And you and love are still my argument;
So all my best is dressing old words new,
Spending again what is already spent:
For as the sun is daily new and old,
So is my love still telling what is told.

[Bufty]

Nothing? You surely can't mean that literally? How can one learn without studying - or at least thinking about the 'how' and the 'why'.

I don't believe studying anything when it comes to writing, particulary the style of other writers. I do believe we absorb it though when we read the works of other writers, particularly ones we admire.

[Papa'sLiver]

Dawn Powell, George Eliot, Henry Fielding, Patrick O'Brian, Iain Banks,
Charlotte Bronte, Margaret Drabble, Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf, Alan Furst to name a few. There are no doubt many, many more that would much better repay a careful reading than Hemingway.


Faulkner, Steinbeck, Camus, etc... the list goes on and on.

[KTC]

Ah, Camus. He brings me so much joy.

[Silver King]

Ah, Camus. He brings me so much joy.
And let's not forget his buddy, Sartre; lots of bright sunshine beaming between those two writers.

I wasn't going to respond to this thread simply because the title is insulting to Hemingway and literature in general. Anyone who compares important literary figures to sitcoms needs to reach a little further next time to find similes that make sense.

Now if anyone cares to learn how to write from one of the great masters of all time, then Hemingway is your man. You'll be tempted to toss out all of those "How to Become a Better Writer" volumes you own, even the one by Stephen King, after you've focused your attention on one of the great practitioners of language who ever lived.

Read and study all of his work, the short stories, poetry, novels, dispatches and collected letters. You'll discover why generations of writers have sought to emulate his style, yet very few come close. He'll teach you economy of language while layering scenes with an almost masonry precision that build and take you to heights that seem unimaginable until you look down to explore the depths of his meaning, which often seem to go on forever.

Hemingway may not be to everyone's taste, but he should be on every serious writer's reading list.

[Higgins]

And let's not forget his buddy, Sartre; lots of bright sunshine beaming between those two writers.

I wasn't going to respond to this thread simply because the title is insulting to Hemingway and literature in general. Anyone who compares important literary figures to sitcoms needs to reach a little further next time to find similes that make sense.

Now if anyone cares to learn how to write from one of the great masters of all time, then Hemingway is your man. You'll be tempted to toss out all of those "How to Become a Better Writer" volumes you own, even the one by Stephen King, after you've focused your attention on one of the great practitioners of language who ever lived.

Read and study all of his work, the short stories, poetry, novels, dispatches and collected letters. You'll discover why generations of writers have sought to emulate his style, yet very few come close. He'll teach you economy of language while layering scenes with an almost masonry precision that build and take you to heights that seem unimaginable until you look down to explore the depths of his meaning, which often seem to go on forever.

Hemingway may not be to everyone's taste, but he should be on every serious writer's reading list.

Speaking of the importance of piling on the good ole meaning, the OP did not compare Hemingway to Mr. Ed; he compared looking at earlier work with watching Mr. Ed to figure out how to write a new TV series. I know its just one little layer of not so heavy masonioneiric meaning, but still the OP did not compare Hemingway to Mr. Ed.

On the other hand if Hemingway were to be a character in Mr. Ed, I think he would be best thought of as Mr. Ed himself and not Will-burrr.

[expatbrat]

Speaking of the importance of piling on the good ole meaning, the OP did not compare Hemingway to Mr. Ed; he compared looking at earlier work with watching Mr. Ed to figure out how to write a new TV series. I know its just one little layer of not so heavy masonioneiric meaning, but still the OP did not compare Hemingway to Mr. Ed.

On the other hand if Hemingway were to be a character in Mr. Ed, I think he would be best thought of as Mr. Ed himself and not Will-burrr.

Thanks Sokal,

Presuming most writers goal is to write a best selling novel, I was comparing studying a best selling novel written in the past to learn how to write a current best seller today against studying a popular TV show of the past to knowing how to write a popular TV show for today’s audience.

Perhaps it is living in a holiday destination and others would disagree, but I’d guess that most people read for pleasure. People generally watch TV for pleasure. I’m sorry if anyone feels the comparing the writing of these two leisure time activities is insulting - I had no intention to insult anyone.

For those who are interested – I have been keeping my eye out for “to whom the bell tolls” but it has not turned up in any of the tourist orientated bookshops we have here as yet.


BTW - Expatbrat is a Female. Note the pregnancy ticker below?

[Silver King]

I wasn't insulted, expat, even though I took exception to your example. It's just that I hate Mr. Ed as much as I love Mr. Hem.

Did I refer to you in the male form? I do that all the time. The ticker should've been an indicator of gender, but I was so caught up in defending a favorite author from my least favorite talking (animal) head that I missed your condition. Maybe Orwell's Animal Farm would've been a better study for your argument?

At least I have a chance now to wish you luck with your soon-to-be newborn.:)

[expatbrat]

Fair enough Silver King, you can insert the Flying Nun, My Three Sons, or another black and white show as replacement examples.

Personally - I do love all these old shows.

[Silver King]

Perfect! We can start with The Honeymooners...you know, Nick Adams gets a job as a bus driver and such.;)

[Higgins]

Thanks Sokal,

Presuming most writers goal is to write a best selling novel, I was comparing studying a best selling novel written in the past to learn how to write a current best seller today against studying a popular TV show of the past to knowing how to write a popular TV show for today’s audience.

Perhaps it is living in a holiday destination and others would disagree, but I’d guess that most people read for pleasure. People generally watch TV for pleasure. I’m sorry if anyone feels the comparing the writing of these two leisure time activities is insulting - I had no intention to insult anyone.

For those who are interested – I have been keeping my eye out for “to whom the bell tolls” but it has not turned up in any of the tourist orientated bookshops we have here as yet.


BTW - Expatbrat is a Female. Note the pregnancy ticker below?

I just type 'he' without thinking these days, pregnancy or no, willy-nilly.
Oddly enough, I feel about the same about Mr. Ed and Hemingway and I have successfully avoided them both for the last 40 years. I find I really don't miss either one.

[PeeDee]

I am not especially fond of Hemmingway. It's not something I sit down and read when I'm looking for something enjoyable. But then again, neither was Shakespeare.

That said, both Papa and Will Shaxbard are brilliant, mind-boggling writers and I am better for having read the both of them. What would I do without For Whom The Bell Tolls occupying space in my head? What would I have written without A Midsummer Night's Dream influencing me?

I don't study authors, old or new, but that isn't to say I'm not learning. What I do is, I read to enjoy, I let what comes to me come to me, and that's about it. When I'm reading, I'm a completely blank slate, and whatever the authors wants go give, I take. I'm the same with movies. I'll enjoy movies that most people dislike, because I'm not casting any particular judgment over it, I'm just taking what it gives me.

Hemmingway is a very good writer, likewise Shakespeare, likewise Salinger, likewise all the others on this list. Many of them are not things I enjoy reading, but have nevertheless read willingly and been glad I did.

An' I watched Mr. Ed too. So pfft.

[Sassenach]

Hemingway has one M. One. Not two. No matter your opinions of his work, at least speel his name correctly.

[PeeDee]

Pah. I am an artist. I am above such things as "spelling."

('msorry)

[SeanDSchaffer]

Hemingway has one M. One. Not two. No matter your opinions of his work, at least speel his name correctly.


I always speel names correctly. Sometimes I even spell them right, too.

;)

[pdr]

This is an American board so of course you rave about your own authors, However allow us our preferences too. There are many great writers who published in other countries and yes, I think they wrote a helluva lot better than Hemingway did.

Pee Dee, them's fighting words you wrote! Referring to Shakespeare in the same line as Hemingway. Tut!

[PeeDee]

This is an American board so of course you rave about your own authors, However allow us our preferences too. There are many great writers who published in other countries and yes, I think they wrote a helluva lot better than Hemingway did.

Pee Dee, them's fighting words you wrote! Referring to Shakespeare in the same line as Hemingway. Tut!

Given a choice between the two, I would pick Shakespeare. Anyone who writes Robin Goodfellow is okay by me. Take my hand, ere we be friends, and honest Puck will make amends. Some of his stuff was genius.

[persiphone_hellecat]

I have never read a book -- good or bad -- that didnt teach me something about being a better writer. So I have to say no - it isnt like studying Mr. Ed, it's about getting a feel for how words resonate and how scenes are crafted ... and so many things ... Never underestimate what you can learn from others...

I am reminded of a quote from a favorite poet Edgar Lee Masters...

In youth, my wings were strong and tireless, but I did not know the mountain. In age, I knew the mountain, but my weary wings were too tired to follow my vision. Genius is wisdom and youth.

[RTH]

Given a choice between the two, I would pick Shakespeare. Anyone who writes Robin Goodfellow is okay by me. Take my hand, ere we be friends, and honest Puck will make amends. Some of his stuff was genius.

Favorite play, EVER. Any writer not willing to study stuff like that to learn something needs a good kick in the...

How can anyone expect to learn the craft without studying the craft???

[jpserra]

I find it intersting that in order to be a great writer, you must first adhere to standards set down by a group of people who are only interested in the monetary return, then stand muster for ones who have personal critical standards. Finally, if you are lucky, meet your own standards for the success of the novel in the hands of the public, who for the most part, only care about the drama.

Makes it hard to write a great book. I mean, who's to say it's great and by whose standards? It is a moving target.